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 Proximcode (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 6 March 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Realm_Music). 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, Feed		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


February 28

00:02, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Franciscoevan

Dear Wikipedia Expert Editors,

I am resubmitting my draft article on Mahavatar Swami Bhai after carefully implementing revisions based on the feedback provided from Vgbyp during his previous review. Here's how I've addressed the key suggestions:

Notability: I've incorporated additional secondary sources, including news features and published works.

Neutrality: I've revised the language to eliminate any promotional tone.

Secondary Sources: I've made an effort to prioritize secondary sources.

I would be grateful for any further guidance you could provide to make this article even more aligned with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for the support.

Note: I have fixed the link to the draft as a courtesy to responders; Franciscoevan is the draft creator. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Franciscoevan: the draft has been submitted (for rather than by you, but still), and a reviewer will take a look at it at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sungodtemple hi! I would like to know why you resubmitted the article before making the necessary changes that @Michael D. Turnbull suggested? isn't modifyng the article coming from expert suggestions the best course of action before resubmitting it? Now, the article has been rejected again...
Yea, I realized that now @DoubleGrazing. Fortunately we could trace stuff back to its perpetrators! Franciscoevan (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Franciscoevan you said you were resubmitting the article, but I noticed you didn't actually mark it as such, so I submitted it for you. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good @Sungodtemple, perhaps I didnt write my help post correctly and therefore, misunderstanding happened. I wanted to first correct the article with the suggestions of the expert writers and then re-submit... I will be more precise next time. Franciscoevan (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! @StartGrammarTime :) Franciscoevan (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 28 February 2024 review of submission by M.Shaseeb

Hello,

I am trying to create a page on the Law Reform Commission of Mauritius and every time, the article is being rejected upon review for the reason that it infringes the copyright policy of wikipedia. You may wish to note that the articles which Wikipedia found to have been copied are the works of the Commission. I have pointed out this issue at the beginning. Grateful if you can enlighten me of how to proceed with the creation of the page as I have tight deadline to complete this task.

Thanks and kind regards,

Shaseeb 

M.Shaseeb (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@m.shaseeb: don't copy anything. ltbdl (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Shaseeb: you say they are "the works of the Commission", as if that is a defence – that is precisely the problem. If the original author has released the content under a compatible licence, or it has otherwise entered into the public domain, we need to see evidence of that. Anything that is explicitly under copyright cannot be used, and anything where copyright status is unclear or implied must be assumed to be under copyright also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Cagnotti

Hello!

I am in charge of communication at IRSOL and have created a Wikipedia page in English.

To create it, I used the Italian page, which already exists: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRSOL I used the same links and references.

Yet my draft was rejected.

Please, can you help me to make it suitable for publication?

Thank you in advance.

Marco Cagnotti Cagnotti (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cagnotti: the different language versions of Wikipedia are entirely separate projects with their own policies and guidelines; what is acceptable in the Italian version may not be acceptable here, and vice versa. Here we need the subject to demonstrate notability, which in the case of organisations requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites two papers, neither of which meets this standard.
It is also unclear where the information in the draft comes from, as it has only two citations, both in the 'Instrumentation' section, with the rest of the content unreferenced.
Your draft was not 'rejected', only declined, meaning you are welcome to resubmit it once you have addressed the decline reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply.
I have added some independent and reliable references. Can you please check if everything is OK now?
Thank you in advance.
M.C. Cagnotti (talk) 09:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:26, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Artisticresearch

Please help to re-write this entry with more a neutral tone - thanks. Artistic Research (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artisticresearch: this draft has been rejected already.
In any case, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk.
Please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the existing one. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Justice11590

i don't know why you have deleted it . I want to know the reason Justice11590 (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Justice11590: it hasn't been deleted yet, although it soon will be. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free hosting provider for your (?) poems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Do you also operate the Lucifer115 account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 28 February 2024 review of submission by EnesYila

