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 SPAAAAACE (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 1 December 2023 (→‎14:33, 1 December 2023 review of submission by SPAAAAACE: 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


November 25

00:51, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Lear419

The draft was rejected because it didn't cite secondary sources. The GitHub FRET project has references to a couple of dozen publications from organizations other than NASA involving the use of FRET as well as its relationship to formal methods. Here are a couple of samples:

Ivan Perez, Anastasia Mavridou, Thomas Pressburger, Alwyn Goodloe, Dimitra Giannakopoulou. Integrating FRET with Copilot: Automated Translation of Natural Language Requirements to Runtime Monitors, NASA/TM–20220000049, January 2022.

Zsófia Ádám, Ignacio D. Lopez-Miguel, Anastasia Mavridou, Thomas Pressburger, Marcin Bęś, Enrique Blanco Viñuela, Andreas Katis, Jean-Charles Tournier, Khanh V. Trinh, Borja Fernandez Adiego. From Natural Language Requirements to the Verification of Programmable Logic Controllers: Integrating FRET into PLCverif, NFM 2023.

Is that what you are looking for as secondary sources? Lear419 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lear419: just to clarify, this draft was declined (not 'rejected') because it failed to show that the subject is notable, which is demonstrated through referencing. At the time of review, it didn't cite a single source, ergo no evidence of notability.
You can read about secondary sources here WP:SECONDARY, and about the general notability guideline here WP:GNG. You may also wish to take a look at WP:NSOFTWARE (an essay, rather than a formal policy statement) specifically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:54, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Xwallawallax

\ Help with academic researcher profile page Hello,

I am seeking input on how to improve this page: Draft:Saad Bhamla


It was rejected on the following grounds:

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth and

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.


Having read the eight academic-specific criteria, it is clear that Prof. Bhamla meets several of these. I have also cited reliable secondary sources (e.g., NSF, NIH, etc.) to support this assertion.


I do need some help on the advertisement vs encyclopedia rejection. Most academic bios are written in the form that I supplied, but any tips on converting it into an encyclopedia-style diction would be appreciated. Xwallawallax (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xwallawallax I've fixed your post to provide a link to your draft.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the accomplishments and accolades of a person. That is considered advertising. I would urge you to read the notability criteria carefully to learn more about what is being looked for when you assert that an individual meets them. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xwallawallax: please don't ask for support both here and at the Teahouse (and certainly not within minutes of each other), as this wastes volunteer effort when multiple contributors are taking part in multiple conversations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My fault - did not realize they were separate forums until after I posted at Teahouse (and realized that was the incorrect place to post). 73.155.253.30 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Ninjascrollqc

im trying to make this page that looks like this other journalist :Yoani Sánchez

But im having a hard time to find all the coding or format to add all the required information, example , interviews that the journalist received, conferences where he participated, the schollarship he participated in europe, life in Canada and his career as Journalist and Programmer. Ninjascrollqc (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjascrollqc Your draft is actually in your sandbox, so I've fixed your link to it. We also don't need the whole url when linking to another article on Wikipedia, so I've fixed that.
Drafts created in a sandbox need the submission template added manually, I've done this for you so you can submit it. This information is provided automatically if you use the Article Wizard to create a draft. Before you submit it, you will need to format the references properly, instead of having bare urls. Please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 25 November 2023 review of submission by 2409:40C4:C:DD87:8000:0:0:0

I have information about thebandwala.. There is a website on this topic and indiam udyog registration of thebandwala taken on 2021. Are these 2 sources will be enough for refference of this title ? 2409:40C4:C:DD87:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to log into your account as it make communication easier. Their website is primary source and not independent so not useful. Read through all the links in the decline message which outlines the type of sources needed. S0091 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Le Palais de Tokyo

Hello everyone at the Teahouse! I recently submitted my first article draft, and unfortunately, it was declined. I'm seeking some guidance on how to improve it and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. I'm eager to learn and make the necessary changes, so any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help! Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Palais de Tokyo the draft reads like a listing of things they have done sourced to themselves or routine announcements/press releases with no independent in-depth coverage about them. What they say or want to say about themselves is not useful, nor are sources that make no mention of them. Also, if you are affiliated with them, you need to make the appropriate declaration and will leave you additional information on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S0091! I appreciate your detailed review. I see what you mean about the need for independent and in-depth sources to enhance the article's quality and neutrality. In the creation of the article, I have basically based the content and structure on other articles, and tried to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's style manual. Perhaps some of those articles I have seen about design studios were based on lists of mainstream competitions or prizes following a brief summary, and seldom about the studios relationship to its subject and practice.  I don't have any direct affiliation with the studio itself. As a former art and design student passionate about conceptual design and art I hope to contribute to Wikipedia in a specific field (design studios not focused on advertising and branding, but operating within the arts and culture) of design practices that is hard to find content of despite this fields development, parallell to traditional design and advertisng businesses, since the turn of the millenium. I’m very grateful for your detailed feedback and I’ll go over the article and try to make it more inline with wikipedias standards. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best wishes, Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot, and apologize for any newbie misbehaviour. Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Le Palais de Tokyo

Hello I recently submitted my first article draft, and unfortunately, it was declined. I'm seeking some guidance on how to improve it and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. I'm eager to learn and make the necessary changes, so any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated. I posted this question in the Teahouse community feed as well. Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated! Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above. S0091 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Chellers123

It's a small, but notable traction in the small town/city of Norway in Hønefoss Chellers123 (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft offered no sources whatsoever, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about topics that meet the notability guidelines, such as a notable event. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Musitafa Kalyowa

Can't see resubmit option Kalyowa Musita (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Musitafa Kalyowa: that's because this draft has been rejected, which means that resubmission is no longer possible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:08, 25 November 2023 review of submission by IDruben77

The proposed article was rejected because "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." I need some help on how to follow this guidelines because it seems to me that the text is written with a neutral point of view. Could anyone help out with improving it or pointing out what could be improved in the article? Thanks IDruben77 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IDruben77 you need to fairly summarize what source state and attribute opinions. For example footnote 9 is an opinion piece so not something that can be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. For footnote 10, you summarize what the NAACP states but nothing else. What did Price say and are there independent sources with no affiliation to either Price or the NAACP that puts it context? Right now, it comes across as if you are pushing a narrative that aligns with a specific point of view even if that is not your intent. S0091 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @S0091 for providing feedback on areas for improvement in the article; your guidance is much appreciated. In response, I have made some adjustments. Firstly, I opted to delete footnote 9, as it was based on an WSJ opinion piece. Instead, I directly quoted Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price to ensure a more factual foundation.
Regarding footnote 10, it's essential to note that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) carries significant weight as a well-respected entity with over a century of history dedicated to racial justice and police accountability. Their stance against the perceived inactivity on crime in Oakland is noteworthy in itself, and it seems to me that that their position is not driven by partisanship. Upon revisiting the San Francisco Chronicle article, I found that, despite the journalist's attempt to contact the Office of the District Attorney, no response or alternative perspective was provided. Consequently, the article from the San Francisco Chronicle stands out as an independent source that diligently reported on this fact. I welcome any further suggestions on refining this section to ensure accuracy and clarity. IDruben77 (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Redstar0005

I would like to know if the sources I use in my article are reliable, if you have time, please review them. Redstar0005 (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redstar0005 Fan sites and IMDB are not reliable sources and generally neither is YouTube unless is a video by a reputable new organization or the like (see WP:RSPYT for additional information). S0091 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Jack Massing

I guess that I have made a mistake in trying to publish an entry about myself. How can this be accomplished or could I do this? Jack Massing (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Massing Please read the Autobiography policy; writing about yourself, while not absolutely forbidden, is highly discouraged, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

01:22, 26 November 2023 review of submission by 73.248.228.56

I just want to help people find the difference in the pronunciations of linguistics pls help 73.248.228.56 (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that is not what wikipedia is for. ltbdl (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:30, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Alexandracraig

I’m a talent manager and my client Alie Craig and I are trying to get her page published but it keeps getting kicked back for some reason. Can someone help us get this page published or at least tell us what is wrong with it.

