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 Hikmatsharma (talk | contribs) at 16:44, 6 August 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding User:Hikmatsharma/sandbox). 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 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:
[1]https://www.gamepressure.com/newsroom/sony-expects-90-on-metacritic-companys-studios-face-big-challenge/z95875 from Game Pressure
[2]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:
[3]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]

Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:20, 2 August 2023 review of submission by Sampierce98

There is alot more articles on the movie now can it be reconsidered for publishing? Sampierce98 (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be reconsidered, it was rejected. Please stop trying to promote your movie here. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

09:26, 3 August 2023 review of submission by Matthew Tailor

Hi all, I created a draft for "Fifty Vinc" some time ago. I have also submitted the draft 2 times for review. Unfortunately, the draft was declined both times because it lacked reliable sources. In the meantime I have revised the draft, found new reliable sources and submitted the draft again. I was wondering if anyone could help me with the pronunciation of the stage name? I have already looked at the tutorials on this, but unfortunately do not quite get it. Thank you in advance. Matthew Tailor (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew Tailor: never mind the pronunciation, for now at least; it has no bearing on whether this draft will be accepted. We mainly need to see that the subject is notable, and that there aren't any copvios etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Alright, I understand. Thanks for the quick reply! I know this helpdesk is for editing and submission questions, but I would appreciate any feedback or tips on how I can improve this draft. Thank you. Matthew Tailor (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, I do have a question in regards to the Wikipedia:Notability (music). In the section "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" at point 11. it says: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". I found, that the single "Runnin'" by Fifty Vinc is being played on MDR Sputnik. I added this information (cited) into the Note(s) field next to the song Runnin' in the Singles section. I've also archived the cited websites and added the archive links. I just wanted to ask if these airplays are meant by "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". Matthew Tailor (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew Tailor: I don't know, to be honest. Sputnik doesn't seem to be a national station as it only covers three Länder, therefore my guess is it wouldn't satisfy the #11 requirement. But I could well be wrong. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Oh, alright. I understand. I'll just leave the information in there, it probably can't hurt the draft. Thank you. Matthew Tailor (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:13, 3 August 2023 review of submission by Fanoflionking

I found the article draft:Vikingskool but it was declined could anyone come and help with the page to get it turn into a article P+T Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to request for others to help you. You're welcome to ask for feedback on why the article was declined by asking a question about the previous decline instead. Thank you! — Karnataka talk 20:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 3 August 2023 review of submission by LDPUK

Hi there—forgive me if I'm missing something, but I'm new here.

Wikipedia asks people with the right language skills to translate pages, voluntarily. I have just done this. In so doing I tidied up the article and the referencing, adding and Wikilinking missing bits of relevant detail to aid understanding. This subject deploys quite a niche lexicon. I was quite proud of myself, really.

But at the end of the day, I was just the translator for a published Wikipedia page. Not its author. It's somebody else's drafting, in the language of the page's subject.

So I was surprised to receive a message registering on a scale from terse to rude to traffic-warden-on-a-bad-day demanding that I reference it properly, else it won't be published (even though it is already published, albeit in German), and my labours may even may even be deleted should I not try harder to engage with somebody else's referencing issues in future.

Is this meant to encourage me to translate more articles?

Or is it meant to encourage me not to bother again, as apparently I have to conduct a full academic audit of somebody else's work as I'm translating it, and reverse engineer references in the process, despite the work already being published on the site, and others having the opportunity to improve the piece?

Translators translate. Editors pick up errors. Somebody else gets to correct them—preferably the author or another enthusiast with the time.

Grateful for your advice, because if that's the sort of response I'm going to receive every time I respond to Wikipedia's call for a translator, I shall change my standard response to opening a beer and watching the telly instead. And I shan't reference that.

