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 DCM2015 (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 8 September 2023 (→‎20:23, 7 September 2023 review of submission by DCM2015: Reply). 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
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


September 2

00:05, 2 September 2023 review of submission by Starlighsky

I found some citations outside of the IMDB. What are acceptable sites for references? Starlighsky (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Starlighsky: the concept of reliable sources is explained at WP:RS, and some specific sources are rated at WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:24, 2 September 2023 review of submission by 87.0.57.85

Hi, can you give me some suggestions on how to make it accepted? 87.0.57.85 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why? Have you ever seen this character? Do you something about it? 87.0.57.85 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is relevant. Rejection means it won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 2 September 2023 review of submission by TechGeek105

Can you please find more references for the draft I was working on a few months ago, in order to find more information about Nothing OS? Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 07:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TechGeek105: no, for two reasons. Firstly, we don't do that here at the help desk, it is the draft proponent's job. Secondly, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I will do that myself, @DoubleGrazing. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just edited Nothing Phone 1#Software to include Nothing OS 2.0 information, maybe that could be added into the draft. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 2 September 2023 review of submission by Dr-Manuel-Kuehner

I am not sure I understand the meaning of secondary sources, so I gathered some examples for the article of Frank Mittelbach, see below, is that good enough?

(1) https://tug.org/interviews/mittelbach.pdf (2) https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb42-2/tb131mittelbach-desouza.pdf (3) https://www.gutenberg-gesellschaft.de/die-gesellschaft/vorstand-und-praesidium/frank-mittelbach (4) https://www.latex-project.org/about/team/ (5) https://github.com/FrankMittelbach Dr-Manuel-Kuehner (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr-Manuel-Kuehner: secondary sources are explained here: WP:RS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dr-Manuel-Kuehner. I will go through your references one by one:
1) this is a secondary source, but it's an interview so cannot be used to prove notability as it is not WP:INDEPENDENT.
2) this is a secondary source, but it's an interview so cannot be used to prove notability as it is not WP:INDEPENDENT.
3) this is not a secondary source, because it's Frank's employee profile.
4) this is not a secondary source, because it is Frank's team profile.
5) this is not a secondary source, because it is Frank's Github.
If these are the only sources you can find, then I am afraid Frank can not have a Wikipedia article- sorry. Qcne (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Qcne for taking the time to help me. I will try to find better sources. Dr-Manuel-Kuehner (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Hello again. I did some more research and found several secondary references, could you please have a look at the updated draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Frank_Mittelbach? Please don't mind the not-nice flow of teh content/text. For now, I focussed on the references. Dr-Manuel-Kuehner (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry, @Dr-Manuel-Kuehner, but the added references don't seem to show WP:SIGCOV coverage of Frank. I simply don't think he passes WP:NACADEMIC at this time. Qcne (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening @Qcne and thanks for your continued effort to help me :). I had a look at the link that you provided and criteria number 4 states "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.".
One could argue that LaTeX is an instrumental tool for many academic institutions (assuming you are familiar with LaTeX itself) and the fact that Frank is leading the LaTeX development for some decades would make a good case - what do you think Dr-Manuel-Kuehner (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne@Qcne Proposal: I will prepare more references and get back to you once I am ready for another review, ok? Dr-Manuel-Kuehner (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once this talk page is archived (which will be in a few days) feel free to leave a message on my Talk Page. :) Qcne (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:27, 2 September 2023 review of submission by Visokoblagorodie

Respected,

Since Stevan Karanac is the champion of opera at the Serbian National Theater in Novi Sad, and he sang with great stars like Željko Lučić and Nikola Mijailović, and his guest appearances on numerous National television shows, documented by links from the National Television website, were not enough for you, please direct me to the specific ones you want additional evidence as your explanations are not clear or precise. If the National Public Service is not enough for you, what is?

Best Regards Visokoblagorodie (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is enough for us is places where people wholly unconnected with Karanac (not him, not his employers, not his agent, not the organisers of conerts or shows where he performs) have chosen to write at length about him. See notability. If the criteria listed at NMUSIC are met, that makes it likely that the person will be notable in Wikipedia's terms, but we still need several sources that meet the conditions in golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:48, 2 September 2023 review of submission by JamesKnight7