Thanks. Alexandracraig (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is direct contact for myself. I would appreciate some insight as to why this page keeps getting kicked back with errors.
jason at kordmanagement.com Alexandracraig (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:49, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Alexandracraig

I don't know what to put down as the websites, there are so many different websites on my name I don't know which ones to choose. Please some assistance. Alexandracraig (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb, Amazon and YouTube are generally not independent, reliable sources and will need replacing. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Imoveisavista

What advice can you give to me improve the text and get publication approved, please?

Thanks Nina Mattos Imoveisavista (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be published it was rejected and deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. You are likely to be blocked soon because of that. Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Agent2122

I would like to create a biography about Abdul Jackson . I read about him in Onetime . please help me Agent2122 (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that your topic is notable in Wikipedia terms and your draft has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agent2122 I don't think you just read about him since you took a picture of him and your username suggests you are his agent. You must respond to the inquiries I've made on your user talk page, or you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 26 November 2023 review of submission by SaneFlint

Now I'm being asked that my article is full of praise tone while I'm doing my best to write it in a neutral manner.

Someone can help me with that? SaneFlint (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SaneFlint: this draft has now been rejected (and not before time, IMO), and will therefore not be considered further. Time to drop it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:08, 26 November 2023 review of submission by ALA ALYAMAN

I do not intend to promote for myself, I aim to provide facts and experience about business to give hope and guide for youths. instead of speedy deletion while it is still a draft and meaningwhile I have a lot of resources of my studies you can advice me how to turn this to a researcher page and place my research for education materials and how to make it less about me. I don't mind that but I need my educational message to reach.

BR, Alaa ALA ALYAMAN (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for you to do those things, sorry. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ALA ALYAMAN please do not re-create this article again, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please go somewhere else to present your research and findings. Qcne (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:23, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Simodabir0

How can I fix it because it represents a character and not an advertisement or something like that? Simodabir0 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simodabir0: this draft has been rejected and is pending deletion, so there is no way to "fix it". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:57, 26 November 2023 review of submission by SaneFlint

Someone here to see my article before I submit it? Just see if it's now in a neutral tone or not? SaneFlint (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews. The best way to find out is to submit it. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft has been declined 13 times and editor still doesn't appear to understand what we mean by neutral tone, WP:CIR seems to apply. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More context to this request here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hi_Fam._Looking_for_some_assistance_please Qcne (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Laksh Creations

I need this content to be posted Laksh Creations (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Laksh Creations: this "content" will not be "posted", as it has been rejected and I have just requested speedy deletion on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Apugharamikolkata

i want help new page Apugharamikolkata (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. It is also unwise for you as an artist to post your work to Wikipedia Commons, as it makes it available for anyone to use for any purpose, including commercial, with attribution. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Archangelectra

I was declined for not having enough secondary sources, which I understand, but are news articles about the topic at hand considered secondary sources, or primary? Analysis of manuals and other specification based topics aren't done that often by secondary sources, and I do find this topic to be notable enough for an article in my opinion, as there is a Japanese wikipedia page for this topic, as well as a page for another type of Green Line vehicle, the type 8. Archangelectra (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Archangelectra it depends on the content within the article. If it is only mostly what those affiliated with topic say or first hand accounts, those are primary even the source is a third-party (see primary). Also, each Wikipedia language are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines so something acceptable on one does not mean it is acceptable on another and vice versa, though the English Wikipedia tends to be the most strict. S0091 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright, thank you for the help! And that's fair, regarding the strictness of the guidelines, I'll work on finding a few more secondary sources before I resubmit. Archangelectra (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:23, 26 November 2023 review of submission by 95.239.235.229

How do you insert the 'Authority control' template? 95.239.235.229 (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, that can only be used once the draft is accepted. S0091 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

01:56, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Coding.wiki

Please help me edit and submit this! Coding.wiki (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can resubmit it by clicking "Resubmit" on the draft(in the box at the top containing the most recent review). Is there specific help you are looking for? 331dot (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:49, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Samh100

Hello,

I am looking for assistance on two things.

1. I want to make sure that the title of the page stays the same. huupe is spelled with a lower case "h" as it is how the company prefers to spell it.

2. I want to add three images that are mine but the page will not let me add them. Can I please have assistance on having them added?

Best, Sam Samh100 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samh100 If you work for the company that produces this product, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.
I believe the title can remain as it is from a technical standpoint. What matters is what independent reliable sources use as a spelling, not necessarily what the company wants.
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until your draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. New accounts cannot directly upload images, you may work with other editors via Files For Upload on doing so, but I would just wait as by the time the draft is accepted you will probably meet the criteria to be able to upload yourself(account is four days old with 10 edits or more). In order for it to be accepted, much promotional language needs to be removed. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:08, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Oluwafemi1726

Can you tell me why this was moved to the draft? I think when i first made it i had no sources, but every single one of my claims had a source, even the author's name and his wikipedia page was mentioned on the first paragraph. on my links were through internet archives, with the quotes i was using, making the link DIRECTLY accesible to everyone that clicks on it. So can you tell me what i did wrong? Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwafemi1726: you would have to ask the user who moved it to drafts why they did so, but I'm assuming it was for the same reason as why this has since been twice declined, ie. there isn't sufficient evidence that the subject is notable: a single source, especially what appears to be a primary one (travel journal, of sort), is very seldom enough, and certainly not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Taimour sheikh

I am making a draft for the first time on Wikipedia and my previous one got rejected because of promotional language. Even though I am connected to the organization I am making this draft for but its not my intention to promote them on wikipedia. Since I am a content writer I don't know how to use neutral language according to wikipedia guidelines and I am overwhelmed by so many restrictions. However, please check this new draft and tell me will it get approved or not because I have tried my best to not use any peacock terms here. Taimour sheikh (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Taimour sheikh: we don't do on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk; submit your draft, and pretty soon you'll get a verdict. Note that promotionality is not just about the language and tone, it can also mean that you're saying what you want to say about the subject rather than summarising what independent secondary sources have said; that will inevitably result in promotional content. Looking at your sources, this is almost certainly the case here. You need to forget what you know about the subject, and instead find some sources that meet the WP:GNG standard and summarise them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you declared a conflict of interest- if you work for this organization, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. Please see your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Gorkem80

The subject clearly satisfies #1 and #4 from the listed 8 notability criteria for academics. The listed references clearly demonstrate this. Could an editor help me understand if there is anything I am missing here?

06:58, 27 November 2023 review of submission by TshepoR

Request for help with improving the declined draft Good morning team, may I please be assisted with improving this draft, Draft:Khayalethu Anthony. It was recently declined because I couldn't place reliable sources. What helps me search for reliable sources? Please help a brother out. TshepoR (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TshepoR I fixed your post to provide a link for your draft as intended(you had other text there). We can't find reliable sources for you- it's up to you to gather them prior to writing- using search engines or your local library, to find sources with significant coverage of this person. Aside from the reliable sources issue you have some promotional language about his "journey" and "entering the arena"- Wikipedia articles are written very matter of factly and dry, without embellishment. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Spiggotr6

Is it true that Publishers Weekly and Booklist are not independent or reliable sources? I have used them in the past with no issues. Spiggotr6 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book retailers are not independent because they have an interest in selling the book. If you've used such sources before, it's probably just pure chance that you got away with it, or you were given incorrect advice previously. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you for the help Spiggotr6 (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Danielleafrica