Hi, I submitted a draft on Mikko Tolonen. On the topic, I could find only these sources: uni web page for Tolonen, a few news, some biographical information from a few foundations, and a blog page on Mikko Tolonen. I wonder whether the uni web page on Tolonen is considered as a secondary source or not. Also, what would you recommend me to solve the current issues further? EnesYila (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EnesYila: no, his own university page is primary, as well as being close to him (ie. not independent). It can be used to verify non-contentious facts, but not much beyond that.
Your primary aim here is to consider whether he meets one or more of the criteria enumerated in WP:NACADEMIC, and to reliable provide evidence to back up any such claim. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. Now it has more detail on the number of publications, awards, academic projects funded by Academy of Finland, and collaborations with more diverse sources. I primarily aimed to show
"his impact in the field" with independent and reliable sources such as news,
"awards" he has been given by respective institutions such as Ministry of Education of Finland (related to criterion 2),
and being in the executive board of EADH (related to criterion 6).
I hope now the text meets one or more of the criteria. Feel free to correct me if further edit is needed. EnesYila (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:42, 28 February 2024 review of submission by SportsSquareEditor

Can somebody help me with my article? Pleaseeeeee SportsSquareEditor (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that your newsletter is notable, I have tagged it fro speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 28 February 2024 review of submission by 209.96.100.32

How to get accepted 209.96.100.32 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find and include two published independent sources that cover him in depth. I'm guessing that those don't exist in which case I'd suggest not trying to make a Wikipedia article on him. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Nightwish1239

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for Beginners. Thank you. I receive this how to make it right Nightwish1239 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightwish1239: I'm assuming you're referring to  Courtesy link: Draft:Mariana Ilieva? It is completely unreferenced, and was simultaneously declined for both lack of reliable sources and lack of inline citations. You need to provide referencing, to tell us where all this information is coming from, and you need to do this specifically by way of inline citations, so that it is clear which source has provided which bit of the information. See WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I delete it.
Example: Andrea Bocceli I removed to cite to his wikipedia page Nightwish1239 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Wikinoobrider

This is my first article need help or assistance in writing it Wikinoobrider (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:12, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Urps5

Hi can you help me to make Anvay Saxena better. Urps5 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 29

00:36, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Ppotatoman

WHY WAS IT DECLINED??????? Ppotatoman (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ppotatoman I fixed your link so we can look at the draft. It was not only declined, itnwas rejected, as you provided no summary of independent reliable sources that discuss this Sims character and why it is notable If you just want to tell the world about it, you should use social media, or perhaps a wiki type project on Fandom. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, thank you for your patience. Please note on their talk page that I blocked a few accounts. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Pickens already has a Fandom page, https://callmekevin.fandom.com/wiki/Jim_Pickens#:~:text=Jim%27s%20personality%20has%20varied%20depending,and%20anti-heroic%20serial%20killer. is the link. Ppotatoman (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly thought I had linked it but I forgot Ppotatoman (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:08, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Erm1bas

I finished adding properly references and citations. Could you please check improved version I have made. I don’t think anyone would be able to do this informations except me. If you have more questions about source please ask me. I think there is now enough informations and it is worth for Wikipedia. If you want to publish it yourself please do it with informations I included myself. Thank you very much Erm1bas (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was rejected, it won't be considered further, please use social media to promote yourself, not Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not promoting my self. I have right to write this article as I am most skilled to write it. Someone else wrote description and I just transferred it to Wikipedia. I think I deserve consideration for article to be accepted. I am not the only one who did it this way and it isn’t against rules. I only needed time to do it properly as this is first time that I wrote article. Please read it again and try to consider it to be accepted. Thanks Erm1bas (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erm1bas: of course it is promotion, you are 'telling the world' about yourself and your books; that is pretty much the definition of promotion, see WP:YESPROMO. Besides, there is no evidence that you are notable by Wikipedia standards.
In any case, I have rejected this draft, and it will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone else try to do same article about Ermin Basic then it wouldn’t be promoting and it would be accepted. Is it what you are saying? Erm1bas (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the draft was rejected because it had zero evidence of you passing WP:GNG it doesn't matter who writes it, if there are no independent, reliable sources it will not be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. This is good experience for me where I learned little bit about your rules and the way how it is working for someone biography to be published in Wikipedia. So in the future I will have more experience about writing articles in Wikipedia as this is really for me respectable organisation. I hope in the future someone else will be able to write proper Ermin Basic biography on Wikipedia and that it will be accepted.All the best for you who contributed to my experience on Wikipedia 😊🙏❤️
Thanks Erm1bas (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:06, 29 February 2024 review of submission by MintSpiral

The reviewer just left the comment “Charts?”. I’ve added some information regarding the artist’s radio chart positions (Billboard Pop Airplay and Mediabase Top 40/Hot AC) for their most popular song. I don’t believe any of their other songs have entered charts. I believe the artist should already meet notability guidelines (as they have 2 albums published with a large record label), but I want to check that this will now be sufficient with this additional information. Also, have I provided this chart information in the correct place within the article? MintSpiral (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that interviews are not considered to be reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Africatalyst

Hello there.