Hello, I've really improved my article and wondered if anyone would be so kind to review it again and let me know if there's any problems with it? Thank you. JamesKnight7 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JamesKnight7, the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia has much more extensive coverage of his entire career. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, thanks for the advice. I don't speak Russian but will try to make further improvements from that page [[1]] as suggested as I consider this an important missed topic. Perhaps someone who speaks Russian better than me can help contribute to the article more if you can help get it reviewed and approved? Many thanks in advance if possible. JamesKnight7 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could only really update his birth date because that's all that's sourced on the Russian Wikipedia. All the references there are broken - 404s or bad gateways, so I cannot really add anything from there. It's like all references to this Ukrainian guy have been deliberately deleted for some reason, perhaps to stop this page being created in English and showing the world that a Ukrainian was responsible for the Katyn Massacre of Poles and not Russian as everyone generally supposes? JamesKnight7 (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted @JamesKnight7, @Cullen328 the paucity of Russian references notwithstanding, I view this draft as having a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion. However, in view of the references having been cleansed on the ruwiki, may I suggest that any potential deletion discussion be closely monitored for !vote stacking 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, Ukrainian nationality in those days was a citizen of the USSR. While he was by birth from Ukraine, he was under Soviet leadership and control. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Ukrainian SSR back then but appreciated FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me. I've added another source from the UK government to try and get those chances to 52% or more. Will keep working to improve. Thank you for your assistance. Enjoy your day. JamesKnight7 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can only remember that Ukraine has had a more than difficult history with predatory invaders, controllers, and a lot else we may not yet have discovered, JamesKnight7. Thank you for creating a draft that could be accepted. Now you and the community can work together instead of your ploughing a lone furrow.
Every new cited fact you can produce is an extra weight in the scale pan to help the percentage rise. The reason I refer to the 50% is the reviewer are exhorted to accept anything with a better Than 50 chance of survival. We are usually generalists, and work with acceptance criteria rather than pure article content. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am a Conscientious Objector and understand difficult histories leading to wars and have great respect for both Ukrainians and Russians. I'm therefore also a "generalist" as you suggest and look forward to working with the community better as you have, leading by example. JamesKnight7 (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

01:12, 3 September 2023 review of submission by EMB1991

Greetings,

Per the guidelines I have completed all items necessary for submission approval. At this point in the process, what is the specific item that you are looking for and I'll get that to you pronto

Warm regards, Eric EMB1991 (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EMB1991, an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes the coverage that reliable, independent sources devote to the topic, and includes references to those sources. Your draft is poorly referenced and fails to make a convincing case that Miles-Baker is a notable person. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, strange language claiming that this person is highborn; thrice blessed of Name, Title and Genetic desirability is completely inappropriate for a neutrally written encyclopedia. Who says that sort of thing, after all, and on what basis? Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the summation. Albeit all things true, perhaps I could sanitize a bit more. Would you be able to cut that part out? Its a point, and distinction that should be kept internal.
Thank you kindly,
Eric EMB1991 (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:16, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Qaziquza

The article was rejected because it is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia—specifically, because "This is thing you google for home work qustions [sic]." I think otherwise, because Wikipedia already has many articles of the type in question. Could someone provide further input? Sorry if this is the wrong place/this is a breach of Wiki etiquette. Qaziquza (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaziquza May I suggest it be merged with Orders of magnitude (force) unless and until sufficient material can be found for an independent article? You may make these edits yourself. @OlifanofmrTennant: do you have any thoughts on this, since you rejected the draft? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a merger. I think none of these Order of Magnitude () pages make sense. Most of them are just example pages. :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 08:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're pretty typical List-class articles, no? I've found them helpful for understanding scale, anecdotally. Qaziquza (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
W.r.t a merge, I think I'll just find more material—I really think that the article could be useful distinct from force. I'm new to Wikipedia policy, so if that's not alright, please do let me know. Qaziquza (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've accepted it. I apologize for my unfair rejection :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 18:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Jverne2000

   Can you please help me with this article so that it is accepted?
   I do not understand why. All of the sources are footnoted with references to putlished articles and interviews.
   Thanks.  Jverne2000 (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jverne2000 The reviewer, Superboilles has referred you to WP:MUSICBIO. Have you asked them what they found lacking? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Jaiseva750

tribal hockey player Jaiseva750 (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaiseva750: that's not a question; did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined because there is currently no indication that the subject is notable under our WP:NATHLETE guidelines. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 3 September 2023 review of submission by EMB1991

Hi,

I just submitted a new edit, also, I need create an "Ancestors" portion to the wikipedia page and was wondering if I could be granted access?