Hi everyone, I would just like to know why this article was rejected? Not enough content perhaps? Danielleafrica (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Danielleafrica. I declined your article because articles about organisations need to show they pass our WP:NORG criteria. There wasn't any indication that Alliance Media Africa passes this criteria with your current sources.
Can I also ask if you are an employee of Alliance Media Africa? Qcne (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, I sure have a lot to learn still. I am an employee yes so I will try to go declare the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest policy now. Danielleafrica (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Danielleafrica It was not rejected, it was declined, the two terms have different meanings here- "rejected" means that a draft may not be resubmitted, "declined" means it may be resubmitted.
The only sources provided are associated with what I assume is your company- press releases and the company website. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company(i.e. not press releases or announcements) showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared per the Terms of Use, see the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest.
You claimed the logo of your company as your own personal work- this makes it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. Did you create the logo yourself? 331dot (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot, thanks for your message. A previous graphic designer of the company created the logo, the company has made small edits since, but the initial work was done by a former employee. Should I load it as something different? Would really appreciate the guidance here. Danielleafrica (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Danielleafrica You must immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons- Commons only hosts images free of copyright issues- or at least you need to claim it as the work of the company, not your personal work- if they want to make their logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution(I wouldn't want to do that, but it's up to your company).
Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. See WP:UPIMAGE. Fair use does carry some restrictions- like being unable to be used in drafts- but it does permit logos to be in articles.
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about uploading images until and if you draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@33dot, okay thank you. I will try to request deletion right now and re-upload later. Danielleafrica (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please make the paid editing disclosure first- I've place instructions on how to do so on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 27 November 2023 review of submission by 197.148.73.153

I do not understand why this was not accepted, or what more is needed. The artist is one of the leading musicians of the country, but as it is one of the smaller countries in African print media, especially online, is not going to be as readily available. 197.148.73.153 (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues Editor:
  1. We need in-line citations for every single material statement. This is a hard requirement for biographies of living people. See the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
  2. You need to prove that Barhama meets our WP:NMUSICIAN criteria. Do this through the use of significant coverage of Barhama in multiple secondary sources that are independent and reliable.
Qcne (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to provide significant coverage of the subject and show they meet the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:21, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Anthon Caesar

need help with my biography Anthon Caesar (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthon Caesar Wikipedia is not a social media website like Facebook, it is not a place to tell the world about yourself. Qcne (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Karl.zylinski

Can this be re-reviewed? I have updated the article with additional sources that I think should make the article more reliable. I have also changed the structure somewhat to make the article clearer. Finally I removed some sections that had a lack of sources or that seemed subjective. Karl.zylinski (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, typically meaning it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. Personally, I'm not seeing it- the draft is highly technical and does not seem to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say is important/significant/influential about this programming language, what we term notability. Are you associated with this language? 331dot (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Ilghibellinfuggiasco

Hi there. My entry was declined for it says it is not supported by adequate sources. I was helped by other users in developing the page and thought I came to a decent result. From the last rejection I understand that only the sources in the reliable sources list page are taken into consideration? I have put dozens and dozens of sources, all verifiable, mostly Italian well-known magazines, and apparently this is still not enough. It is especially frustrating because I continuously see a lot of pages that have 3 or 4 sources, all outside the "reliable list" and apparently there is no problem with them. Maybe I put too many? I would like some help in understanding how to improve the sourcing. I can add several more, or reduce. Thanks! romeoandjuliet (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilghibellinfuggiasco As odd as it may sound, you actually have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. What are your three (and only three, please) best sources?
Be aware that other articles that you view might also be inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this- that another article exists does not mean that it is problem free. See other stuff exists. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles.
As an aside, you altered your signature to display something very different from your username, this makes it hard for others to link to your username and communicate with you. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I did not know that username and signature would have to be the same. I will revert my signature back to my username then. I'm still learning.
Yes I may have put a lot of sources, surely too many, in an attempt to understand what needs to be sourced and what doesn't. Will reconsider the whole source list and narrow them down to the best ones. romeoandjuliet (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Jrg valdez

Σ Jrg valdez (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but three characters will never be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:12, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Kodakararajeev36


Kodakararajeev36 (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:51, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Rblack1185

What specifically is causing this to be declined for lack of notability? It's a large, privately-held organization that holds numerous, reliable resources to illustrate its notability, including partnerships with other major organizations. This would be a great encyclopedic page that outlines the company's evolving history. There are pages with less notability than this organization, and certainly pages with similar notability. Rblack1185 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rblack1185 Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and just not addressed yet.
You declared a COI, what is the general nature of it?
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your draft did not do that, which is why it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. My COI is that I am employed by the company, but that should have no bearing since I claimed the COI.
As for the reliable sources, there are 9 sources that are reliable in nature. There is nothing claimed in the article that is not backed by a reputable resource. How can we get this reviewed again, or approved in general? Rblack1185 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are NOT reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Insulation2

I tried to look up hide.me VPN on Wikipedia. It seems that someone decided to reject an article about it, despite Wikipedia having pages for several other VPN companies, e.g. Proton VPN, NordVPN, ExpressVPN, and many others. It seems unreasonable to have articles about some VPN companies and not others. I am not connected with hide.me in any way and only found out about it today - I was googling for VPNs that offer full IPv6 support. Insulation2 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every company in a field merits an article, it depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources showing that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you just learned of this company, what motivated you to write about it? My first thought when learning of a company is not to run to Wikipedia and write about it. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you had bothered to read what I wrote before replying to it, you would have understood that I am not in the least "motivated to write about it". I came to Wikipedia to read about it. My search for a VPN provider offering full IPv6 support turned up hide.me, but I wanted to learn more about it before paying anything for their service. It seems that somebody was willing to write an article that might have been useful to me (and presumably to other people) - but some Wikipedia editor (maybe someone who works for a competing VPN provider) blocked it. Insulation2 (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read very carefully what you wrote. Since you are posting on the Articles for Creation Help Desk, which is intended to ask questions about creating and submitting drafts, I (incorrectly, it seems) assumed that you wanted to write about it. Many people say they come here after learning about a company to write about it. Since that's not what you were doing, I apologize. If you're not here to contribute to the draft that I am wondering what exactly your query is. Are you requesting that the rejection be reversed?
Accusing the reviewer that rejected the draft of being associated with(and presumably paid by) a competitor is a serious accusation that requires serious evidence. Do you have that? 331dot (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that this draft was written by a declared paid editor from the company. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Qstor2

want to resubmit page. - question what's wrong with Reference #3? It's not "showing up" correctly for a webpage I think. Qstor2 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qstor2: it was just missing one of the closing double curly brackets of the cite tag. Fixed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 27 November 2023 review of submission by KSienkiewicz

Hi! I have tried to publish a page of a film that I am working on. I am a Polish distributor of the film, and also a Post-production manager and PR manager internationally. I added references but it was still declined and I don't know how else can I make it authentic enough to get past verification. KSienkiewicz (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KSienkiewicz: the first thing you need to do is disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:PAID.
This draft was declined because the sources aren't sufficient to establish notability either per WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by they were not enough. What wil be enough. the film is a real production, it exists. I ahev put numerous references. What else can I do? KSienkiewicz (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So can you tell me how many sources I have to provide? 10 articles/reviews? Or more lik 30+? KSienkiewicz (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KSienkiewicz: it isn't just about the quantity, but also quality; three solid sources is probably enough to establish notability, while 30 weak ones isn't. You need to read and understand WP:GNG and/or WP:NFILM, and demonstrate by either standard that the film in question is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure - nobody is paying me, it's my film, I am not getting aything for preparing the page. KSienkiewicz (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KSienkiewicz: paid editing is a much broader issue than simply whether someone is paying you to edit this article. Per WP:PAY, "An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder." Based on what you say, you certainly seem to come within the scope of this policy. My advice is to make the necessary disclosure without further delay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:27, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Rahmanibnusaid

I'm sure my article was correct. Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be correct, but he is not notable, which is why the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by 195.252.198.127

This information here is a collection of information that enthusiasts have painfully gathered over the years. There are hundreds, probably thousands of hours in collecting all of this info. Toyota does not publish this info, there is no authoritative source on this information but that makes this information even more important because there is no alternative source for it even if you pay Toyota for their technician subscription service.