I need assistance with this draft. It states that it has not been written in a neutral perspective and it has peacock terms on it. Apart from that it also has references which are not enough to warrant a wikipage for the person in the topic. Please help me with this. Africatalyst (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have eleven paragraphs which are unsourced. The review says to avoid peacock terms, that is not a big issue with your draft, just the lack of references. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Kalamkh

Can you help to put in a proper Biopic page template? Kalamkh (talk) 08:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Wikinoobrider

Have a doubt. I was told IMDB is not a genuine website. I have added links from journalists who have written articles and some are government oriented so are these links not genuine for referencing as well ??? Wikinoobrider (talk) 08:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikinoobrider: there appear to be at least a couple of user-generated sources, which are not considered reliable. Whether the others are suitable for verification and/or notability purposes, I don't know without doing a proper review. You will get more thorough feedback if and when you resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 29 February 2024 review of submission by 118.200.218.124

Hi, this page is on Robert Zhao, who is a well-known Singaporean artist representing Singapore at the Venice Biennale in 2024. Majority of the references in the article are from credible third party sources, such as overseas museums (eg. Tate), institutions and foundations (Kadist), as well as publications. We hope to have this page up and running for the public urgently as the Venice Biennale opens very soon, in April, so would really appreciate it if you could advise further, on what we can do to get this page approved. Thank you very much. 118.200.218.124 (talk) 09:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you are TRAhgnahs, please log into your account when editing.
Secondly, who is "we" in "We hope to have this page up and running for the public urgently"?
Thirdly, while you may be in a hurry to publicise this subject, we are not: Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline, and in any case we have no interest in promoting this or any other subject; for that, you need to find different marketing channels.
And finally, this draft was declined on November 5, and has not been resubmitted since. Therefore it is currently not on track to be reviewed, let alone published. If you feel that you have sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reasons, feel free to resubmit and a reviewer will get around to assessing it sooner or later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that museums that are exhibiting or have exhibited the subject's work are not generally independent sources: they can only be cited for limited purposes, and do not contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Rajadeshwal611

how can i write full topic Rajadeshwal611 (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 29 February 2024 review of submission by TheRealDogND

I do not understand why my draft was declined. My draft is in depth and has lots of information on the subject. My draft is reliable and I have a source from the original Pokémon company. I also did not copy and paste information from the source. I rephrased everything. And I am not the Pokémon company. TheRealDogND (talk) 13:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Spheal has zero independent sources, we have no interest in what the Pokemon company says. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Youngjimmymusic88

We don’t require any assistance, we Will wait for further developments in the coming months a let someone without a COI write this article. Thanks. Youngjimmymusic88 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been rejected so will not be considered further? Qcne (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Twenty4marc

There is nióthung wrong with my last submission, is it? Twenty4marc (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected (not just declined) and will not be considered further. Wikipedia articles must be based almost entirely on independent sources. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 29 February 2024 review of submission by ColForbin123

I wanted to edit the title of the page to Harvard Case Research and Writing Group. How do I do that?

-Chris ColForbin123 (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ColForbin123, don't worry about the title of the page - if it's accepted, the reviewer will select a suitable title, which will most likely be what the subject is called in the first few sentences. Once it's a live article it can be changed if needed. Focus on making your draft the best it can be for the moment. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:40, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Edu Lacroix

Looking for input on how to improve this article for acceptance. I have kindly responded to past critical comments. Edu Lacroix (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for review, so the reviewer will leave you feedback; I can say that the personal life section is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

01:57, 1 March 2024 review of submission by Luka At The Civic Caucus

I was hoping to get some advice on how to increase my chances of a faster review. I understand it takes time but there was a suggestion to assign tags to help and I wanted to know if there are any other tips like that.

Also, the article has had significant revisions and it would be great if an editor could just take a look and inform me if it is good enough for publication or if other revisions are needed so I can make them before the official review.