Please assist. Eric EMB1991 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appearto be writing about yourself- while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged, at least in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Please read WP:AUTO.
I'm not sure what it is you want access to, but your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for telling fictional accounts about ourselves. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft deleted, user blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Inna Ogiievska

Thank you.@Qcne You checked it right away, and I really appreciate the time you spent on this verification. Please help me understand which specific source is unreliable among those mentioned in the article so that I can remove it. Inna Ogiievska (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Qcne (note to @Inna Ogiievska, just @'tting doesn't work). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have replied on my Talk Page :) Qcne (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Arian Tazwer

Why My Articale Rejected Arian Tazwer (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arian Tazwer: let's turn this around... can you tell me any reason why it shouldn't have been rejected? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Drthorgithecorgi

I'm fairly inexperienced at creating article. I think that this journal is notable, but I don't know how to provide more links to meet the standard. Some assistance would be appreciated! Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than half of your draft is a section labelled "Landmark papers", and is a summary of one paper published in the journal, with a citation only to the paper. As far as I can see, that section does not belong in the article at all. The article should be a summary of what independent sources have published about the journal. If you had an independent source discussing that article, then it possibly would rate a mention in the article about the journal, but not a whole paragraph, and it wouldn't contribute to establishing notability.
The only thing you should be looking for at this point is places where independent people have written at length about the journal itself (not just about particular content). If you cannot find any, then the journal is probably not notable in Wikipedia's sense. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:02, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Adaughe2

How can I make this public? I am running a campaign in my local school district called Friends of Andrew Daugherty. To me, this is a notable position as I would like to provide context to my background to the voters in my area. Adaughe2 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NBLP for what is notable to Wikipedia. Many things are notable to almost all individuals, but we cannot have pages on absolutely everything. @Adaughe2 — Karnataka talk 21:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. — Karnataka talk 21:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

07:40, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Newlywo

Hello, I am writing again because I believe the reviewer is mistaken and although I did what I can do and tried explining, nothing helped since his mind was made. I ofcourse respect that but I want to know what can be done since he rejected the draft? I insist sine I know Zvi, an award wining director, is noteable. I want to point out that when I resubmitted the draft, I didnt make changes to it but on the talk page I expained about each source after the decline reason was sources. Maybe this was the case and the reviewer was very very wrong with what he wrote about the sources (i.e calling the award minor or the festival). To sum this: what can be done at this stage since there got to be something to do? Thank you all. Newlywo (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will naturally recuse myself from this discussion, but just to say that if an experienced AfC reviewer in good standing is prepared to accept your draft, I will stand corrected and revert my rejection (although I will be curious to hear the grounds for such a decision).
I won't rehearse again my decline/rejection reasons, they can be found in multiple previous threads on this page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, I wrote this inorder to get a fresh reviewer and although you wrote a few times you wont give your time for this anymore, you write again. Do you want to review this or you just wrote here so an experienced AfC reviewer will see what you wrote and wouldnt want to address this? why this feels very personal? I will repeat what I wrote: this is not personal for me, I dont think what you did is in purpose and I sure do not want bad blood and any negetive feelings what so ever. I simply want someone to look this over and see what I wrote and check it again and not the same reviewer (you) which already formed an opnion... calling the awad minor or the TLV fest minor, is very wrong! it is big in Israel and in the LGBT community in general. Also, the "review" you gave per source is not 100% right.
I wish you would see this and be able to say ok maybe but it seems you have something against it no metter what and this I dont understand.. Maybe Israel is a small country vs the US but if you will scale this in % and check the raniking of the sources I placed, you will see you werent right about everything (and just to make it clear, you were right also). anyway, this is was my last chance so please allow this to be a real chance. Thank you. Newlywo (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was declined 6 times and finally rejected. Your draft uses Amazon as a source (unreliable), some sources result in 404 errors, other sources do not mention the subject, it has user edited profiles, it doesn’t show that the subject passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:27, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Raves2023

Hi everyone, my draft was rejected and although I tried and wrote the reveiwer, I cant understand why. What can I do now that it's rejected? please dont say nothing because I looked at similar magazines and it seems we rave you should be excepted if they are on wikipedia. I am aware the reviewer doesnt want to do anything since according to him it's taken enough of his time (i didnt understand that remark as well but ok) but I believe there other reviewers that maybe can help. Raves2023 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raves2023 Rejection typically means that a draft will not be considered further. 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 for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you are welcome to identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.
If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new information from new sources that the reviewer did not consider, typically the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer, but in this case please tell us what has changed about the draft that now addresses the concerns of the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raves2023: this draft was reviewed by five different reviewers, and finally rejected. We've discussed this at least twice before at this help desk, and I can see that you've raised it with the rejecting reviewer. I get that you would like to have this article published, not least because of your financial interest in the subject, but that is not going to happen, I'm afraid. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other things. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's time to move on from this. I hadn't looked to see your edit history here. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot The whole reason I came here is due to the history since I saw it and think it's not right but both of you saying it's time to move on so I am without options.. correct? Raves2023 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's our advice to you. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am part of it and I want it but I did the checks and it seems its worth of a page. I understand what you wrote and if I will find something new, I will try again. Raves2023 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 4 September 2023 review of submission by 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25