Be nice to translators. Especially free, specialist translators who are (a) new to Wikipedia, and (b) take pride in their work. 🥰 LDPUK (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ldpuk:
every wikipedia is a separate project with different rules, guidelines, and cultures.
the german wikipedia and english wikipedia have very different standards in regards to referencing. here, we are very strict, and require that every statement that might be challenged is backed up with reliable sources. the german wikipedia, on the other hand, is quite relaxed on sourcing.
your draft has much uncited content; normal on german wikipedia, but shunned here. that's why your draft has been declined.
just because an article is on one wikipedia does not mean that it should be on another.
p. s.
So I was surprised to receive a message registering on a scale from terse to rude to traffic-warden-on-a-bad-day
i don't see any messages of the sort. care to link to it?
ltbdl (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LDPUK, thank you for your efforts so far in translating this article.
Each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements, and inclusion in one version does not, in and of itself, guarantee inclusion in another. For an article to be included in the English-language Wikipedia, it must meet the standards for inclusion applicable here, which are higher than in other versions (that I'm familiar with, at least). Case in point, this draft falls far short of our referencing requirements, being almost entirely unreferenced; for the same reason it may also fail our notability requirements, although that wasn't the reason it was declined at this time.
I get that you're not responsible for the inadequate referencing of the German original, and are frustrated that you're now being asked to make up for someone else's shortcomings, but I'm afraid there is no way around that: we simply cannot accept content that doesn't meet our requirements just because it was written by someone other than the person submitting it; that would make a mockery of our policies, and open the door to just about anything and everything being published.
I'm sure this is no consolation, but I occasionally translate from the Finnish and Swedish Wikipedias, and come across this very problem all the time. The first thing I do now, before even thinking of translating, is to check whether the sources are sufficient to enable publication here, and if they're not, carry out some research to see if I can find additional ones. If not, I move on.
I don't know if you're still willing to help translate articles, but if so, you may find the translation how-to guide at WP:HOWTRANS useful. Among other things it makes the general point (by implication, if not explicitly) that translating articles isn't really translating per se, as much as it is recreating them in another language, using the original as raw material but adapting it to comply with the policies and expectations of the target Wikipedia. This includes ensuring that verifiability and notability requirements are met. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing—thank you for that very helpful response.
Some (hopefully) equally helpful observations for feeding upwards:
If Wikipedia has a different definition of 'translator' to the rest of the world, they should probably make that clear at the outset in a big red box in the translation tool to:
• set people's expectations clearly;
• help them get the job done right first time;
• avoid ill-feeling, and
• retain a useful voluntary skillset.
Editors should also take the time to:
• be nicer to newcomers—as you have been;
• avoid dismissing translations curtly when there is nothing wrong with the translation, and
• explain Wikipedia’s idiosyncrasies as standard.
My experience of the article’s dismissal was something akin to an experienced plumber being criticised for his work in repairing a leaky pipe, because he hadn’t rewired the house at the same time and trimmed the hedges.
I even made clear on the ‘talk’ page of the draft that this was my first attempt, and asked for guidance, so the expectation-setting on my part was already there.
Finally—and this is crucial—the notion that Wikipedia in one language is somehow independent of Wikipedia in another, and that different academic standards apply purely based on language, is a complete anathema to the ordinary user, as well as academic and branding standards the world over.
If Wikipedia’s standards are not universal, that also needs making super clear—from the outset, and by exception—to any translator translating into English, otherwise you won’t get what you want.
Since Wikipedia (rightly) ditched machine-assisted translation, you’re asking skilled people to do skilled work, voluntarily.
The feedback above would, I think, assist you in recruiting and retaining more of them.

