Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shecana (talk | contribs) at 23:18, 2 August 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Bianca_Quesada). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


July 27

01:17, 27 July 2023 review of submission by NoelineKyle

How do I delete the redirect notice on my sandbox page re Catherine Tully, I have already accepted that it has been rejected and am fine with that. However, I cannot submit any new names/etc until the redirect is deleted from my page and I just cannot find how to do that? Thank you NoelineKyle (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NoelineKyle: if you mean your sandbox draft Draft:NoelineKyle/sandbox, then you were always able to edit that page. All the same, I've deleted the redir which was there.
Secondly, just to clarify, the Draft:Catherine Tully draft was only declined, not rejected, so once you've addressed the decline reason(s), you're welcome to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to begin a new submission but I can't because the draft thingo on my sandbox will not let me do anything and I don't know what the redirect means? I can't send it anywhere, I can't delete it and I can't use my sandbox to start a new submission?????
I won't be pursuing Catherine Tully again as looking at the notables list I don't think she fits as a person suitable for Wikipedia on her own... and I am not interested in researching the 19 others who received the 1914 Star (mons ribbon) so that I could maybe do that...
All I want is to understand what the redirect message means and how I can just rid of it as it is blocking me from doing anything?
Sorry to be so befuddled but I have tried everything
Noeline NoelineKyle (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoelineKyle: sorry, I earlier blanked your sandbox in the draft name space, whereas you probably meant User:NoelineKyle/sandbox? I've now blanked that as well, so you should be able to use it normally now. Does that help? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:51, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Toddkatz

In discussing why this article was rejected one of your editors going by the name Dragonfly-6-7 essentially compared my submission and other Wikipedia articles out these as an unflushed public toilet. I don't think this was a personal comment and I don't believe the editor had actually reviewed my submission. And I did get the point. I mention this because it seems unlikely that this course appoarch to discourse will encourage folks to submit articles to Wikipedia or donate to your worthwhile organization (as I have done for many years).

"If you found an unflushed public toilet, would you think a) this needs to be cleaned up or b) I guess I don't need to flush eitehr(sic) ?" Toddkatz (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toddkatz: what is your question / how can we help you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Toddkatz You have been trying for 7 years to create the article Draft:Clipperz Password Manager do you have any conflict of interest? Please disclose this on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone apparently has deleted my user page which is quite shocking to me. To answer your question I am a user of the Clipperz Password Manager. I have no other relationship with the company but I do have a long-standing interest in innovative freeware. There are many other password managers on Wikipedia and it seems to me that Clipperz is at least as relevant/notable because of their cryptographic achievements. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand why my user page would be deleted. Did it contain objectionable content? What was that content? Toddkatz (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddkatz: I requested that your user page be deleted, because it contained a copy of the Clipperz draft, which contravenes WP:UPNOT, including but not only the point about WP:FAKEARTICLE. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was wondering about that. I hadn't looked at the page since 2016. I didn't realize it was against the rules which I assume were also in place back in 2016 also. Thank you. Toddkatz (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:13, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Gulfray01

i'm his fan Gulfray01 (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gulfray01: okay... did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes why he is not in google search? Gulfray01 (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've absolutely no idea. Maybe you need to ask Google, or him? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok why he is not in wikipedia? Gulfray01 (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because nobody has written an article about him. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so please write an article about him Gulfray01 (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how it works, Gulfray01. It is you who is expected to write the article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:43, 27 July 2023 review of submission by 103.233.141.117

The reason for requesting assistance in writing a Wikipedia article about Paresh Nanda is likely because he is a notable individual who has made significant contributions and achievements in various fields, such as entrepreneurship, digital marketing, app development, and social entrepreneurship. His journey from a BSc-IT graduate to a successful entrepreneur, combined with his innovative thinking and social initiatives, makes him a noteworthy figure in the digital era.

Creating a Wikipedia article for notable individuals like Paresh Nanda is a way to document their life, accomplishments, and impact on society in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Wikipedia aims to provide unbiased and verifiable information, making it a reliable source for readers seeking to learn about notable figures and their contributions. By having a Wikipedia article, Paresh Nanda's story and achievements can reach a broader audience and be preserved for future reference. 103.233.141.117 (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is awaiting deletion. Please don't try to use Wikipedia for promoting anyone or anything. Thank you.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is filled with promotional fluff like exemplifies the power of determination, hard work, and innovative thinking, and vast swathes are entirely unreferenced. It is pretty much the opposite of an acceptable encyclopedia article, which must be well-referenced and written from the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:20, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Davdotfam