I do donate to wikipedia and this is a big part of why i use it. Please don't delete this amazing source of information. 195.252.198.127 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor, I thank you for donating, but that has no impact on the consideration of articles. Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation and go towards running the computers Wikipedia is on, as well as other Foundation activities. We don't get the money.
Wikipedia is not a mere database of information- it summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You have just compiled technical information, you have not summarized any reliable sources as to why this transmission is notable. I would suggest finding an alternative forum to host this information, such as a personal website. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:40, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Redstar0005

Can you please review this page and tell me what I should work on before I submit it again? Thanks! Redstar0005 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the advice left by reviewers pretty much covers it. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:51, 27 November 2023 review of submission by CreatorNotConsumer

Can you explain why this article got rejected? Why don’t sources 5, 6, 17, and 18 count as notable? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. So why did it get declined? How do the sources I listed fail WP:CORP? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CreatorNotConsumer have you read WP:NCORP? The sources I checked (NYT, Financial Times, etc.) are mostly what those affiliated say or are not in-depth. Others are likewise not independent and/or not reliable (sources like CoinDesk, forums, have no editorial oversight, etc.) with some making no mention of Manifold so not useful. S0091 (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’ve read it carefully and checked the four sources I listed against the each of the guidelines. I have trouble understanding how the NYT and FT articles don’t qualify as significant coverage, given the amount of reporting and analysis each devote to Manifold in those sources. CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are Bloomberg and TDN not reliable or independent? They each have editorial oversight and significantly cover Manifold in their articles. I’d be so grateful if you could explain to me what it is that I’m missing. CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read 6 as it is paywalled(which is fine, I just can't see it). 5 seems to talk about prediction markets as a broad concept and discussed this particular one very little. The other two sources don't seem to have significant coverage about why this particular prediction market is important/significant/influential- why it is notable. I've seen this described as a "startup"- startups almost never merit articles. A company must be established and recognized in its field before sources start giving it the needed coverage. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you’ll read the full NYT article (5), you’ll see that the majority of the text is about Manifold, especially about the reporter’s experience at the Manifold conference. What makes you call that “very little”? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say earlier—-thanks so much for your help! A few more things: In what way is the Bloomberg newsletter not describing Manifold as notable? It explains that Manifold is a site from which you can gauge the opinion of engaged people with “skin in the game,” and includes a screenshot of the site and uses it as an indicator of popular sentiment about what will happen in the future. By explaining its usefulness, doesn’t that mean the article shows that the site is notable? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The TDN article states that they will be creating Manifold markets for each of their story posts going forward, so that readers can bet on what will happen in the future of the story covered. Is it notable that they are using Manifold as a tool to get the general opinion of their users? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:26, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Coding.wiki

I have all my sources. Why am I not able to have this published? Coding.wiki (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coding.wiki, your draft contains numerous promotional phrases and sentences, which violate the Neutral pint of view, which is a mandatory core content policy. One of many examples is the final sentence:
In his spare time, Alucozai immerses himself in the beauty of California's hiking trails and steadily pursues his dream of traveling to every country in the world. That promotionsl, non-neutral sentence is unreferenced, which violates another core content policy, which is Verifiability.
Promotional writing and editing of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you so much! Anything else to change? 73.103.74.220 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you so much! Anything else to change? Coding.wiki (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Coding.wiki it needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral manner using reliable sources. Most of the content is unsourced or WP:CITEBOMBed with unreliable sources or extremely poor sources (LinkedIn, The Exponent, Salam Neighborissignal.nfx.com are not reliable sources so should not be used). There is nothing that currently suggests Alucozai can meet the notability guidelines. S0091 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

00:33, 28 November 2023 review of submission by W. Russell Smith

I am very new to creating pages and want to make sure everything is done correctly and by the book. I created a draft from a document I wrote in Word and then cut and pasted it into wiki. I am not sure how to use citations. It is all so new that it seems impossible! Please help. W. Russell Smith (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W. Russell Smith, although it may seem impossible, it is not, as can be seen by the fact that this encyclopedia currently has 6,751,562 articles, all of which were written by someone at first. I recommend against drafting articles in Word or anywhere else because that prioritizes the prose. The backbone of a Wikipedia article are the references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. The prose simply summarizes that coverage, nothing more and nothing less. Instead, articles should be created in draft space or personal sandboxes, so that they can be developed in the Wikipedia environment, reflecting Wikipedia's specific Policies and guidelines. As for citations, Referencing for beginners explains things. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
W. Russell Smith As Cullen328 indicated, The *structure* of the proposed article isn't that bad, *BUT* the Problem is that County Commissioners in general aren't Notable enough for them to have a Wikipedia page about them. See WP:NPOL for the policy on notability of Politicians.Naraht (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:10, 28 November 2023 review of submission by BootNet

He is a famous Indian Islamic scholar, he should have a Wikipedia article. BootNet (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BootNet, the Neutral point of view is a core content policy that forbids promotional editing of any kind on Wikipedia. You wrote:
Javed Haider Zaidi passionately advocates for Muslim unity, emphasizing the importance of setting aside differences to thwart imperialist agendas. He actively promotes unity and brotherhood between Sunni and Shiite Muslims., referenced to the person's own website.
Non-neutral, promotional writing like this is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 28 November 2023 review of submission by AbhissszZ

Why this article was rejected ? AbhissszZ (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AbhissszZ, your deleted draft biography of a living person was entirely unreferenced and was therefore a policy violation. See Verifiability. In addition, your draft contained highly promotional language such as this:
In addition to his thriving professional career in IT, Abhishek Kumar Singh possesses a diverse set of skills that reflect his artistic personality. Beyond the realm of technology, he is an accomplished painter and a skilled flutist, showcasing his creativity and passion for the arts. This unique combination of technical expertise and artistic talents highlights Abhishek's well-rounded and multifaceted personality also a disciple of Shiva.
Promotion of any kind is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Hypermole115

Hi there! My name is Adriel and I was wondering if I could get help on my article. I see that my article does not meet the criteria for publishing in the music category as well I need more sources to establish notability. Could I please get some help as I am confused about how my article is not ready to be published. Thank you! Hypermole115 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown how the band meets the definition of a notable band, nor have you summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band(which usually includes professional reviews of their work). 331dot (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Vikamsinghsurya

Vikram Singh Surya Vikamsinghsurya (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vikamsinghsurya You don't ask a question, but your draft(which I fixed the link to) was deleted as blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Budoislife

I have tried to submit an article about a significant person in the AIkido world. If I understand the process correctly, it was not accepted due to lack of sourcing. I believe I have exhausted most available sources both on and off line. I wonder if there is something I am missing. Thank you in advance for any help. Budoislife (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Budoislife if you have exhausted all available sources, then he is not notable (by standards on Wikipedia). You can promote Takeshi Kimeda via another outlet, for example social media. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 28 November 2023 review of submission by OffekM