The article draft was rejected with regards to encyclopedia tone. I need assistance with addressing this issue. 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25 (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was earlier declined for that reason. It has now been rejected as non-notable. Rejection means there is no option to resubmit, so there is no point in editing further at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I feel like declaring bias makes it seem like a witch hunt for contributors to achieve their own personal accolades by constantly rejecting article submissions without highlighting any of the sentences on which they are basing their decisions. The article I wrote, was actually written following the guidelines (the tone and format) of many other company Wikipedia pages that have been approved already. Someone flagged it citing encyclopedia tone; does it mean that these other Wikipedia company pages were not meticulously reviewed by the expats here, or have the writers already gained relevance by constantly bullying new contributors such that their articles are not subjected to such intense criticisms?
I'm just curious to understand why this level of dictatorship bully, with no intention to actually assist new contributors. I have read about some other contributor pouring out his frustrations for this same bully on here. If Wikipedia is open and free for all platforms, why will people constantly look for vague criticisms to frustrate other contributors? Why can't the criticism be a guide for the new contributor to successfully contribute to the stack of independent information on Wikipedia? 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25 (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See other crap exists, other articles may have been created before the AFC process began, they might need to be deleted. making personal attacks is unlikely to help your case, the draft was entirely promotional and was correctlt declined and then rejected, I should find another topic to write about, one that is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong, I'm not in any way pursing any form of personal attack, but merely trying to learn as a new contributor, which was the basis of my initial argument. The question is: why do people reject articles citing non-encyclopedia tone or advertising when other company pages clearly have the same kind of information, or even worse, on Wikipedia? You cited "other crap exists" probably before AFC; my next question is: will any company qualify for a Wikipedia article following the encyclopedia tone argument, because most I have seen are pure marketing? Kindly feel free to give an example of a company page that is not; I would like to learn more. Thank you. 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25 (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't give you an example of a "company page" because we don't have those here. We have articles about companies that meet our definition of a notable company. I believe you that there are many examples of inappropriate articles that volunteers have not addressed yet; if you would like to help us identify inappropriate articles so we can take action, please do, we need the help. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, if you have a registered user account (Nsbfrank or otherwise), please log into it.
Secondly, I don't know who you're accusing of bullying, but please don't pursue that line of baseless accusations any further, as personal attacks will not be tolerated. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your comments.
First, I would like to sincerely apologize if my comment came across as a personal attack on anyone; it wasn't intentional at all; I was just trying to voice out my frustration that an educational forum open to all doesn't seem so in reality, because I can't understand how article criticism is done in a very harsh tone with no intention to aid new contributors.
Secondly, the truth is that I was constantly advised to declare bias for transparency (as a paid contributor), and that became my greatest error because no matter what I post here, it will be read as marketing, non-encyclopedia tone, and non-neutral.
Finally, I feel that you asked me to login so that you guys could comfortably label me with one offense and probably block me from contributing or commenting further. 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:7857:2854:F599:7FCE (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing in good faith will not get you blocked, unless you repeatedly continue to try and do something which you have been told not to do. You're invited to login because it is easier to communicate with you consistently.
Almost every editor who begins editing here and immediately tries to create an article has a frustrating and miserable time, because they have not yet learnt a raft of understanding about how Wikipedia works; and most importantly, they probably do not yet appreciate what Wikipedia means by notable, If you think of an analogy of housebuilding, they have no idea of what constitutes a stable site for building on, or how to survey a site to determine if it is suitable: they want to build that house there, and they think that if they just try hard enough they'll manage it. After all, everybody knows what a house looks like, don't they? They might even point to some ramshackle jerry-built houses elsewhere that haven't fallen down yet, and say "Look, they built their house!".
For this reason, I always advise new members to spend a few weeks or months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try it. But of course, paid editors rarely think they have the time to do this. (In my view, they are saying that they do not have time to learn the skills that they need to do the job they are paid to do, presumably because they do not recognise that these skills exist or are important).
It is not impossible for a paid editor to write an acceptable article, but it is even harder than writing an article without a COI, because it is harder to recognise whether their writing is neutral.
The key is finding several sources each of which satisfies the golden rule, as without that, you cannot establish that the subject is notable. (I haven't looked at your sources in detail, but the first one does not make clear who produced the video, but I suspect it is BV themselves, in which case it is not independent, and the second one has only a short paragraph about BV. I didn't look further.) If you cannot find suitable sources, then you will know that the subject is not notable, and you cannot successfully write an article, however much you are paid.
If you find the sources, you then need to forget everything you know about the subject, and write an article based only on what those independent sources say. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Thank you so much! Honestly, this is the most helpful comment I have ever had since coming onboard. For a moment, someone in this forum made a positive criticism with the clear intention to educate and not just frustrate newbies. I totally understand your point, and I will try to focus more on editing and learning from other editors. I also see your point about the article rejection, and it does make sense. I will keep an eye on them and their publications moving forward. However, the company did inform me that they keep receiving emails from different agencies offering them Wikipedia publication services (I can provide a proof), which made me feel that I was maligned and unduely suffocated from publishing, just for an agency to swoop in and have a pay day. Nsbfrank (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:24, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Arunknmsb