This is not a promotional content, this is a first editor trying to get his first article published. Davdotfam (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what's to be done to make the article formed into a wikipedia standard? Davdotfam (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Davdotfam. Unfortunately this article has been Rejected so cannot be considered further. There is nothing you can do. Your draft, despite repeated comments from reviewers, still contains promotional language. Qcne (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional language as how? what's the escape route? to make it fit for wikipedia? Davdotfam (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing you can do, @Davdotfam. At this time Tomike cannot have a Wikipedia article. Here is some example of promotional, non-neutral, language in your draft. I've underlined the problematic language:
- her exceptional creativity and unwavering determination earned her the esteemed recognition as an exemplary role model
- same prestigious prize
- recognition of her outstanding contributions, she achieved the esteemed Pulse Award in 2021, securing the distinguished title
- assumed the prestigious role of serving as an ambassador for the renowned brand Maltina, sharing this esteemed position with the esteemed personalities
- Tomike further solidified her prominence in the realm of brand endorsements by entering into a valuable partnership with Pastel Africa
If you want to start writing Wikipedia articles, you must very closely read the following policies, otherwise your articles will keep being rejected:
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, would read and remodified the article Davdotfam (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is much point, @Davdotfam. As I have said the draft was rejected. If an article has been rejected, it cannot be submitted for review again. You can appeal directly to @Greenman.
However, five separate reviewers have looked at this draft over the last 13 months and it has been declined each time. I think you are fighting a loosing battle with this draft and would really recommend writing about something else. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Kwaro1

The articles has a reliable source so how could I improve the article. Kwaro1 (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kwaro1. Unfortunately this article has been Rejected so cannot be considered further. There is nothing you can do. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (music) which explains why Dauda, at the moment, does not pass the notability threshold. Qcne (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:52, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Prernamina

could not find tool bar for adding references Prernamina (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prernamina. If you are using the new Visual Editor to edit Wikipedia, have a look at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 which explains how to use it.
If you are using the Source Editor, read Help:Referencing for beginners instead.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Fullyloaded98

I don't understand why the article has been rejected? What do I need to do in order for the article to be published on Wikipedia? Fullyloaded98 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fullyloaded98: as it says in the decline notice, this draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. You list (without actually citing) only two sources under 'References', one of which (IMDb) is not considered reliable. In any article, but especially so in articles on living people, every material statement and anything potentially contentious must be clearly supported by inline citation to a reliable published source. See WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no problem I add references Kwaro1 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I also should have added that the sources cited must also establish that the subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Usually this requires sources which satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Jonnycc23

I am creating a creating an Article for the new Windsor & Eton Football club, which was first rejected for not having good enough references. I have now added multiple references. It was then rejected for not being Notable enough, but the previous incarnations of Windsor (& Eton) Football club all have articles therefore surely this is notable enough, otherwise it is inconsistent? Jonnycc23 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jonnycc23. Firstly your article was only declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean you wouldn't be able to resubmit for review.
Sports clubs need to pass the Wikipedia:Notability threshold. This criteria has gotten more strict as time has gone on, so previous articles which may have been created might no longer pass this threshold. Wikipedia has millions of articles so it is difficult to check that all of them pass!
Your first source can't count towards notability as it is a press release. Your fourth source is better, but really we'd need to see at least three sources that discuss the club in detail and provide analysis/interpretation.
I wonder if it might be Wikipedia:Too soon for this club to have an article. It may work better as a separate section under Windsor & Eton F.C. (1892)? Not an expert on sports though, so those are just my musings. Qcne (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added a number of different sources now, which provide more detail.
I disagree that it would be better as a separate section under Windsor & Eton F.C. (1892) as it is a completely new club, and could be likely to cause confusion. Jonnycc23 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Kikipepper

Need Assistance for Approving a Biographical Article

I am currently creating a biographical article on Todd K. Rosengart, a notable figure in Cardiothoracic Surgery, among his accomplishment is performing the world's first viral-based gene cardiac transfer procedure and medical entrepreneurship, founder of vitals.com. While I have taken care to ensure all facts presented are accurate and appropriately sourced, I'm finding it challenging to meet the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies. I've reviewed the relevant guidelines and tried my best to follow them, but I seem to be missing something. Therefore, I am seeking for assistance from experienced Wikipedians to review my draft and provide feedback on how I might improve it to meet Wikipedia's standards for bios.

The draft can be found here: Draft:Todd K. Rosengart

Thank you, Kikipepper (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources are to search results of a patent office, and large portions of the draft are unsourced. Any article about this doctor should not just document their accomplishments, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the doctor. You said "among his accomplishment is performing the world's first viral-based gene cardiac transfer procedure" but that statement in the draft is not sourced.
Are you associated with this doctor in some way? 331dot (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 27 July 2023 review of submission by Marigonnahalilaj

I wrote the article based on what I found online for the store. I didn't do it to advertise the company in this case and i am not using wiki for advertising. I would like to know what is triggering it as advertise and how should I proceed? Marigonnahalilaj (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marigonnahalilaj, the language in the draft is overtly promotional, and promotional activity is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please read about the neutral point of view and the notability guideline for businesses. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Language like It has become a beloved destination for candy enthusiasts of all ages and a passionate candy lover who had a dream of creating a haven for sweet-toothed individuals. Sherri, with his extensive knowledge of candies and confectionery, opened the shop with the goal of providing a delightful experience to customers and bringing back the nostalgia of childhood treats is utterly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:35, 27 July 2023 review of submission by MargaretZ26