Article link: Draft:The Civic Caucus

Also I would love some feedback on my user page thank you! Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Luka At The Civic Caucus: no, there isn't a way of expediting reviews, I'm afraid. The system is a 'pool', from which volunteer reviewers choose according to their own criteria what they want to review, and when. You can certainly add WikiProject tags to the draft talk page to bring it to the attention of relevant projects, but that is unlikely to have much impact on the time taken to review this. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you. Any advice on my user page? What else can a person add? Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luka At The Civic Caucus: we don't review user pages here at the AfC help desk (perhaps the Teahouse would be a better forum for that?), but you may wish to review WP:UP if you haven't yet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:45, 1 March 2024 review of submission by AugustuscaesarVRChat

I got declined. I can not give good resources because it is a group inside of a game. AugustuscaesarVRChat (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AugustuscaesarVRChat: yes, your draft did get declined, although it should have been rejected outright, really. This is clearly not a viable encyclopaedia article, and you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a free host for things you just made up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is real (not made up) but it's a chatroom. Unless national security secrets are being exchanged for money, I can't see how a chatroom is notable or how an editor could demonstrate it sufficiently with reliable sources. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:45, 1 March 2024 review of submission by SWS1989

Stuart Stevens is referenced on multiple Wikipedia pages as having been played Steven Beale on Eastenders but it doesn’t link to his own page. He should have his own page SWS1989 (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SWS1989: being mentioned in Wikipedia articles is not a notability criterion. This draft has been rejected for lack of evident notability, and will therefore not be considered further.
Please also see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why you should not be writing about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 1 March 2024 review of submission by Amitkumarmishractor

Can you please suggest me how to change and publish our content. Amitkumarmishractor (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitkumarmishractor: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. And you should not be writing about yourself in any case, see WP:AUTOBIO (as I believe you have been told several times before). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:11, 1 March 2024 review of submission by Joshi anand raj

Anand Raj Joshi (born May 4, 1987) is a multilingual lawyer, journalist, and social campaigner from Nepal. Fluent in English, Nepali, Hindi, Bengali, Chinese, Indonesian, and Malay, Joshi is known for his dedication to advocating for social causes and researching solutions for diseases such as DMD. He is a prominent figure in the legal and journalistic fields, using his diverse language skills to communicate and make a positive impact in various communities. Joshi anand raj (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshi anand raj: that's not a question, and your draft isn't much of a draft, and has already been rejected and is pending deletion. All that being the case, how can we help you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 1 March 2024 review of submission by Idontplaybullet

I submitted a version of this page in English (There is a Gaelic version currently published) But was rejected as the person, a prominent Irish Language writer, is deemed not notable enough yet is notable enough for ga.wikipedia.org ?! Idontplaybullet (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Idontplaybullet: each language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project with different requirements and guidelines; what is accepted for publication in one version may not be so in another (and the English-language one probably has the most onerous requirements in many respects).
In any case, Draft:Pádraig Standún was declined and subsequently deleted for being promotional. Even if the subject is notable enough to otherwise warrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia, promotional editing is not allowed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ga:Pádraig Standún has not a single inline reference. I don't know whether ga-wiki has requirements that it fails to meet (there are thousands of old articles in en-wiki that fail to meet its current sourcing requirements) but a new article will not be accepted into en-wiki without them - especially an article about a living person. ColinFine (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:53, 1 March 2024 review of submission by Wikinoobrider

Would like to know what to update on this article Wikinoobrider (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left a detailed decline message, do you have a specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional references were added. I'm trying to find out if the latest version is viable for publication, or what else needs to be done. Ajdaccess (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel you have addressed the concerns of reviewers, you may submit it for a new review; we don't really do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this comment was supposed to be in the next section. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

05:03, 2 March 2024 review of submission by Ajdaccess

Over a month ago, I resubmitted this article request with numerous improvements done in response to previous feedback. Would it be possible for someone to review and comment? International Women's Day is on March 8, and I was hoping to have the article live by then. Ajdaccess (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajdaccess: this was last submitted on Feb 7 (not "over a month ago"), and as it says on top of the draft, reviews "may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order". Please be patient. While you may have a deadline in mind, Wikipedia is not edited to one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a conflict of interest or are a new user, this process is voluntary. If you feel the draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion, you may roll the dice and move it into the encyclopedia yourself. I advise against this, as you lack experience, but it's possible. I suggest that you let the process play out. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 2 March 2024 review of submission by Cleanton