I want to know for what reason exactly it has been deleted? since puravankara limited and sobha limited has their own pages ,but why can't this kind of a startup can not be ? Arunknmsb (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arunknmsb: this draft hasn't been deleted (yet), only rejected, although soon it might be. And the reason is that it is pure promo blurb with no sign of notability. Promotions are not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 4 September 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:B5B1:38B0:C5B7:AB97:901:1463

What exactly do I need to do to get this article published? 2600:1700:B5B1:38B0:C5B7:AB97:901:1463 (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal the rejection with the reviewer who rejected it, but you have to be able to show that is passes the Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) in order to make a successful appeal. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an earlier draft in the system, at Draft:Abraham and Mollie Froug House (and with the correct title, I might add), just for info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Bananastander

Hi I've made some edits to the page to make the language more neutral, just wondered if I am on the right track! Thanks Bananastander (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bananastander The major question you have to answer is in two parts: Do they pass WP:NMUSICIAN; have you shown that they do (if so)? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bananastander Further, on Wikimedia Commons, you have a question to answer about the picture. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I have answered the question on Wikimedia Commons Bananastander (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for the reply, I'll review that page. Though I can see issues meeting the criteria for documenting artists outside of mainstream genres, in this instance progressive rock. Though I think point 7 works though. Thanks a lot for your help tho! Bananastander (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for the reply, I'll review that page. Though I can see issues meeting the criteria for documenting artists outside of mainstream genres, in this instance progressive rock. Though I think point 7 works though. Thanks a lot for your help tho! Bananastander (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point 7, like the rest of the points, is an indicator that they might meet the criteria for notability. As it says there, you still need to find the sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 4 September 2023 review of submission by IvoJokić

What to do if the system deems sources as untrustworthy, all the while them being the links to articles created by the school representatives themselves

What to do if the system deems sources as untrustworthy, all the while them being the links to articles created by the school representatives themselves I was writing an article about the Gymnasium in Danilovgrad. The issues arose because of the invalidity of the sources – system thinks of them as a random vague link, but, in reality, they lead to articles about the institution created by the school representatives themselves. What should I do? IvoJokić (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Gymnasium Petar I Petrovic Njegos has no independent sources and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the sources are untrustworthy; they are not independent. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:11, 4 September 2023 review of submission by DogExpert

Please advice me to improve and make this more wiki article, I do not have to build anything like an advertisement. DogExpert (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DogExpert, there is nothing to advise as the article has been rejected so won't be considered further. There is nothing you can do.
I would recommend reading WP:YFA. Qcne (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

04:21, 5 September 2023 review of submission by Ikenagy

why was it bad? Ikenagy (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need to ask why your draft was unsuitable for an encyclopaedia? Please carefully read WP:PILLARS. Qcne (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 5 September 2023 review of submission by 87.0.57.85

Hi, I am trying to make this article for the company Weakend Productions, how can be the draft accepted? If I don't find news websites, what can I do, or what can I do in general? 87.0.57.85 (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers have left you advice at the top of your draft, please see it if you haven't already. If there are no independent reliable sources that give this company significant coverage, it will not merit an article, there is nothing that you can do to confer notability on a topic.
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not work for it, I just saw their content. 87.0.57.85 (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find sources then I am afraid there can be no article. Qcne (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 5 September 2023 review of submission by Athwartmisunderstand

How can I improve this article eg change or remove Athwartmisunderstand (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Athwartmisunderstand: you cannot; I've rejected it and requested deletion. Dhumik Pravin has been deleted four times, including twice at AfD, most recently only a couple of months ago. You're flogging the proverbial dead horse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess it should be deleted as there is no reliable sources. However, in future, if there is any reliable sources published, can there be a article on Dhumik Pravin? Athwartmisunderstand (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Athwartmisunderstand: if they demonstrably, as supported by reliable evidence are notable (almost certainly per the WP:GNG guideline), then it may be possible to have an article on them, yes. But I should warn you that because of the earlier deletions, the bar is probably higher than it would have otherwise been. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 5 September 2023 review of submission by Ray the Bearman