Dear Wikipedia Helpdesk, I am writing about the repeated rejection of my draft article about Professor Ido Kanter, who is a leading physicist in several research areas and whose work is documented in more than 200 publications in leading scientific journals and some are cited hundreds of times in leading scientific journals. After my first rejection I was approached via email by someone who introduced herself as an experienced Wikipedia editor. She offered to edit the article and make sure that it is accepted, for a fee of 380 USD. Having read the scam warning page on Wikipedia, I refused the offer. After addressing the remarks left by the reviewer myself, I submitted the article again and it was rejected again. Since then, I have been rejected several times for various reasons, the remarks given were very vague and rarely addressed particular issues in the article itself. Let me mention three such reasons. (A) “the research does not demonstrate significant notability about them”, papers were published in leading scientific journals including Nature Photonics and Physical Review Letters. (B) “should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources”, “Every single reference except the scienmag.com one is a primary source”. I examined tens of Wikipedia pages of equivalent scientists and almost all contain only their own publications. Nevertheless, following this type of requests I have added mentioning of Kanter’s work in Newsweeks, Sciencemag etc, and when it was rejected again and asked for more such external citations, I added many more. (C) After all these additions the last rejection arrived “for references to show notability. At the moment appears to be a bit of a CV.”. This is a completely new issue which was not previously raised, and is general and does not direct a specific change. In addition, I do not understand what makes this article look like a CV. Every time I addressed the remarks of the reviewer – new remarks were raised. These remarks were unrelated to the previous issues raised about the article. It really looks as though someone is trying to prevent the article from being accepted – presenting new issues that had not been considered problematic previously so as to reject the article again and again. I have a very strong suspicion that this behavior is the result of my rejecting the offer for paid editing services. I hope this issue can be resolved promptly and I wish to receive clear remarks on all outstanding issues such that I can address them properly and have the draft article accepted. Thank you in advance, Yours Sincerely, Offek Marelly OffekM (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OffekM Good that you avoided being scammed. If you still have the email, could you follow the instructions at WP:SCAM to forward it to the email address indicated at the top of that page?
Note that there is a difference between "rejected" and "declined". Your draft was declined, meaning it may be resubmitted. Rejected would mean it could not be resubmitted. That your draft is being declined almost certainly has little to do with you turning down a demand for payment. The scammers who tried to scam you usually impersonate legitimate Wikipedia editors to give themselves legitimacy and(if they fail) get those legitimate editors in trouble.
Be advised that using other articles that themselves may be problematic is not a good idea, as you would be unaware of these problems. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles.
The main issue seems to be that you are describing his research when instead you should be describing how he is notable. If his research makes him notable, that is not being made clear in the article. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers tend to raise only a few issues at a time to overload editors. There are a ridiculous amount of policies and guidelines (see WP:POLICYLIST) and it is hard to learn all of them. Given the number of declines, it is likely you are not notable. Try to demonstrate that you meet either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for academics.
If your only purpose to edit Wikipedia is to promote yourself, then you will probably be blocked as you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to actually contribute, start small. You can begin with 'easy' edits at your homepage.
There are many other ways to promote yourself, such as social media. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sungodtemple, you are replying in terms suggesting that OffekM is the same person as Ido Kanter. DO you have a reason for thinking this? ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to elaborate on Sungodtemple's point, the script used in reviewing drafts only allows 1-2 decline reasons to be chosen at a time. Reviewers are free to choose any reason(s) they wish; they do not have to 'follow suit' with what the previous reviewer may have chosen. So if a draft has, say, half a dozen plausible grounds for declining, it may indeed be declined multiple times for different reason(s), and this does not mean that the reviewers are 'moving the goalposts'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:41, 28 November 2023 review of submission by OhCanuck

How is this subject not notable enough? He is a Welsh international footballer with dozens of international games. Has played for two of the major clubs in england. I am new to this but there is much much less notable players on this site. User:Zoglophie? can you please explain? OhCanuck (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The sources you used are insufficient to establish notability. zoglophie•talk• 14:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the rules you mentioned and i find nothing that requires original research. The sources show him siging a professional contract and multiple news sources. Hes also on the roster page for Leicester city! I dont know what more you could possibly need please tell me. OhCanuck (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources that give him significant coverage, not that merely describe his activities. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is an example of these sources? You are not being helpful at all right now. I have multiple news sources, club sources, independent source. Do you need a front page espn article? You are both being very difficult with this and are providing no explanations. OhCanuck (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are probably frustrated, but we really are trying to help you. Your four sources are
  1. his team website, which is not an independent source
  2. a profile from what seems to be a marketing or representation agency, which also is likely not independent
  3. a basic profile, not signficant coverage
  4. a single paragraph about him, not significant coverage
None of these sources establish notability. I see that upon creating your account you immediately dived right in to creating this draft article- which is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that new users first gain experience and knowledge by first editing existing articles, to learn about how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Users like you who dive right in to creating articles usually end up frustrated as you are, because they do not understand what is happening to their draft. If you haven't already read Your First Article, I would suggest that you do. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this 331 it was all i was asking for. I wanted to go right into creating pages for my favourite footballers who didn't already have pages. I have an understanding of wikipedia but i did not think this wouldn't meet the requirements.Thank you for your help 331.
Last Question: Why was my page automatically rejected rather than declined? I put alot of work into this and now i cant even edit and resubmit. OhCanuck (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he ever meets guidelines in future, someone will automatically create an article about him. zoglophie•talk• 15:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How? Thats what i was trying to do today? OhCanuck (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORTS before trying to submit a draft for review. It doesn't matter if he was your "Favourite" or not, we don't accept pages if they fail to meet these guidelines. Your best course of action is to wait until he is notable enough. zoglophie•talk• 15:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I have questions about my sources not because he was my "favorite". You have been nothing but difficult with me this whole time zoglophie and i dont understand why.
I will be filing a complaint to the administrators about your conduct and lack of professionalism. 331 has been fantastic and explained things in detail while you resort to side eyed remarks. Please reconsider how you talk to people on this platform. OhCanuck (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also still haven't answered my question of "How?" an article will be auto generated. OhCanuck (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Auto generated" only means that when it is obvious that he meets the criteria and there is sufficient coverage of him, someone like you will eventually write about him.
I'm an administrator, and I see no issues with how zoglophie addressed you. We try to be direct here, which can sometimes come off as blunt. Also, we try to start with broad information and work our way up to details, not start with details as we are volunteers and are first trying to steer you to find the information yourself. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you 331 but i cannot hide my disappointment. Just for the future, this is not how you get new people excited about becoming editors. I am very very saddened OhCanuck (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest that you start smaller. Many tens of thousands of editors are highly successful and impactful without creating a single article. We have millions of articles, many of which are in poor condition and need help. Many of these are probably about athletes. If you start smaller, making edits to existing articles, you can build on that for the future. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted d(⌒ー⌒) OhCanuck (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OhCanuck I recommend Special:Homepage - you can filter to articles that need copyediting or the like, and also by subject, in your example sports. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OhCanuck, I'm afraid you are in the position (like hundreds of others) of somebody who buys a musical instrument, and immediately takes it out busking. It's a laudable goal, but it takes practice to get there, and trying it before you're ready is likely to get uncomfortable feedback which may not be readily comprehensible.
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. This means that nothing originating from the player or his club or associates can contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Htet Yadanar Lwin

Can you give me a specific reason why my article cannot be published? And I also have one question which is 'Can we publish the article with the same topic which was already on wikipedia but with different information?'. 

Htet Yadanar Lwin (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Htet Yadanar Lwin: Wikipedia can't have two articles on the same topic. Please edit the existing Mala xiang guo article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Robin Safar

Hi team wikipedia! I've been attempting to set up a wikipedia page on regards to the professional boxer Robin Safar. I've never done this before, and I keep getting my submission rejected. I'm not quite sure what I've done wrong but I have on multiple occasions tried to make the text more neutral in it's tone, I've included more sources and yet it keeps getting rejected.

I would appreciate any help I can get as i'd like to get this thing up and running.

Sincerely Robin Safar (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, currently meaning that it will not ever be accepted. If you object to that, your best bet is to contact the person who rejected it, but don't hold your breath over it. Mach61 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Autistic Hyperfixation

I may be incorrect in my assumption that I submitted this translated article correctly, however (to my knowledge) in translating an article from Russian (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampo_L-41) that was poorly sourced into English (My draft), my translation was not deem adequate by reviewer Theroadislong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theroadislong).