Can any one help me for improve this article ? Cleanton 06:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cleanton: no, neither we here at the AfC help desk, nor the hosts at the Teahouse, get involved in editing. If you have specific questions, you're welcome to pose them here or at the Teahouse (but preferably not both). In any case, this draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:09, 2 March 2024 review of submission by Tamil Amutahan

Hi I am new to Wikipedia, finding difficult to post article .while randomly searching in internet i came up with this software CandidATS, so chose this to make a beginning article Tamil Amutahan (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamil Amutahan: "randomly searching"? You've disclosed a conflict of interest in this subject, so I assume there's more to it than just randomness.
Anyway, this draft is purely promotional, with nothing to suggest, let alone prove, that the subject is notable. That's why it has now been rejected and is awaiting deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User is now blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 2 March 2024 review of submission by Orangesclub

I'm curious why he's not deemed notable when he meets one of the key notability rules: he has charted /by himself/ on Korean music charts with his soundtrack appearances. This plus his acting experience, as the lead in a musical - twice - and being a brand ambassador for a fashion brand - all done beyond his role as a band member. Open to discussion on this. Orangesclub (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His music career is as part of a group, he didn't chart as an individual. His work in musicals doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR. He doesn't seem to merit a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 2 March 2024 review of submission by Vmonetech

My draft on Vineet Malhotra (VM-One) was deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. As per my knowledge, I did not put anything unambiguous or promotional on the page. The page was solely dedicated towards providing information to the people. Vmonetech (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vmonetech: I've already answered on your talk page. You should not be writing about yourself, nor should you be promoting anything (and yes, it was promotion, because you were 'telling people about yourself', which is the definition of promotion, see WP:YESPROMO). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided enough citations for the content. Then how was it Unambiguous advertising? Vmonetech (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vmonetech: it's perfectly possible to have (poor quality) references, and for the content to still be promotional; those are not mutually exclusive. If you were to only summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have said of their own volition, then you couldn't easily be accused of promotions because you'd be able to support everything with solid sources, but this draft was pretty much the opposite of that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per my knowledge, I have provided enough solid sources to support each of my mention. The sources I provided were independent and of high authority. All the references that were mentioned came from authentic and trustworthy resources. Vmonetech (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should be making your appeal at User talk:Jimfbleak, and then WP:DRV if still not satisfied, not here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 2 March 2024 review of submission by TheDohnJoe

With 2024 Russian presidential election coming soon (with a predictable winner)

Why not create an article for 2030 election. You can help with editing and improving it. Vladimir Gluten (talk) (pArOdY) 15:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDohnJoe because there are no facts to report yet. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for rumours and speculation. KylieTastic (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 2 March 2024 review of submission by Jaydeep Jagannath Thakur

What should be category Jaydeep Jagannath Thakur (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not really relevant to drafts. Concentrate on getting your draft to the standard which can be accepted as an article; which means (as the first step) citing reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:56, 2 March 2024 review of submission by Snickers44556677

I would like feedback as to why this submission was not approved. Snickers44556677 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is in the grey box of the decline, I would have also declined it for being blatant advertising too. Theroadislong (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
The first step - the very first step - in writing an article is to find several places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write in some depth about the subject. If you can't find such, then you know that all further effort you spend on this will be wasted. ColinFine (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

06:49, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Autherer

I want to add references to the page "HUDC", but I don't know how to do that. Please help.

Thank you Autherer (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Autherer: you have already successfully added one (albeit in the wrong place – citations should ideally be placed inline against the information they support), so just repeat as needed. See WP:REFB and WP:ILC for further advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:50, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Anujch 2011

Why my all article rejected check my sand box. Anujch 2011 (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission was a completely unsourced text telling your views of what makes a good marketer. Wikipedia articles are for summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic. There is already an article about marketing, if you have sourced information about the marketing industry, you may edit that article. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:49, 3 March 2024 review of submission by 14.199.3.141

how to make good 14.199.3.141 (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced; any article about an Instagram account or page must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:50, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Ayyyl

hhh Ayyyl (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayyyl: that's not a question. Do you have one in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The absolute first step in writing an article for Wikipedia is finding several places where people wholly unconnected with the subject of the article have written at length about the subject, and been published in reliable sources.
If you can't find these, you'll know not to waste any more time on this article.
If you can find them, the next step is to forget everything that you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 3 March 2024 review of submission by 78jjt5