Hi! Wondering how to better source this, as a lot of information is being pulled from the same source (the curriculum vitae). Any tips in general would be great! MargaretZ26 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link, it needs "Draft:". 331dot (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MargaretZ26 What is your association with Mr. Flesher? You claimed the professionally taken image of him as your own work, meaning that you personally took the image and that he posed for you.
Your draft seems to just summarize his official biographies from organizations he is affiliated with. Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable person as defined by Wikipedia. Large portions of the draft are unsourced. For example, you say "Flesher has written extensively on ethical issues in accounting and has contributed to the discussion on ethical behavior and decision-making in the profession" but don't provide a source for that claim or describe what makes this important. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a research assistant for CWRU. My supervisor wants me to upload/update the profiles of accounting scholars. I must have uploaded the photo incorrectly because I didn't take it, so I will take it down. If I figure out who took the photo, I will re-upload it with the correct information. MargaretZ26 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MargaretZ26. You must make the Paid contributions disclosure with your next edit. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Then, read Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia, and share that page with your supervisor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:38, 27 July 2023 review of submission by 2C0F:2A80:9:C610:F192:9B7:126F:16FA

Please i need assistance on Draft:Coker Close Series. 2C0F:2A80:9:C610:F192:9B7:126F:16FA (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

03:07:10, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Hameltion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Patricia Goldman. A review is requested for a draft (possible Recent deaths nomination) by an editor with a conflict of interest (me). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:28, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Dineshmhatre

Am I doing anything wrong or page for Rajaram Salvi can not be created at all? Dineshmhatre (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dineshmhatre: this draft has been rejected for lack of notability (and, I might add, any obvious claim of noteworthiness, meaning even if accepted it would inevitably be deleted on sight). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 28 July 2023 review of submission by JAMB2023

I could not upload images for the articles I wrote, including this one. It says my IP is blocked. But, I can write and edit articles. JAMB2023 (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Horace1850

Clarification on article submission rejection.

This article was declined as the reviewer stated the article doesn't meet the criteria for academic notability in its current form. The subject of the article is the current Chair of GuildHE, which is cited in the article from a third party source. GuildHE is a major higher education body in the UK, representing 57 universities. This chair position aligns with point five of the academic notability criteria:

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon

The subject of the article has also been CEO of UCAS, which is a major Higher Education institution, and CEO the higher education Quality Assurance Agencies in the UK (QAA) and Australia (TEQSA) who are/were the academic regulators of both countries. These are also supported by third party sources.

With this context in mind, please can you clarify why this hasn't been accepted so that I can redraft accordingly. Horace1850 (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horace1850: I don't think his positions at GuildHE, UCAS, etc. satisfy NACADEMIC #5, as that criterion explicitly refers to professorial roles only. His VC'ship at St Mary's might meet #6 of the same standard, albeit that it's not immediately clear whether St Mary's can be regarded as a "major academic institution" (in any sense of 'major'). If you could find sources that establish notability per WP:GNG, that would be one way to get around these concerns. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have a further clarification I would appreciate your insight on. Are there alternative criteria for this page to be considered under - the subject's roles at UCAS, TEQSA and QAA are more aligned to civil service and government and are all significant/notable institutions with their own wikipedia pages. Horace1850 (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horace1850: I considered that, but I think the answer is no. In the vast majority of cases, notability is established by the general WP:GNG route. WP:BIO lists a few special exceptions to this, applicable to people, of which the aforementioned WP:NACADEMIC is one. Government and civil service would come under another special guideline, WP:NPOL, but that covers legislators and other high-level political figures (and judges), not those in the civil service per se, or those working for quangos, charities or other public and third sector bodies of that ilk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance! Horace1850 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Yodamaster1

There are multiple references in the article, which are:

  • in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
  • reliable
  • secondary
  • independent of the subject

which are provided by professors of mathematics, other educational projects referenced and software built in the project as well as examples of the type of resources created by the SMILE organization.

I do need help with the formatting of references though. Yodamaster1 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yodamaster1.
There are only two references in this draft - the vast majority of your content is unreferenced. Every statement in your draft should have an appropriate reference, otherwise it looks like Wikipedia:Original research. Readers need to be able to verify all the content in an article. Your two existing references do look appropriate, but either your draft should be a lot shorter and just paraphrase these two references in your own words, or you need a bunch more reliable, independent, secondary references that discusses SMILE in detail. Qcne (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 28 July 2023 review of submission by 2605:59C8:1C5:7810:CCAF:EE91:8242:F7C

I need help understanding which references are allowed. Thank you! 2605:59C8:1C5:7810:CCAF:EE91:8242:F7C (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Courtesy link: Draft:Lynn Sorensen. I am afraid that your draft has been rejected and therefore Lynn can not have an article on Wikipedia at this time, there is nothing you can do. For future reference, a reference cannot be a Wikipedia article (because Wikipedia is inherently unreliable, as it is Wikipedia:User-generated content), and a reference cannot be a random Google Search for "Bad Company Live at Wembley" for hopefully obvious reasons. I would have a read of Wikipedia:Referencing which explains why all articles must have robust references. Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Sarahafifi

Article should be reviewed Sarahafifi (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kayed Afifi OutsideNormality (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sarahafifi. Could you let us know how Kayed passes the criteria set out in the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold? Qcne (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne
Talking about a real person ( poet ), I have added supporting references, I did my part as a wiki user but I need support from others. Sarahafifi (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sarahafifi I am sure nobody is doubting that they are a real person, but what you need to do is explain how they pass the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 28 July 2023 review of submission by 109.76.88.29

My son is doing a project on this author and there is no Wikipedia entry for him. There should be one! 109.76.88.29 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Your son should not be using Wikipedia as a source for any scholarly work, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:55, 28 July 2023 review of draft by Nawaazpoi


I am requesting help as this is my first submission and it was rejected for using peacock terms, not enough references to sources and not using a neutral tone. I have modified the original submission and use more of a neutral tone and encyclopaedic writing style I have also added references. I now need help for any other reasons why my submission may be rejected again. I would welcome any improvements or suggestions.