How do I proceed from here? Autistic Hyperfixation (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic Hyperfixation you may have assumed that because there is an article on the Russian Wikipedia the topic automatically qualifies for an article on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately this is not true, as different language Wikipedias are entirely separate projects and have their own standards. So you have to show that the article meets notability guidelines. See that page for details. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see! Thank you for the information! I'll try to find sources to back up my article then, have a great day! Autistic Hyperfixation (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Mahir bin Raees

Hell me what is a problem to create my page ? Mahir bin Raees (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 29

01:14, 29 November 2023 review of submission by HodgeBrad

This was rejected by the script, but I think that the sources cited are verifiable enough. I have the New York Times, the Washington Post, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter as well as others listed as sources, and he is notable enough to have a page. Please reconsider. Thank you! HodgeBrad (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluate each of your sources against the WP:Golden rule. Only those that pass it are capable of contributing to establishing notability. I can see straight away that several of your sources don't (eg 1,3,4,5,10,11). ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:32, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Greshthegreat

My draft was declined back on November 1, 2023 because, as user KylieTastic who reviewed it said, the "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..."

Piper Rubio is definitely noteable though, yet I am having a hard time finding any articles to cite that primarily are about her, that make more than a passing mention of her.

She currently has 128k followers on her instagram account (which is run by one of her parents), and when I searched for Piper Rubio on TikTok, all the videos that come up collectively have 98.3 million views, several which themselves have over 1 million views. She also starred in her first major movie this year, Five Night's at Freddy's. That all in my opinion, among a few other things, shows that she is definitely very notable and popular.

Could I get some help finding some articles primarily or exclusively about Piper Rubio too cite? Thanks in advance to anyone who replies. Greshthegreat (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of followers has zero affect on notability here, what we need are independnent sources that discuss her in-depth, Instagram is not a reliable source either. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am very aware of that. That is why I am asking for some help getting independent sources that talk about Piper Rubio beyond a passing mention.
I only mentioned her Instagram followers, how lots of videos featuring her on TikTok have gotten many millions of views and that she was in a major movie, Five Night's at Freddys to point out that she is noteable. Also with all that in mind, surely there are some sources that discuss her at length. I am just having a hard time finding those sources. It is also possible somehow no such sources exist yet, which would be suprising given that she is somewhat famous. Greshthegreat (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rubio may indeed be notable in the usual sense of the word, but unless you can find suitable sources, she is by definition not notable in the way that Wikipedia uses the word.
I don't think you're likely to get much help in finding sources from people on this page: you're the one who wants to write an article on her, so you're the one with the motive to look for sources. (I may be wrong, of course: somebody may choose to look. I'm not interested in doing so myself). It's possible that if you ask on WT:FILMBIO somebody may be interested. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:38, 29 November 2023 review of submission by 49.181.236.195

I was trying to make a wiki page for my father showcasing his accomplishments and achieving such a high rank in the military can you please advise the information needed to validate and have the page upload. 49.181.236.195 (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not recommended to write an article about your father, as that would be a conflict of interest and it will be hard to stay neutral. Practically only thing that matters for accept or decline is whether he is notable. Read that guideline for details. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 29 November 2023 review of submission by NAMAN.GAUBA007

for editing what all things need to be change in this draft NAMAN.GAUBA007 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you need to do is to turn your floating list of sources into inline references, so that it is apparent where every single piece of information in the article is sourced to.
When you have done that, you can resubmit it, and it will be practical for a reviewer to look at it and see whether or not he seems to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. But it will be helpful if you look critically at your sources to check that before you resubmit. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Good parents

Why this article has declined? Good parents (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good parents I fixed the link to your draft(it lacked the "Draft:") but it was a copyright violation. A Wikipedia article should not just be copied from elsewhere, it should summarize independent sources. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 29 November 2023 review of submission by 116.212.108.22

why it is restricted ?? 116.212.108.22 (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for rejection was given. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the rejection notice in the draft. Removing it was disruptive editing.
Please read WP:YFA. The very first step in creating a Wikipedia article is to find several reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. From that you will know whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The "sources" you list are worthless: the first one is merely a name: I don't even know what it is, never mind where to find it. The second is clearly not independent, and so is worthless for establishing notability.
The fact that the draft has been rejected suggests that the reviewer Zoglophie has looked for, and failed to find, suitable sources, and has therefore concluded that there is no point on you or anybody else spending any time on this.
If you are sure that you have several suitable sources, you can take it up with the reviewer on their user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for accepting non-notable autobiographies constitute highest portion of total Afc. This was just another example of it. zoglophie•talk• 17:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Semigall

Hello. I don't understand why article about architect and urban planner Arnold Baron von Maydell is declined and considered not enough significant? There are several articles about similiar latvian architects which are published despite their short length and poor quality. Semigall (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semigall a common misconception is that since other crappy articles exist, my crappy article is acceptable. Practically the only thing that matters is notability, or whether enough reliable sources have significant coverage about von Maydell. Try to find other high-quality sources about him. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semigall If you would like to help us reduce the number of inappropriate articles, you may work with us to idenfity these other inappropriate articles for possible action. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 29 November 2023 review of submission by 87.1.48.40

I ask for the page to be unblocked Draft:Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for block evasion. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Lummoxxxx

How I can improve my work on this article Lummoxxxx (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Metalbro

I would like some help with the citation side of this page Metalbro (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect do you need help with? 331dot (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Lilly0010

Why has my article been declined Lilly0010 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilly0010 because it is not an encyclopedic article but an essay or as you put it a report. Social media or a blog are the types of place for you to write about such things. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Secretsauce99

Hey, I thought this article would be deemed notable given that it pertains to an existing Wikipedia page Pitchblack Playback and is about the founder of this event? I'm sure in the past this would have qualified someone for their own page? An event is notable but the person who created it is not? I don't quite understand the logic, even if I understand that the editor who has rejected this may not deem the person notable solely based on the citations added to the new article..

Thanks Secretsauce99 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the founder of something notable is not necessarily notable themselves, see WP:NOTINHERITED. It would depend on coverage in independent reliable sources being about them personally and not just what they did- and they would probably need to be notable for something in addition to creating a particular event in order to merit a standalone article. Most of the sources you provide discuss the importance of the event, not its creator. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Sidharthsnair

I have updated my page with more references and i need advice to make it to the approval team. Sidharthsnair (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, which typically means that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you must first appeal to the last reviewer(the one who rejected the draft).
As you are associated with this topic, that must be formally disclosed, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at the draft it appears that the sources provided are wholly inappropriate for establishing notability as Wikipedia defines a notable film. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Javert13

I'd love getting some help optimizing the page I'm trying to create so that it is eligible for publishing. My overall goal is to publish pages for more noteable parishes within the American Byzantine Catholic Church, and if I get good at that, figure out what else to grow next. Some of them already have wikipedia pages, and I'm attempting to add more in the same style as the previously published verisons. As far as I could tell, I used multiple sources to validate all of the information, and didn't just copy or paste from any one source (it was actually interesting to see a complete story synthesize from across the different sources).

Any advise as to how I could modify the page to be eligible, and what I could learn for future pages to avoid this?

Thank you!!! I use wikipedia enough, figured it was time to help it grow. Javert13 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources have brief coverage, or are not independent of the parish. An article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you. I think I was more focusing on sources that verified or illustrated facts, and not so much looking at the breadth or quality of the actual sources. The quality of the sources seems kind of fuzzy, is there a helpful rule of thumb I could use when looking?
Is using the parish as a source useful at all, or does it draw a red flag right away? I find it useful as a starting point to then go and verify with independent sources elsewhere, but is that not a good approach?
Thank you for the quick feedback, super helpful already. Javert13 (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may read reliable sources to learn more about what is considered a reliable source, but in short, a source is considered reliable if it has a reputation of fact checking, editorial control, and basic journalistic or academic standards of process- they don't just publish anything they like without checking for accuracy, like a blog or self-published book.
The parish itself as a primary source, can be used as a source for certain things, but not to establish notability or claims beyond basic information like location, number of members, staff, etc. The history of the parish in general would need an independent source. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, incredibly helpful. Thank you! Javert13 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Bperu

Just wanted to get an update on my last submission of this article about 2 months ago.