LDPUK (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, @LDPUK; you make valid points. I don't know how to feed this "upwards", though, as there is no upwards as such; we're all volunteers like you. If I can think of a Wikiproject (possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki?), I'll post a link to this thread on their talk page. Or if you wish, you can join that and/or other Wikiprojects yourself, and raise the matter inside the tent, so to speak. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing—good to be heard.
I take your point of course, but do feel free to link back to this whenever it comes up! Seems I'm not alone. ☺️🙏🏻
Though I do love the irony of having my work dismissed due to poor referencing, when improvement of referencing wasn't part of my function, and the terms of reference weren't referenced clearly—but even then the reference to the concept of human translation being redefined was only implied, not codified (and properly referenced back to a policy decision, as it ought to be if communicating in English).
If you can't laugh about such things... 😂

LDPUK (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

00:36, 4 August 2023 review of submission by GideonKAnimations

I am requesting an assistance because, my article draft has been decline and I need to know why it has been decline. Is it because my article is too short or not enough information? Thank you! GideonKAnimations (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GideonKAnimations Your draft has no sources. Any article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you 331dot for reply asap, I'll be adding some sources in my draft! GideonKAnimations (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:53, 4 August 2023 review of submission by エンタ

KURAYUKABAに関する記事を公開したいのですが、却下されました。私は初心者なので、直し方がわかりません。 エンタ (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@エンタ: this is the English-language Wikipedia, please ask any questions you may have in English. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:58, 4 August 2023 review of submission by PublisherHasan

sir, please solve this issue, Md Sazzad Hossain is my favorite teacher and I want to create a biography on Wikipedia. PublisherHasan (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PublisherHasan: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Being your "favorite teacher" is no basis for inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. It does, however, give rise to a conflict of interest, which you need to disclose, but haven't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 4 August 2023 review of submission by SnakeLiam12

why u decline SnakeLiam12 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. It is not a notable topic for Wikipedia - having 55 subscribers is very unlikely to be notable and you have provided little sources to prove so. Your article also seems to be written by an AI and seems to be promotional in nature. — Karnataka talk 10:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 4 August 2023 review of submission by Aoaassis

I have edited the draft after the submission was rejected. More content and sources were included, and I think the relevance of the organization became clearer. Before re-submitting the draft, it would be very helpful if an experienced editor could have a look on it and give me a feedback. Thanks in advance. Aoaassis (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! To request another review, please ensure that the article is submitted. Ensure that before you submit, fulfil the details outlined in the decline reason, which was to expand the article. From this response, it has made clear you have attempted to do so, so please click the blue resubmit button and wait accordingly. @Aoaassis — Karnataka talk 10:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to the WP:NCORP guide would be useful for you. @Aoaassis — Karnataka talk 10:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 4 August 2023 review of submission by NatwonTSG2

No, this is not another reason that the draft had better writing and removes all unreliable but instead will be about Significant coverage. At the time I was editing this, there were 55 references in the draft and only nine of them I think are significant coverage which most of there were Smash Bros. and Mario + Rabbids and only three of them weren't about Smash Bros. and Mario + Rabbids. Do you know that there were more and less or I need to add more because it is not enough. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NatwonTSG2. Since this article has been rejected, you need to appeal to the reviewer directly. I've pinged him out of courtesy: @Zxcvbnm. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question was already asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Moving My Draft to Mainspace, What will Happens and it was explained pretty thoroughly that Rayman as a character (not as a series, but as an individual character) is not notable. Nobody could find the sources to prove this, and the draft article uses a ton of trivial mentions without any significant coverage. Sheer amount of references counts for nothing on Wikipedia, as quality is much more important than quantity.
Again, no amount of editing or addition of sources can overcome a lack of notability. Regardless of how much you want a character to have an article it just isn't happening unless you can prove those significant sources exist. I recommend finding some other topic or article to improve instead that you can confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you review that it may be WP:TOOSOON which means that it may can't be created right now but sometimes in the future, it may? NatwonTSG2 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there is significant media attention to the character not the video game series. Qcne (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:24, 4 August 2023 review of submission by Beanfan2002

please just accept it Beanfan2002 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is unsuitable, and now has been rejected. Wikipedia is not a database of Mr Bean credits information. — Karnataka talk 16:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beanfan2002: this is not a viable article draft, and has therefore been rejected. If you can develop a proper draft, including the necessary referencing to support it and establish notability, you're welcome to submit it, but this isn't it. Just to point out, though, that not one of the individual episodes of Mr. Bean: The Animated Series has a standalone article, which probably tells you something already. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 4 August 2023 review of submission by Beanfan2002

hey, one more decline then i will delete the draft, FOREVER... Beanfan2002 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is unsuitable, and now has been rejected. Wikipedia is not a database of Mr Bean credits information. — Karnataka talk 16:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been REJECTED, which means it will not be considered.
Please study Your first article before you try to create another article. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:05, 5 August 2023 review of submission by Beanfan2002

stopppppp Beanfan2002 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:18, 4 August 2023 review of submission by EytanMelech