Nawaazpoi (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nawaazpoi. Your article has only been declined - if it was "rejected" you'd not be able to resubmit for review. A few issues with the language jump out at me:
- Today, it stands as a natural space, reflecting the area's transformation... this sentence is not written in an encyclopaedic way.
- equivalent to the height of five "Angels of the North" sculptures stacked on top of each other... let's not have random measurements, stick to the facts.
- Addison Village, a close-knit community, flourished around the pit... not very encyclopaedic.
- diligently working... peacock wording.
- the reserve offers an opportunity to experience the reserve while respecting the delicate environment. this is marketing speech.
Quite a lot of the History section is closely paraphrased from [1]https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/article/4454/The-history-of-Addison-and-Hedgefield-Woods. Sometimes a little too closely, though. I would cut down a lot of the fluff from this, and if you can find some secondary sources so you're not just relying on Gateshead Council's website.
And then there's a few issues with sourcing, which again I'll point out below:
- evidence suggesting that mining activities were carried out here during the Roman era. What evidence? This needs to be sourced.
- mining rights were granted to Queen Elizabeth I by the Bishop of Durham How can I check this is fact? It need a source.
- this event marked a significant technological advancement. Why did it make a significant technological advancement? Who said it did?
- In June 2014, the management of Addison and Hedgefield Reserve... Source?
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey QCNE, thanks for your help you have valid points I have made changes to the next revision of my submission and hopefully I can correct the errors you have pointed out I have also included more sources and references like you said.
Thanks again Nawaazpoi (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Sebrandon

Hi, I'm having trouble getting this Wikipedia page up and running. I thought I sufficiently addressed Greenman's edits but the second reviewer said I didn't. What should I do next? Sebrandon (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, what is the nature of it?
You still have an external link in the text(at the beginning). Such a link should go in a section at the bottom. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 28 July 2023 review of submission by Semilore90

Hello, please i need help in reviewing this article this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ola_Oresanya

It has as been declined a couple of times and i also follow recommendations of the reviewers. but yet they keep declining for different reasons each time I resubmit

I also requested for help through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC_help_disclaimer. Some people there were kind enough to make some corrections and other suggestions.

The following changes have been made to the article to improve its neutrality: The promotional tone of the article has been removed. The article now presents a more balanced view of Oresanya's career, including both his successes and his challenges. The article now uses more neutral language, avoiding subjective statements and opinions. 

Semilore90 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 28 July 2023 review of submission by 162.33.234.234

Hello Help Desk, I am writing as my article submission was denied. The reason states that the material must be neutral and refer to independent, reliable, published sources.

I want to confirm that the content is neutral and all the references are reliable and published sources. The sources include Forbes, Barron's, The Economist, The New York Times, BBC, CNET, HuffPost, Wired, TechCrunch, and local media such as Seattle Times and Puget Sound Business Journal. Rferences are no pulled from the MicroVision website.

Can you please review my entry again? You will see that all sources are reputable and valid. Thank you so very much! 162.33.234.234 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may submit it for another review, but you will need to make changes in order for it to be accepted. Most of your sources are announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability(see WP:ORG). There needs to be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this company summarized in the article. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond documenting the activities of the company and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company.
If you are associated with this company, that needs to be declared, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor.
Firstly, can I just confirm you don't have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with MicroVision Inc? i.e. are you employed by the company? If so you need to make a conflict of interest declaration immediately, see that link for information on how.
Your draft article has some problems which I will address below:
- MicroVision has been in the lidar industry for 30 years... this paragraph doesn't read very encyclopaedic, and is not sourced (though the founding date is sourced in the section below). Check Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for guidance on how to write in a neutral tone.
-Automotive lidar technology helps with... this paragraph is not suitable for this article. Your draft should just focus on the company, not explanations of the science behind the product, which should go into the existing LIDAR articles. This background content (which crops up a lot) is much more suitable for the company's website, not an encyclopaedia.
- The automotive ADAS... this sentence is just marketing, so should be removed.
- Tiny, ultra-low-power lasers painted... again, focus on the company not the background behind the products.
- 1996 Going Public. this section heading isn't written in an encyclopaedic way, and really you don't need an entire section just for five words.
- The monocle was worn in front of the eye... unneeded background, see above.
- The projectors beamed bright, high-resolution video...unneeded background, see above. I'm going to stop pointing these out now because they're throughout the article.
- Corporate Affairs. Remove this section, not appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
- Offices. You don't need an entire section for office locations, a single sentence somewhere in the article is more suitable.
There's also some issues where you have lots of paragraph splits, it seems you've split into a new paragraph after every source. This isn't needed. Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout for more information. You can cut out a lot of the fluff: probably half the article content isn't needed.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:15, 28 July 2023 review of draft by SmallTownBook


Hi there!