I've made all the edits suggested by everyone who has reviewed it so far, and am curious to know if it now has all the elements necessary for it to be published.

Thanks! Bperu (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually do pre-review reviews- but the external links in the body of your draft need to be removed. Please see Referencing for beginners if you intend them as references- but your own newspaper can't be used as a reference to establish the notability of your newspaper. It's a primary source. An article needs to primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the paper.
References need to be in line, not just gathered at the bottom, so we know which references cite what information. Again, please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to make a formal conflict of interest disclosure, or if you work for the paper, a paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Klevis Elmazaj

Dear Team at Wikipedia, I received your latest refusal because of 'Autobiography on promotional tone'.

I believe if you compare this page to others of similar artists who are listed on wikipedia, it follows the same guidelines and content. This is not intended for promotional purposes, but mostly for informative purposes, where people can read and know more about the person or artist they encountered. It can be easy to say for every page that it has a promotional tone, unless of course someone else writes for them which can also be an agent, doing it for promotional tone.

Could you help me understand and guide through what I would need to do in order to have this page accepted?

Thank you for you understanding,

Warm regards, Klevis Klevis Elmazaj (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF - Do not try to use the existence of other articles to argue the validity of yours. It's also not cited properly, you need in-line citations, not all of them gathered at the bottom, please read WP:REFB - RichT|C|E-Mail 20:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 29 November 2023 review of submission by VictoireIsdor

Can you help me to not be rejected VictoireIsdor (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no; you do not meet our definition of a notable musician, and your draft is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:21, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Iulia pantea

Hello,

Can you please advise me about the modifications I must make to the Wikipedia page for Daniel Epure in order for it to be approved?

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Kind regards, 

Iulia pantea (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Iulia pantea: thanks for reaching out. Did you see the note on the draft? Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject.
~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 30

01:03, 30 November 2023 review of submission by 62.4.56.214

How to edit page to be published on Wikipedia 62.4.56.214 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link to your draft. Publishing will not be possible, it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:10, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Yilmaz1001

I'm not sure how I can improve my sourcing. I've cited academic textbooks used to teach the concept in college courses, and the only additional things to cite that I can find online cite the same sources I'm citing or have nothing new to contribute to the article, which I don't feel adds a lot. Yilmaz1001 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yilmaz1001, I ask this out of complete ignorance: is this closely enough related to Income–consumption curve that it can be covered there? For some reason this article is coming up when I google search for "Price-consumption curve". -- asilvering (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The income consumption curve describes the set of optimal bundles as income grows, without any change to prices. The price consumption curve describes how the set of optimal bundles changes as the price of one good changes. It is the sum total of the Substitution effect and the income effect. If this topic were to be covered in a different article, it would best be done so either in the Slutsky equation (which is basically the mathematical equivalent of this graphical phenomenon, it also describes the sum total of the substitution and income effects) article or the general Consumer choice article. After reading the consumer choice article (and correcting a typo therein), the "Effect of a price change" section does not explicitly mention the price-consumption curve, but it does include a graphic that derives a demand curve from a few consumer bundles in exactly the same way that one would derive a demand curve from a price-consumption curve (compare to the graphicincluded in the Spanish Wikipedia article that I wrote on the topic) (which, again, is the set of consumer bundles for many different prices of one of the goods). Perhaps some minor changes could be made there, or perhaps this article could be linked to from that section in order to provide more information. Yilmaz1001 (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yilmaz1001 ok, I'm going to go ahead and accept this article in that case - aside from the confusing result I asked you about, a google search for the topic makes it very clear that this topic is covered by dozens if not hundreds of sources, and I do not believe that an article on the topic could possibly be deleted for lack of notability. That's the bar we're trying to clear here at AfC. Because it's such a short article, you may find that other editors will want to move the content somewhere else, but any discussion like that can be handled in mainspace. It would be very helpful if you could make some links from various related articles to this one. Thanks for writing the article! -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:05, 30 November 2023 review of submission by LinnLaughLove

Hi there! I'm trying to publish a page about a Cancer Awareness Month that my organization is developing. I'm confused as to why the page has been denied publication twice, so I was hoping you could help me with it. Thank you! LinnLaughLove (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LinnLaughLove, if your org is only now developing this event, there is no chance whatsoever that it is appropriate for it to have a wikipedia article. Please see WP:N. -- asilvering (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that what you are doing is trying to use Wikipedia for promotion (which in Wikipedia terms applies to charities and non-profits as well as to commercial enterprises). Promotion is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:43, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Ahmed12322

Tell me my mistake bcz i am new here and i will try to edit with your terms and policy thanks Ahmed12322 (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed12322, your draft is entirely unreferenced, which violates the core content policy Verifiability. It is also written in the style of a personal essay instead of an encyclopedia article. There are many websites that would accept your opinions. Wikipedia is not among them. Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ahmed12322. Like most of the people posting on this page, you have started your Wikipedia journey by plunging straight into the most challenging task there is. This is like buying a musical instrument you've never played, and immediately giving a public concert.
I always advise new editors to spend several weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works by improving some of our six million articles before they try this: see the community portal for some suggested tasks. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft also has aspects of a How to guide, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. We neutrally describe topics. We do not instruct our readers how to do various things. Cullen328 (talk)

07:41, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Nuresiya

Karena saya membutuhkannya untuk tugas akhir kuliah Nuresiya (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuresiya: as already pointed out, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept content, and communicate, in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Owen Hwo

Can you provide me with a Wikipedia officially recognized format and organizational specifications? Owen Hwo (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Owen Hwo: I assume you refer to the comments in your declined draft  Courtesy link: Draft:Costway? The formatting, organisation, etc. guidelines are provided in the Manual of style.
While you're here: what is your relationship to this organisation? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 30 November 2023 review of submission by 117.235.202.61

this ia an organisation i am work here why it's page reject. 117.235.202.61 (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. If you work for the organization, you are required by the Terms of Use to declare that, see WP:PAID.
The draft was rejected and will not be considered further because it does nothing other than describe the existence of the company. Wikipedia articles do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:11, 30 November 2023 review of submission by RedTSports

My draft got declined yesterday and this was the feedback:

All other considerations apart this needs a careful look. It is meant to be a generic article abut the awards, so why is there a 2024 intro about that venue? Please work on what you want to wrote about before resubmitting. Once you do that we can give it a competent review

I'm not clear on what this is referring to? Do i simply need to remove mentions of 2024 awards as it's not taken place yet? I would really like this to be approved so please let me know what specifically i can do RedTSports (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you writing about the awards in general (like Nobel Peace Prize) or specifically about the 2024 awarding of the awards?(like 2023 Nobel Peace Prize)? Either way, you will need independent reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the ISU or the IOC/Olympics to summarize. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Broccolirun

I'm currently editing the artist's wiki page. but the feedback so far is that it's missing the references from magazines/books. but this artist is missing this published, and it's not searchable on the web, so can I add more information about his exhibition histories to solve this problem? Broccolirun (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be online, but they do have to have been reliably published. Exhibition catalogues may assist for factual information like dates (see primary sources) but they will not contribute to notability.
The non-negotiable bottom line is that to make an article on Liu you need to find several places where people who have no connection whatever with him, and have not been prompted by him or his associates, have chosen to write about him (not just his exhibitions) in some depth, and been published somewhere reliable. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 30 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieW123

Hi! What type of sources do I need to use for this article for them to be considered reliable? NatalieW123 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NatalieW123: TBH, the two sources seem quite reliable; I think the issue may be rather that the citations aren't quite enough to support the contents. But the bigger problem (IMO) is that with both sources being close primary ones, they don't contribute to notability per WP:GNG, which requires independent secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieW123 please see WP:RS. I'm not sure why you were given that decline message, since you don't have unreliable sources. What you do need to show is notability. See WP:NPROF or WP:GNG for criteria. -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Osiris1634