The first time this article was declined, it was simply because of a lack of secondary sourcing, which I have attempted to add to the article, even if not every source listed is a secondary source. The second refusal has changed their opinion, saying that the article is simply not sufficiently notable for inclusion. This makes me think that this means that regardless of sourcing, he shouldn't be included, but I find that rather odd, because surely a YouTuber with 14 billion views and 17 million subscribes, if enough secondary sourcing exists, should be included on Wikipedia?

If someone could direct me towards specific notability guidelines for online people, that'd be great. EytanMelech (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody with 14 billion views and 17 million subscribers who has been covered sufficiently in independent reliable sources meets the criteria for notability. Somebody with 14 billion views and 17 million subscribers who has not had that coverage does not meet the criteria for notability. It is as simple as that. ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my point is that I believe I have found more reliable sources, but there isn't even a way to submit the article for review, as it says it has been rejected. EytanMelech (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

05:11, 5 August 2023 review of submission by SnosajSE

Hello, I’ve recently submitted my first article and it was declined for reading like an advertisement and not referencing a range of independent/reliable sources.

Regarding presentation, I actually organized the article building fact upon fact. Then adjusted the sentence structure to make it read more easily. I am not married to any particular portion, and in general my approach to writing is to generate more content and then trim. So am open to feedback on this regard. Following are the main points I believe are pertinent to cover:

1. Company basic data (infotable). 2. Companies across the world are committing to reducing their carbon footprint but are struggling to stay on track for the 2030 goals. 3. Origin has a patented chemical process to the reduce carbon footprint for the basic chemical building blocks needed by companies. 4. Origin’s technology has been reviewed by large international companies who have become partners in as the scale the company to meet demand. 5. Demand for chemical options like this is incredibly high. It would take around 100 companies like Origin to start making a dent in significantly reducing carbon footprint within the chemical/materials industries. 6. Origin has vetted their process at a pilot plant, and became a public company to access the capital required to begin constructing their plants. 7. Their first commercial plant opened in July 2023, and they intend to build at least 5 more before 2030 to support companies meet their carbon goals.

Regarding sources, I’ve organized the varying references into categories below. It would be helpful to understand (a) which are not considered reliable (publications?), and whether more or less citations would be expected.

Notable Publications (Third Party, Independent) Forbes Yahoo Finance Harvard Business Review

Publications (Third Party, Independent) (2) Sustainable Plastics Accenture Newsroom Renewable Carbon News Just Style Chem Analyst News Contract Pharma CNET The Daily Digest Packaging World Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership CBC News / Radio Canada Bioplastics Magazine Chemical Engineering CK News Today Green Chemicals Blog The Business Research Company Business Wire

Organizations (Third Party, Independent) (3) UC Davis (2) IEA United Nations US White House US EPA Office of Governor John Bel Edwards, Louisiana YPO (Young Professional Organization)

Other (Third Party, Independent) LocalWiki My Climate Journey Collective Newsletter

Private Companies (Secondary Source) SCGP Packaging, partner Nestle USA, partner Cleary Gottlieb Attorney, represented Artius