Wondering if I could get any further clarification as to why this page has been declined? Is there a particular area that is the cause of this? The sources listed are incredibly reputable, independent secondary sources (The New York Times, Forbes, Travel + Leisure, Conde Nast Traveler, Fodor's Travel, Minnesota Department of State). Is there a specific source that is the issue? Information taken from the Travel Beyond website is strictly factual (founders, founding date, areas of expertise). Any detailed information/thorough feedback you could provide would be great.

Thanks in advance for your help and review! Much appreciated.

SmallTownBook (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SmallTownBook it's "in-depth" that you're missing here. Where is the significant coverage about Travel Beyond? -- asilvering (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut out the two lists (they're not really encyclopedic content, more like the sort of thing a company would put on their website). See how there's now... basically nothing? That's the issue. There isn't much about the company itself sourced to reliable sources in the draft. Cutting off those two lists makes that really obvious. -- asilvering (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

02:16, 29 July 2023 review of submission by BavaroWriter2024

Submitted several times with no luck. can you be more specific of what is missing or any changes. I wrote it without any reference to advertising. It is just facts about the creation of the company BavaroWriter2024 (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BavaroWriter2024 Are they the kind of facts you'd find on the company's website? Then it's probably not encyclopedic. -- asilvering (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 29 July 2023 review of submission by கந்தசாமி மாதவன்

What should I add as Secondary Sources for Digital Media? கந்தசாமி மாதவன் (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@கந்தசாமி மாதவன்: this draft is awaiting deletion, there is little point in adding anything to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 29 July 2023 review of submission by EspressoSips

Can I get more details on what's missing on this article? I've listed plenty of sources. Thanks! EspressoSips (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EspressoSips, which of your many independent sources devote significant coverage to Yoshi Suzuka as a person, as opposed to mentioning him in passing? Those are the only sources that clearly establish notability. Quality of sources is vastly more important that quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 29 July 2023 review of submission by Mauryamanish123

im writing this to understand the right way of wicki article creation 

Mauryamanish123 (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mauryamanish123.
Your sandbox article was deleted as it was unambiguously promotional in tone. This is not allowed on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
You should read the following carefully. It's important to understand that writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the hardest tasks a new editor can do:
- Help:Your first article
- Help:Referencing for beginners
- Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia:Verifiability
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 29 July 2023 review of submission by Jonnycc23

I have now added multiple separate sources to the draft of this page to prove its notability, it had been suggested to merge this with a separate article: Windsor & Eton F.C. (1892) but I disagree as it is a completely new and separate club, and could be likely to cause confusion by doing so. Jonnycc23 (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 29 July 2023 review of submission by 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:F854:99F7:62C1:1C5F

How is it possible that User:Eventhisacronym managed to paste an entirely different article into Draft:Jenny Nicholson using the WP:Article wizard? Did they maybe ignore a warning that the subject already has a draft? 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:F854:99F7:62C1:1C5F (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it was my first attempt at creating a page. I did not receive a warning about an existing draft, and had copied over from my sandbox. Apologies. I also realized in writing that the subject had previously stated she did not want a wikipedia page because stalkers were harassing her using information on the page, and a previous version had been deleted, so I had tried to revert my changes anyway and failed. Again, so sorry for any confusion I caused! Eventhisacronym (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:56, 29 July 2023 review of submission by Semilore90

Hello, my article was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ola_Oresanya.

I have followed advice of reviewers and other experts who even edited the article for me.

I need help, what can i do? Semilore90 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Semilore90.
I am afraid that as your draft article was rejected there is nothing you can do now - it will not be considered further. Your draft article was more appropriate for a LinkedIn bio or professional website, not an encyclopaedia.
As stated by the reviewer, Ola does not yet qualify for a Wikipedia article as he does not pass the strict Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 29 July 2023 review of submission by 2806:107E:F:49F:9954:36BD:3001:277E

Already written in English with multiple references and Google Chat Bot support, please advice? 2806:107E:F:49F:9954:36BD:3001:277E (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP Editor.
Please do not use Large Language Models like Google Bard to create articles. They have a reputation for creating inaccurate information, see Hallucination (artificial intelligence). Qcne (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is nonsense, and completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


July 30

00:55:53, 30 July 2023 review of draft by Sharon64gold


Confused as to why this wiki page was rejected when the citations are from notable media/press sites. South Asian publications like The South Asian Times and Lokvani. There have also been full page solo press about Ms. Modha in international papers like Global Times Nigeria that has been cited to (https://globaltimesnigeria.com/women-of-awards-announces-obama-award-recipient-dr-roopa-as-international-brand-ambassador/ )

There are pageant queen pages that have been created for individuals that have fewer citations and press, but exist on Wiki. Ms Modha's pageant wins are from major pageants like Ms America and Ms Woman of Achievement whose directors have wikipedia pages. The director whose dance production she was a lead in also has a wikipedia page. Also, other individuals on wiki have cited to articles written by Roopa Modha as a journalist.

Can you please advise how to better the wiki page?