I'm having trouble understanding on what I said wrong 

Ray the Bearman (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ray the Bearman: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. You should not be writing about yourself, and any sort of promotion is not allowed. You can write limited biographical information on your user page, but it has to be within the user page policy, and you should not submit it for review as it will not be published as an article. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 5 September 2023 review of submission by Annomita

Why the article is rejected Annomita (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read WP:NOT. You have already had this draft deleted twice, please do not create further drafts or you risk your account being blocked. Qcne (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 5 September 2023 review of submission by Hale204

i didnt know how do i try again Hale204 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hale204: if by "try again" you mean resubmitting, then you don't: this draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. Promotion of any sort is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

01:57, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Demiboy609

Hi people that works for Wikipedia I need your help I log in Wikipedia two days ago im making a wiki article about Deimboy and Deimgirl but I need your help i only know how to edit. Demiboy609 (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Demiboy is user edited so not a reliable source. Sources need to be reliable and independent. Theroadislong (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Directorshahikabir

Wikipedia has declined again. How can I publish it again? Directorshahikabir (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Directorshahikabir: you cannot; rather than merely declined, the draft has now been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself and your career. See WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Iam1947

H, I have tried understanding the objections to the earlier draft and have worked on the content of the draft. I would like to move it to the articles space but would appreciate a review. Iam1947 (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iam1947: this draft cannot be resubmitted for another review, as it has been rejected. If you're saying that new sources have become available which demonstrate notability (which was the reason for the earlier declines and the rejection), then you need to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:31, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

kindly help me to improve my article to be eligible to be publish. I am new on Wikipedia though i followed the guidelines. but still i need assistance.Please help me!!! Thanks Pioussouls (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Oleg Parashchak Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text is highly promotional. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Which independent commentator has described him as "renowned"? Which independent commentator has described his career as "illustrious", or written about his "commitment to innovation and excellence". No Wikipedia article should ever use such evaluative language except in a direct quotation attributed to an impeccably independent source. ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

kindly help me to improve my article to be eligible to be published. I am new to Wikipedia, though I followed the guidelines. But still, I need assistance. Please help me!!! Thanks Pioussouls (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you linked to the right page? User:Pioussouls/sandbox has never existed. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 6 September 2023 review of submission by David0296

I don't understand why the submission got declined due to non reliable sources and "not meeting general notability guidelines" while there are similar comparable articles like MGP Junior (Danish TV series) with less and worse references David0296 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David0296 Please read other stuff exists. It could be that this other article is also inappropriate and simply unaddressed. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. See WP:GOODARTICLE. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article you mentioned is marked as problematic(since March). It is inadvisable to use articles with maintenance tags as examples. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David0296: 1TV is not an independent source, Eurovoix by their own admission is "written by Eurovision fans, for Eurovision fans", and the sources cover individual entries or years, rather than discussing this programme in significant depth and extent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)David0296, Wikipedia has over 6.7 million articles, many of which are of poor quality. We do not accept new poor quality articles just because other poor quality articles exist. Instead, editors work 24 hours a day worldwide to either improve or delete poor quality articles. Maybe MGP Junior should be deleted. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERCONTENT. I suggest that you focus on improving your own draft. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, a large majority of articles related to Eurovision need to be deleted because 99% of the sources are websites of broadcasters, social media posts or fanpages like Eurovoix or escplus David0296 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative to deletion, David0296, is to add references to better sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Misraaa

Keeps getting rejected. Pls advice is needed on what to di Misraaa (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Misraaa: there is nothing you need or can do; this draft has been rejected (after multiple previous declines) and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:06, 6 September 2023 review of submission by 4Corry11

I would like to know exactly how much information this article needs to be Notable for inclusion. Adrenaline peak has its own page so I was thinking the Timberhawk would be nottable. 4Corry11 (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

07:37, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Arpitkhandelwal810

How to Improve ? Arpitkhandelwal810 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arpitkhandelwal810: there is nothing to improve; this draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:PROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling about my self i am publishing my article for the world Arpitkhandelwal810 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...about yourself, correct? Anyway, it has now been deleted; please don't create more of the same. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Atchayampage

pls help me to create Wikipedia for Atchayam trust organization Atchayampage (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Atchayampage: sorry, but the onus is on you to create the articles of interest to you, and especially as a paid editor you shouldn't expect volunteers to contribute to a task for which you are being paid. If you have a specific question, you can come back to this help desk and we will try to answer it, but "help me create" is far too vague and open-ended. Meanwhile, you can find everything you need for article creation at WP:YFA, and useful advice for referencing and notability at WP:REFB and WP:GNG, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Ganovak3