How would me being on wikipedia hurt anybody? I mean come on Osiris1634 (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Osiris1634: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform, and not a place to tell the world about yourself. This draft has been rejected; please leave it at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:27, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Snofel

Hey, I was wondering if you could help me write an bio for this artist. I really like his music and I think he should finally recive a wkipedia page. Snofel (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles, not pages. This isn't the place to request co-authors for an article- you could try the musician WikiProject. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to have independent reliable sources that show this musician meets the special definition of a notable musician. Your draft was entirely promotional and poorly sourced, and was deleted. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


December 1

00:23, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 144.74.136.34

i reviewed a number of brief biographies to model this one. I'm not sure what references are missing. I removed anything that could sound like an opinion and limited this to verifiable facts and many references to peer-reviewed journals. The one thing more i could do would be to include website references such as to NIH reporter for grants or the Rush website for employment. But others have not done so. thanks 

144.74.136.34 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what others have or haven't done; what matters is whether this draft complies with core policies and guidelines, and is therefore acceptable in its own right.
The decline was done, correctly, on the basis of insufficient citations to support the contents: in articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. This draft has entire paragraphs without a single citation, and further ones with only one or two cites.
The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, but it is almost certainly going to be declined again, unless you improve on the referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you are User:Bennett DA, please remember to log into your account when editing.
PPS: If you are the subject of this draft, please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:32, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 116.73.99.123

please accept my wikipedia 116.73.99.123 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted a blank page two times. Ca talk to me! 04:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:33, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 116.73.99.123

This is big function and big group 116.73.99.123 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start multiple threads on the same topic, if you have further questions (which this isn't) just add them to the earlier thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer

Hello,

I am trying to publish ACE Money Transfer's Wikipedia article, but the article has been declined multiple times due to resources. I have updated the resources as per the provided guidelines, where no promotional or commercial resource is used.

Additionally, it's important to highlight that ACE Money Transfer is a remittance company offering digital money transfer solutions to expats worldwide. So, its resources are found only on relevant financial and fintech websites.

Please advise why our article is being declined everytime only due to the resources. We need to get our company's article published on Wikipedia ASAP.

Looking forward to your spontaneous response!

Regards! Aftab Ashraf ACE Money Transfer Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer Wikipedia has zero interest in the needs of your company or in aiding efforts by your company to tell the world about its offerings.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is we do here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, it is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely describing the offerings of the company or its activities, and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself. None of the sources you provide seem to be the significant coverage required. I think that you are too close to your company to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires. Please read WP:BOSS and have your superiors at your company read it too.
The awards/recognition you mention is absolutely meaningless in terms of notability, especially being from niche publications. Only awards that themselves have articles contribute to notability(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am positively seeking your help and guidance to understand and proceed the way Wikipedia requires. Please check the following, which have even far more promotional and commercial resources than ours:
Remitly
Wise (company)
Ria Money Transfer
MoneyGram
These are just a few examples. If they all qualify, why can't we? Please help and guide us through the process. Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read other stuff exists- that other articles exist does not mean that they meet requirements. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inapprpriate content to get by us, this does not mean more inappropriate content can be added. We can only address the inappropriate content we are made aware of. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. This is not a database of companies where mere existence warrants inclusion. We have criteria(WP:ORG). The vast majority of companies do not merit articles; many articles that exist likely should not. Again, please read WP:BOSS and have your superiors read it. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are the three (and only three, please) absolute best independent sources that provide significant coverage of your company? 331dot (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Drnoble

Hi, my submission about the proposed Morlais tidal power project was rejected with a possibly TOOSOON stating there was no independent coverage. I have updated the article a bit, referencing BBC News and an Observer article, plus I had already listed other industry new sources. I don't think it is too soon to have a page on this, as the project has been in development for a decade and construction ongoing for over a year. Plus contracts were awarded for electricity generation at the site in the last 2 annual UK auctions, as I have listed. I would appreciate any guidance on what else, or how much more, should be added to the page to make it suitable for publishing on Wikipedia. Thanks, Donald 

Drnoble (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drnoble: TOOSOON usually just means that there don't appear to be enough independent and reliable secondary sources to base an article on, something that can be expected to be resolved with the passage of time. If you can cite sufficient sources meeting WP:GNG already now, then that will negate the TOOSOON argument. (There is also a related point, that Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTALBALL, but that boils down mainly to how likely this development is to go ahead.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing. Construction of the project has started, so I don't think it is too much crystal ball gazing, but will bear that in mind for other potential projects. I will try and add some more to the article and resubmit. Drnoble (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Abm1994

I tried to edit it and include references with wikidata . Abm1994 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abm1994: okay, but that's not a question – do you have one in mind you would like to ask?
In any case, this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. If you have new evidence of notability which wasn't considered previously, you should make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW it was rejected two years ago. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, good spot! I thought it was three months ago, but you're right, it was two years and three months. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 1 December 2023 review of submission by SPAAAAACE

My submission was recently declined because its sources did not show significant coverage, and I was wondering if it was necessary to find more sources that entirely focus on Virtual Radar Server. I've been able to find many sources that mention VRS as being used for the given task, but there are very few third-party ones that solely focus on it. Would it be enough for me to show that VRS is technically significant because it's pretty much the only FOSS real-time ADS-B plotter?

Thanks, SPA5CE🕴 ./talk 14:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SPAAAAACE: unfortunately "technical significance" and attributes of that ilk are not notability criteria in what comes to inclusion in Wikipedia; you will need to be able to cite independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject (which doesn't mean that they must focus solely on it, but they do need to cover it more extensively than merely mentioning it in passing). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Okay. Thanks for your help. There aren't any other good sources, so I guess VRS isn't really notable. I found a couple of scientific articles that say they used Virtual Radar, but it's, again, only in passing. SPA5CE🕴 ./talk 19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:58, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 172.110.60.34

What can I fix about my article to get it approved? 172.110.60.34 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should summarise what reliable published sources have said about a subject, and then each of those sources should be cited against the information it has provided. This draft cites a single source, only twice, which is nowhere near enough to establish the subject's notability or even to verify the contents.
If I'm honest, there also doesn't seem to be anything in there that would make this person noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. Wikipedia doesn't merely catalogue people or things because they exist; there must be some reason that justifies their inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Clamar4409

I want to delete what is in my sandbox to try again but when I tried it gave me a response as though I had been acting like a bot. Please, someone give me a good link on doing so. I keep looking for any synonym of "Delete" and am finding nothing in the editor area. When I tried just deleting the text and saving it clean, I get the warning that I am now being limited. Need help. Please Clamar4409 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clamar4409 Do you want to just clear your sandbox to write something else, or do you want your sandbox removed? To do the former, you need only to remove what is there currently in an edit. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. That is what I tried and got the response saying that I had been limited Will try again.
I am determined to finally figure out Wikipedia submission, but still sucking here Clamar4409 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. It worked this time. Thank you Clamar4409 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Would you please review the sandbox now? I want to know if this is an acceptable submission. It's simple and not meaty, but has all the details.
I'm trying to start smaller since my original attempts were too grandiose. Clamar4409 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the submission information, I'm not presently able to look at it. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Sylvan1971

Hello - I have been working on this article for 18 months, each draft an attempt to address editors' comments. Most recently, after many drafts and improved citations, editor User:S0091 acknowledged notability on my talk page and asked that I remove unverifiable information, which I think I have now done. How do I re-submit for consideration? Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:52, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Seekrait

I have been trying to write an article by James Wolcott of Maumee, Ohio. Apparently, I made a second page. How do I publish the right one that I want to publish. Seekrait (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Aceomrelliug

A good chunk of the costume photos are taken by me or someone that I know, how would I cite them in that case? I also wonder what other parts of the article draft need to be referenced. Current references cover a big chunk of the article especially in the History section.Aceomrelliug (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1187842600"