Sharon64gold (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sharon64gold.
Firstly, your article has only been 'declined' not 'rejected'. If it was 'rejected' then you would not be able to submit for review.
Did you read the note left by the reviewer? All articles about living people must pass the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold. People usually pass this by their being at least three strong, reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss the person in detail or offer analysis and interpretation. Some of your sources are Wikipedia:Primary sources so cannot be used other than to establish basic facts like a date of birth- and some others are promotional interviews with Roopa so are not Wikipedia:Independent sources of her, which also can't be used to establish notability.
The easiest way to fix your draft article is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Roopa in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely helpful! Thank you!!!! Sharon64gold (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sharon64gold Regarding "There are pageant queen pages that have been created for individuals that have fewer citations and press, but exist on Wiki", please read other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content past us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We could use the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been reviewed by the community. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such thorough advice and help!! It is definitely useful in knowing what to cite to and how to write the wiki page to ensure it shows importance of the topic with proper backing in other sites. Sharon64gold (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:05, 30 July 2023 review of submission by Raju bBhai

moj creater Raju bBhai (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raju bBhai: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected (twice) and is awaiting deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 30 July 2023 review of submission by TheCelebrinator

My submission was declined due an alleged lack of reliable sourcing. However, the information on my list is mainly – and really only – based off of one source as the subject matter doesn't really allow for the use of another source. How is the article supposed to comply with Wikipedia standards when it comes to that? TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCelebrinator: I'll be honest, I don't know if there is a policy that covers such a situation, but my first thought was – notability: I get that those games are individually notable, and I agree that Metacritic as a source is notable, but is Metacritic's ranking of those games notable as a concept? I'm not sure. (Although if you can find secondary sources discussing this ranking, then you might be able to show that it is.)
My second thought was – copyright: if you are only reformatting information provided by a source, that could come under derivative work. To be clear,I don't know that it does... but I also don't know that it doesn't.
Finally, on a slightly more philosophical level, I wondered about the usefulness of an article which merely regurgitates information that exists elsewhere. Does this need an article, or does this need an external link pointing to that source, eg. in an article on Metacritic or video games?
Hopefully someone will come along soon who knows better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is. Fans, even game developers use it as a benchmark of the quality of the games, regardless of whether or not it's necessarily 'warranted'. Infamously, the developers of Fallout: New Vegas didn't receive a bonus because their game did not get a score of at least 85 on Metacritic.
Metacritic is a bit like Rotten Tomatoes in that whether you like it or not, it's there and will definitely play a role in sales, general reception to the game and whatnot. As a sidenote, there is already a Wikipedia list for movies with a certain RT score. TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCelebrinator: "it absolutely is" what? I'll reiterate: I'm not saying that list doesn't exist (it does), or isn't read by people (I'm sure it is). Neither of those facts make it notable, however.
As for the List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoesarticle, you may have noticed that it cites a number of secondary sources discussing the topic, which goes back to my original first point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable when both people within the industry and fans take notice of the rankings (or Metascore). I think adding and expanding the lede – to mention that as well as adding secondary sources – is what the article needs, but as far as notability is concerned, it meets the criteria. There are documented instances of developers losing out on money due to not meeting a certain score, tons of articles online about which games rank higher, etc.
P.S. Metacritic's ranking often incorporates duplicate versions of the same game or even bundles, so there would be a need to have a list showing only the unique games on the list. TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCelebrinator: you may have misunderstood 'notability' in the Wikipedia context. It has nothing to do with whether "the industry and fans take notice" of something. Instead, it means (in the case of a topic such as this) whether or not multiple secondary sources that are both independent (of the subject) and reliable have covered the topic in significant extent. Please see WP:GNG, which explains this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's definition, which I was already using, it would meet the criteria. As I've stated, it's a widely used benchmark for success, and secondary sources have covered just that. Here's a few examples.
Sony demanding a 90+ score from devs:
[2]https://www.gamepressure.com/newsroom/sony-expects-90-on-metacritic-companys-studios-face-big-challenge/z95875 from Game Pressure
[3]https://www.neogaf.com/threads/ex-god-of-war-developer-reveals-sony-demands-90-metascore-from-first-party-games.1657678/ from NeoGAF
Game Devs denied bonus over Metascore:
[4]https://www.gamespot.com/articles/obsidian-denied-bonus-over-new-vegas-metacritic-score-studio-head/1100-6366337/ from Gamespot TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:45, 30 July 2023 review of submission by 2806:107E:F:49F:B5DC:8270:9E5E:BB9

Morales Surename should be important enough to be included, and multiple references plus a google Bard Chatbot also reviewed, please be specific? 2806:107E:F:49F:B5DC:8270:9E5E:BB9 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and is nonsense. Google Bard Chatbot is incapable of producing acceptable Wikipedia content. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

07:08, 31 July 2023 review of submission by Naveen Nani weki

why my article declining? Naveen Nani weki (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Naveen Nani weki. Your draft fails to provide references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this film. The Times of India is not a reliable, independent source because they accept payments to publish favorable entertaimment-related content. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 31 July 2023 review of submission by Antonyjoj

How can I get my article accepted? How to add reliable sources Antonyjoj (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonyjoj: I'm afraid you've got this exactly back-to-front. You don't first write whatever you want to say about the subject (or whatever the subject asks you to write, as the case may be), and then try to find sources that support some of what you've written. Instead, you find reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, and summarise (in your own words) what they've said, citing the sources as you go.
As it stands, this draft is almost entirely unreferenced, and has no evidence of notability; not to mention that it is highly promotional in both tone and content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 31 July 2023 review of submission by Wstnharris