Primary Sources Origin Materials… press release for first quarter of revenue. Artius Acquisitions…their website identifying company goal and founders.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, SnosajSE (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SnosajSE Then cover those points using very tight writing and starting and finishing with what the references say, but in 100% your words.
What you appear to have done is to have written what you wish to say and then forced references to fit your text. Unfortunately, your text is journalistic narrative, which is tantamount to having written advertorial.
No-one is interested in press releases. These are primary sources, and are to be used only with extreme care, and in Avery limited manner.
I suggest a rewrite from the ground up. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response and the clarification- much appreciated. To reiterate what you said, I should rely close to solely on independent third party references and mirror what they say in my own words, which is preferred over presenting a cohesive narrative. SnosajSE (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddle Faddle 🤞 SnosajSE (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SnosajSE Your job is to construct a cohesive, tight piece of "dull-but-worthy" prose, based with precision on what others have recorded about the company in multiple independent reliable sources. Go to it with a will, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddle Faddle, thank you again. Appreciate your guidance. SnosajSE (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 5 August 2023 review of submission by Amal Solomon

Submission getting rejected Amal Solomon (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 5 August 2023 review of submission by John Malvin

What is the motive to why my Wikipedia article not sent to space? John Malvin (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft User:John Malvin/sandbox was declined because there is no indication whatsoever that you pass the criteria at WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 5 August 2023 review of submission by Alexxxxx125

sir i want to upload this on wikipedia for people to find out the history of zam zam electronics please review my content and suggest me something related to content please Alexxxxx125 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, which means it will not be further considered. It has also been proposed for speedy deletion as pure promotion.
Please read what Wikipedia is not and notability. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:12, 5 August 2023 review of submission by Corky Clubman

Why was my article declined? Corky Clubman (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corky,
I'm afraid that you do not seem to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold for a Wikipedia article at this time.
The easiest way to improve on your draft is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover you 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.
Remember that your article should be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
However, we do highly discourage people from writing an article about themselves (see Wikipedia:Autobiography) and I would suggest that if you do become notable enough sometime in the future a Wikipedia volunteer will create an article about you.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:14, 5 August 2023 review of submission by Loisopokupr

Hi there,

I would like to publish this page for my client Langston Uibel. I am finding it difficult to understand the question of notability. Uibel, for example stars in many well known shows and films. This is backed up by noteworthy press (NY Times, Washington Post). Is there more an actor could “provide”. Thank You for you time! Loisopokupr (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Loisopokupr.
Firstly, you must immediately disclose that you are being paid to edit on Wikipedia- not disclosing this is a breach of Wikipedia Terms and Conditions. Please comply immediately by following the instructions here: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
I am afraid that your draft article has been rejected, and there is nothing you can now do. At this time Langston is not notable enough for Wikipedia and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. It may be the case of it being Wikipedia:Too soon - perhaps sometime in the future Langdon will meet the notability threshold and one of our Wikipedia volunteers will create an article about him - today is not that day however.
To understand what we mean by 'notability' please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) which explains what a person, or specifically an actor, needs to have done to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. Langston simply hasn't had enough major roles in notable films at this time.
Hope that helps, let us know if you have any further questions though. Qcne (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also just like to point out @Loisopokupr, that eleven months ago on your User Talk page you denied having any connection, financial or otherwise, to Langston. This obviously directly contradicts above where you have stated you are a, presumably, paid PR agent. Obviously we take a dim view to this sort of purposeful omission, and as I stated previously not disclosing this is a breach of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use.
I'll leave it up to other editors if they wish to take any punitive action. Qcne (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 5 August 2023 review of submission by Muezbinayaz

sirb Write an article on SOS Extermination but i recived answer from you side thats declined why Muezbinayaz (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Muezbinayaz,
Your question is not very clear- your article draft has been declined as you have not shown that SOS Extermination has met the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) threshold. This is a set of criteria that all companies must pass in order to have a Wikipedia article- if SOS Extermination does not pass these criteria then I am afraid it cannot have a Wikipedia article at this time.
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.
It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, and Wikipedia:Five pillars which detail the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.
Finally, please note that if you are connected in any way to SOS Extermination then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here: Get help at the Teahouse
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 6 August 2023 review of submission by Hikmatsharma

Why this artice rejected? what can i do to publish my article ? Hikmatsharma (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1169032817"