Hello! I would like add connections to other wiki pages on my page about binding energy (vezavna energija), but i can only add the ones in English. I click on the word and then on the symbol chain and all the suggestions i get are in English. How can I find the ones in Slovenian? I checked and the ones that i want actually exist. Thanks. Ganovak3 (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link(you were missing the "Draft:" portion). 331dot (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ganovak3: I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to do (please elaborate?), but just to say that your draft seems to be in Slovenian, whereas this is the English-language Wikipedia and we can only accept content in English. So either you need to translate that into English before submitting, or else submit it to the Slovenian Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thank you. Ganovak3 (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 7 September 2023 review of submission by 204.109.64.61

why isn't this published? 204.109.64.61 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been rejected for failure to demonstrate notability due to inadequate sourcing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Hermodorus

Well there are no other sources except the fact that it is an occult society I created literally a few days ago so I'd like it to be known so what's happening in this occasion Hermodorus (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hermodorus, please read Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Misraaa

I need few chances for improvement on this article and also opportunity to have it submitted. Misraaa (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Misraaa: as I already explained yesterday, this draft has had its chances, and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone deserve another chance and I thought this is a volunteer organization. I didn’t even know the number of submission time is capped as it isn’t stated anywhere the amount of trial anyone has for submissions! Misraaa (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Misraaa: indeed, everyone deserves another chance, but not indefinitely. This draft was declined no fewer than six times, before finally being rejected at the seventh review. We have thousands of drafts awaiting review, we cannot keep working on the same one indefinitely. My advice is to leave it for now, wait until such time as new and better sources have become available (assuming...) which demonstrate notability, and then try again.
Incidentally, what is your interest in this topic? I've posted a COI query on your talk page; please read and action as applicable. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And since there’s room for another chance, how do I update and submit new links when they’re available?? And FYI, I’ve got no any affiliation with the subject/topic, I’m just a fan of his works, that’s all. Misraaa (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no* Misraaa (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Misraaa: you can still edit the draft, you just cannot submit it. If you want new sources to be considered, you need to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. So in practice, you would probably add your sources to the draft, then approach the reviewer and explain how these new sources establish notability in a way that wasn't clear before.
Drafts which have not been edited for six months are automatically deleted. If that happens, you can ask for 'refund', ie. for the draft to be returned to you for further editing (the exact procedure will be explained on your talk page before the draft is deleted). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Misraaa. I am the reviewer who rejected it- if you can prove he can passes the strict WP:NMUSIC criteria then please message me on my Talk Page. If you can't prove that he passes the strict criteria then he cannot have an article at this time. Qcne (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Hermodorus

How can I create a page for something literally new since the only source is me Hermodorus (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hermodorus: in short, you cannot. Wikipedia articles are created by summarising what independent and reliable published sources have said. Ergo, no sources, nothing to summarise, hence no article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hermodorus Wikipedia is not for telling the world about something you created one day. We want to know what others say about your organization, not what you say about it. You should use social media or a personal website to tell the world about your organization. There are other possible alternative outlets as well. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 7 September 2023 review of submission by 104.247.228.88

I am curious what about the text is specifically making it seem like an advertisement. Also why are the website references not considered reliable? They are not produced by the creator. 104.247.228.88 (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that the original reviewer made the comment that "This reads like press release material." You might want to ask them to elaborate? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 7 September 2023 review of submission by MirzaMukramullahBaig19

help me to create this page creation MirzaMukramullahBaig19 (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MirzaMukramullahBaig19: this draft has been rejected for lack of notability, and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:12:52, 7 September 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by DasKleinesPäckchen


I am hoping someone would be able to help me with the writing of this, since I have no experience in writing textbook-like stuff. I ended up writing it too closely to the articles that I was pulling the information from.

DasKleinesPäckchen (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DasKleinesPäckchen, this is regarding Draft:Worcester_Revolution_of_1774?
You state that The resemblance to that blog post is coincidental, I pulled the information from other pages. This is truly an outstanding coincidence considering your original text matched 97% of the alssar.org blog precisely. With this sort of luck I would suggest playing the lottery. Please don't lie about taking copyrighted materials, we view that exceedingly poorly. Qcne (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article that I wrote it from copied it from that blog post. If I must rewrite it, I will. DasKleinesPäckchen (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 7 September 2023 review of submission by ABDZee

Hey I am new to Wikipedia and I wrote an article about the commonwealth youth council and it got rejected cause there weren't enough references but i cant any info other then there actual website what should i do ABDZee (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ABDZee Nothing you can do, sorry. No references = no article. One of Wikipedia's fundamental pillars is that articles must be referenced. Qcne (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 7 September 2023 review of submission by DCM2015