I need some help understanding what is missing, be it references or something else. For example, part of the feedback I last received was that almost all of the news was local to Chicago; as a Chicago radio host and broadcaster, it's unclear to me as to why this is a problem. Thank you! Wstnharris (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia, a global encyclopedia for everyone on the planet. It isn't wrong in and of itself to use sources just from Chicago, but one indication of notability is the breadth of coverage across at least a nation about a topic. Related to that, the sources seem to just give routine coverage as noted by a reviewer. If you had three Chicago sources with excellent, in depth coverage of Mr. Baum and what makes him meet the definition of a notable person, that would be a different story, but you don't. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you for the clarification! Wstnharris (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 31 July 2023 review of submission by Wikitaks

Would like to move draft to mainspace. Wikitaks (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your submission is pending - a reviewer will review it, and if the submission is suitable your request will be fulfilled — Karnataka talk 21:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a conflict of interest, this process is voluntary. It's highly recommended unless you have experience with getting drafts accepted, but it is voluntary. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 31 July 2023 review of submission by TheLibrarian117

I'm not sure why my article keeps getting denied TheLibrarian117 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ths reviewer left a reason. Do you have questions about it? 331dot (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

01:16, 1 August 2023 review of submission by IVickyChoudhary

Requesting contribution on this article and review. IvivekChoudhary (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 1 August 2023 review of submission by Kingsqw

I need to write a biography article about an upcoming artist named iv frayo, it has been rejected twice please how do i go about it. Kingsqw (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsqw: you don't (go about it). Having had this twice rejected (and soon twice deleted) means the topic isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and you should drop it and find something else to write about. By and large drafts on "upcoming" anything are unlikely to be accepted, because Wikipedia is never the first source to publish content on someone or something; significant coverage must already exist in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources elsewhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:01:38, 1 August 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by MJSC123


Hi, my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elcka was deleted completely unnecessarily , the copyright notice has been added to the page which they say the content was copied from. Alot of time & effort went into creating this page & it was totally unnecessary to delete it so quickly. Why didn't they com back with comments. Please kindly reinstate the recently deleted version of this page. The notice has been added to allow the content to be reused & it can be reworded to it's not copied & pasted content:

This submission appears to be taken from https://www.elcka.net/biography.asp. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MJSC123

MJSC123 (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is not article space. Even if the text was not a copyright violation, you shouldn't just be posting the contents of the band website here, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how it meets WP:BAND. Please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MJSC123 Copyright violations must be removed as soon as discovered, otherwise we would be continuing to violate copyright. We do not care about time, nor effort. We care about legality. Copyright violation is the theft of another's intellectual property.
I see the band's website is not licenced for onward use. What connection do you have with the band, please, that you can influence its web site? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:23, 1 August 2023 review of submission by Golf-ulk

At present, I have no reference proving that L.S. got the Distinguished Senior Scientist Award. There is no public list of the recepients of the Award. At the end of the article, I mention that an email by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung asserts that L.S. got the award in 1988. How could I provide this proof of my claim? Golf-ulk (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golf-ulk: sources (used to verify information contained in Wikipedia articles) must be published; private correspondence and other similar sources not publicly available cannot be used.
How did you become aware of this award – was that not in a published source of some sort? Presumably the Stiftung didn't just e-mail you out of the blue to inform you of this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 1 August 2023 review of submission by Mushfiq788

Why is this rejected every time? I have added reliable news source like The_Daily_Star_(Bangladesh) Mushfiq788 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mushfiq788.
I am afraid your article was rejected and cannot be considered further - there is nothing you can do. Oni does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria at this time, and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. Remember: Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:04, 1 August 2023 review of submission by 136.53.96.61

Can this article be changed from a stand-alone article to a section in the existing page for Sam Battle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_Mum_No_Computer 136.53.96.61 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 1 August 2023 review of submission by 2601:647:6300:B1A0:A096:EA0:16FA:4F41

I've been trying to get a non-profit organization to have a page on Wikipedia, they have great initiatives inspiring and promoting women in robotics, I'm not sure why that's not notable enough that its rejected. 2601:647:6300:B1A0:A096:EA0:16FA:4F41 (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor.
You may not understand what 'notability' means in the Wikipedia context. For an organisation to be deemed notable by our standards, they must pass the strict criteria laid out here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In essence, there needed to be significant coverage of Women in Robotics in independent reliable sources, not connected to the organisation (i.e. not interviews or PR pieces). The coverage should have provided in-depth analysis, interpretation, or discussion. As you can see then, the laudable aims of the organisation do not confer an inherent notability by our standards.
Unfortunately your draft was reviewed four times and you have failed to show that Women in Robotics passes that notability threshold, so your draft article has regrettably been rejected. This means Women in Robotics cannot have an article at this time.
Hope that helps, but let us know if you have any more specific questions. Qcne (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:42, 1 August 2023 review of submission by Ackee123

Hi, I have not finished working on the English. page for Adegoke Steve Colson. When I finished the first draft of this new version, I clicked publish. I was tired and figured Id return to work on it more today, but am a bit demoralizedafter reading the rejection. reason. Then I remembered there is a gerkman. wiki. for Adegoke Steve Colson I found the link here https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Colson. Please can someone assist me in understanding why he would not be seen as notable for an English wiki page but is notable for the german. one? Ackee123 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ackee123 It isn't rejection. This is an iterative process audit has been pushed back to you for further work. Your job is to prove him to be notable. Not everyone is. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thank you for clarifying. I hadn't intended to submit just yet. I understand better. I will continue Ackee123 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ackee123: just to add to the previous answer, each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project with their own policies and guidelines, so it is perfectly possible (and frequently happens) that an article is accepted into one version but not another. The English-language Wikipedia probably has the strictest requirements in what comes to notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am very grateful for this reply. It has helped to clarify a lot. I know from searching Wikipedia that Adegoke Steve Colson is a respected musician who has influenced many many artists. Especially experimental work that pushes the concepts of jazz .. he adheres to the ideals of the AACM. The lack of articles dedicated to him is because he is mostly composing and teaching, sometimes he records with others, but a lot of life is also dedicated to family. I do think the German Wiki is a very good representation of his presence in music, but I very much want to write a more expansive one for English Wiki. Thank you all for your patience and for taking time to help me understand the. nuances. Ackee123 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 1 August 2023 review of submission by Memorywrker

Hello! I am new to creating articles. I have drafted up an article for a community arts center, William Grant Still Art Center. Looking for assistance as far as content review and source check. Thank you! Tempe Stewart WGSArts 22:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a review, please click the "submit your draft for review!" button. 331dot (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

09:27, 2 August 2023 review of submission by Elimug89

Hello, I still do not know the real reason why wikipedia is not approving my draft article. I need more clarity and assistance to make my article approved. Elimug89 (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the messages left by reviewers? What specifically are you having difficulty with? As noted, you seem to be writing about yourself- this is inadvisable, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:26, 2 August 2023 review of submission by Shajialam275

Greetings,

I've noticed that several other brands have successfully listed their Wikipedia pages, and I'm eager to explore the possibility of doing the same for Luxe Essence. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, I kindly request guidance on the appropriate steps and criteria to ensure a professional and accurate representation of our brand. Your expertise and assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, [Shaji Alam] Shajialam275 (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shajialam275 First, you must read conflict of interest and paid editing; declaring paid editing(which includes general employment) is a Terms of Use requirement and not optional. The text you wrote was blatant advertising and will not be accepted- it has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia to be frank has no interest in how your brand is represented or in its internet presence.
You have some grave misunderstandings about Wikipedia and what we do here. This is an encyclopedia and not a mere database of information where anything that exists can be included. It it also not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves or "list" themselves. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, which we call notability, such as the definition of a notable business. The content of the encyclopedia is called articles, not "pages". This is an important distinction. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic in any way, who take note of coverage of a topic by independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it, summarizing what those sources say. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not brief mentions, press releases, announcements of routine activities, and the like) have chosen to say about the company, showing how it meets our notability definition.
My advice is that you go on about the business of your company- if it truly meets the definition of notable company and has appropriate sources, someone will eventually write about it. Be advised that an article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 2 August 2023 review of submission by Volkdahl

hello

i'm trying to bring the already existing wikipedia article about Paul Drechsel https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Drechsel_(Kulturwissenschaftler) onto the english site. i'm not a computer wizz and probably could use some help doing it. will you help? thank you Volkdahl (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volkdahl Please understand that each language Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies. As such, what is acceptable on the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on the English Wikipedia. In my experience the English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Your draft has no sources(see referencing for beginners) that show he meets our definition of a notable academic. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Volkdahl: you won't be able to do just a direct translation, as the German article is almost entirely unreferenced, meaning it wouldn't pass our notability or verifiability tests. The first thing you need to do is carry out a search to see if you can find reliable sources to support the article contents. This may mean having to rewrite the article, so that it reflects what such sources say, rather than what the German article says. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 2 August 2023 review of submission by JMKA12

Hi there, i don't understand why this has been declined as i have added relevant references JMKA12 (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for Beginners so you can learn how to properly format references. As the reviewer noted, "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 music-related topics). 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." 331dot (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMKA12: what you have is a number of inline external links (which are not allowed), but no actual references (which are required). Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using inline citations and footnotes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:46, 2 August 2023 review of submission by Joshbonat2580

My intention is not to write promotional articles. Are there any recommendations on what I should remove or change to help the article adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines? Joshbonat2580 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joshbonat2580. Unfortunately your draft article was deleted as it was unambiguous advertising. Your best bet is to read the following pages closely:
- Help:Your first article
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
It is really important to remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.
Only topics that pass the Wikipedia:Notability are permitted to have articles, and this has quite stringent requirements. You need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover your topic in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft.
Hope that helps, let us know if you have any more questions. Qcne (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 2 August 2023 review of submission by Acrutch1

seeking assistance in setting up a legitimate page for a notable actor. Acrutch1 (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see Help:Your first article, Wikipedia:Writing better articles. The problem is the tone, which should be fixed, as well as providing reliable sources to prove that the actor is notable. — Karnataka talk 20:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:18, 2 August 2023 review of submission by Shecana

The formatting of the article seems to be getting rejected. Appreciate the help here Shecana (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1168469616"