Why is this page not getting through?? DCM2015 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DCM2015. Only authors who meet the strict WP:NAUTHOR criteria should have Wikipedia articles written about them. Paul does not meet that criteria, sorry. Qcne (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He does meet the criteria! DCM2015 (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our kids have done a project on his books in school, and there was no Wikipedia entry for them to consult! DCM2015 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 7 September 2023 review of submission by 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:22

Is the title of the draft okay? Or should it rather be moved to Draft:Eating Our Way To Extinction? Or to phrase it differently: Would the final title of the article be Eating Our Way to Extinction or Eating Our Way To Extinction? 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:22 (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of the draft is not relevant to the draft approval process. Once the draft is accepted, it can be placed at the proper title- you can leave a note on the draft talk page regarding the title. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. But which version of the title (with "to" or "To") is correct according to the wiki practice and shall thus be used in the text of the draft? 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:22 (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:51, 7 September 2023 review of submission by 105.112.24.191

Notability 105.112.24.191 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a lack thereof. your draft has been rejected and will not be considered again. ltbdl (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

01:39, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Pathania1009

please suggest advice in changing the article Pathania1009 (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you will have been informed, this draft has now been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:16, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Deadstay

The message given "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is very broad and doesn't explain the issues with the page. Deadstay (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deadstay: without commenting on whether or not the rejection was done correctly, the concept of notability is explained in detail in the notability guideline to which the link in the rejection notice points (and further elaborated by the multiple links in the earlier decline notice). Please study those, and if you still have a question after that, come back to us. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 8 September 2023 review of submission by ReverseDelay

My submission was declined and the reason stated was: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, my article does cite sources from major news organizations in the country where this article is most relevant. There is also a page on a similar topic that is already approved even if it has the same citation quality. When I looked at the talk page of the editor who rejected my submission, I saw that there were multiple discussions regarding issues about the editor's recent work in AfC. Given these, I think my draft was wrongly disapproved. Can I just resubmit again without further edits? (I'm worried about the note that the draft might be deleted.) ReverseDelay (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ReverseDelay: my take on it, FWIW, is that this draft has been correctly declined, although possibly for the wrong reason. I would have declined it for lack of notability, rather, because I don't think the sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, and as a very new release I doubt it would meet WP:NFILM, either. You may wish to ask the reviewer directly for their rationale in picking that decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:22, 8 September 2023 review of submission by A smart kitten

Hi! I’ve had my draft declined with the reason Fails WP:DISAMBIG. However, with no other explanation or pointers, I admit I’m struggling to understand exactly which part(s) of the guideline my draft fails, so I’m not sure how to improve upon/fix the issues prior to resubmission (or even if the issues are considered fixable). I’d therefore be grateful if an editor could provide me with some extra information on which part(s) of the dab guideine my draft fails.

For context, I created this draft with the intention of greatly reducing the length of the hatnote currently present at Adam West (Family Guy). As there are three links currently there to other ‘Mayor West’s, and a fourth ‘Mayor West’ I found while creating the page (that may also be otherwise added to the hatnote), I thought that this was a good opportunity for a dab page.

All the best

A smart kitten (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A smart kitten: the Adam West (Family Guy) article is considered the primary topic, meaning the majority of people searching for 'Mayor West' are likely to be looking for that. If there were several articles with competing claim to be primary topics, ie. each getting a significant proportion of searches, then a disambiguation would be needed. But I'd wager that nobody (or at least very few people) looking for, say, Ben West, would search for 'Mayor West'. That's my interpretation of it, at any rate; someone with better understanding of dabs may come along shortly. (I recommend reading that DISAMBIG guideline, BTW, if you haven't yet.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing for your response! I understand what you’re saying — all I think I’d really have to say in response to that (at least right now) is that the hatnote has been in place at the article since 2015, was reaffirmed by other editors in 2016 and 2019, and so I’d argue that the hatnote has an implied consensus to remain. I’d also argue that, as the purpose of this draft dab page is to take over much of the functionality of the hatnote, that this implied consensus would also in a way apply to this dab page.
In terms of reading the guideline, I often find it hard to read things like that all in one go; so while I have probably read (or at least skimmed!) a fair bit of it by now, my immediate recap of it isn’t yet enough to be able to refer to it without going back and checking/re-reading the specific bit I want to refer to.
All the best, A smart kitten (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Visokoblagorodie

Dear all,

As I have added new sources of Serbian media, please reconsider the article.

Best Regards, Visokoblagorodie (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1174415887"