Why was my submission rejected? How can this be improved? 78jjt5 (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda wondering too, as state representatives meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. There are stylistic and sourcing issues; sources need to be in-line with the text they are supporting,(see Referencing for Beginners) and the style should reflect other articles about politicians, but I don't think this should have been outright rejected. TheBritinator, would you object to allowing this user to resubmit?
How did you come to take his picture on the floor of the Missouri House? 331dot (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, it can be resubmitted. It looks like it's been improved since my review and would probably pass now. TheBritinator (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Katrynaaaz

I've translated an article from the alreasdy existing page, but my article was declined due to the sources I added. But I used the sources used in the original article. I didn't add some of them just because they are already unavailable and it makes no sense to add them. What should I do? I don't even understand which exact information needs proofs. Katrynaaaz (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Katrynaaaz: each language version of Wikipedia is entirely separate with their own policies and requirements; what is acceptable on one version may not be acceptable on another (and AFAIK, the English-language one has probably the strictest requirements for notability, referencing, etc.). You need to either find new sources to support the currently unsupported content, or else remove it. Pretty much everything in this draft must be verifiable from reliable sources.
Also, you say you've translated an existing article (presumably from the Ukrainian Wikipedia?), but it seems you have not attributed the uk.wiki original as the source. This must be done before the draft can be accepted; see WP:HOWTRANS for instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you reply! I'd like to know whether the sources of translated article have to be the same language as a traslation? Just because I'm not sure if there are any in English. If I have Ukrainian sources it's okay? Katrynaaaz (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. English sources are preferred, if they exist and are of high quality; but if not, sources in other languages are acceptable. They still need to be reliably published, and most of them need to be independent of the subject. See WP:NONENG. ColinFine (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Nayan222

Nur Sk is a YouTuber, and social media influencer. Har channel name is Tech Nur. Nur Sk is a 29 Years old famous model, Jelly Bean Brains is also known as Nur Sk. Her real name is Nur Alam Sk. She has a huge social media fan following, including Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok. Her followers love her for sharing pictures of amazing body beautiful moments and lip-sync videos. She always engages with them. Nayan222 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayan222: and? This help desk is for asking questions about your draft as it undergoes the AfC review process, and nowhere in that do I see a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nayan222 now blocked as advertising-only account. Deb (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Nunchi.xl

Although there is evidence of this foundation contributing to important studies on concussion, there are no independent articles that cover the foundation alone. Most articles cover the studies and refer to the foundation's support. The purpose of creating a Wikipedia entry is so that there is recognition for the foundation's financial support. Is there anything I can do here? It feels like a chicken and egg situation. Nunchi.xl (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No...articles are based on what reliable independent say, if there are no sources covering them in-depth then we don't have an article and "purpose of creating a Wikipedia entry is so that there is recognition for the foundation's financial support" is against Wikipedia guiedlines. Theroadislong (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is evidence from reliable independent articles to support everything I've written. Its just that none of these articles are only about the drake foundation, they are about the studies the drake foundation have funded and mention the drake foundation in them. Nunchi.xl (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean that the Foundation does not merit an article. You are in error when you say "The purpose of creating a Wikipedia entry is so that there is recognition for the foundation's financial support." Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about a topic. Wikipedia has no interest in publicizing the work of the Foundation, that's what its own website is for. Are you associated with the Foundation in some way? 331dot (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not associated with the foundation. Concussion from sport is something I have a strong opinion on and want to bring more awareness to. I have my own personal reasons for that. No-one has funded more research into it in the UK than drake foundation in the past few years. If Wikipedia's ethos prevents this from being a viable article then feel free to remove the draft. Nunchi.xl (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are able to locate acceptable sources to summarize the draft can be restored later as a starting point. Wikipedia is not the place to raise awareness of any subject, that's what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary snarkiness on your part. Thanks for being so civil. Nunchi.xl (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for giving offense; it wasn't my intention to be snarky or uncivil, just being honest. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches on topics give Wikipedia results. Those Wikipedia articles inform and raise awareness. The article I've written has plenty of evidence to support most of what I've written, so it's not the same as a social media post, it's factual with independent references. All the funded studies have DOIs and are published as research articles. They are not tabloid articles. I fell at the last hurdle so I'll accept that and perhaps you constantly deal with questions that you see as silly, but there's no need to take that out on me. Nunchi.xl (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I offer my apologies for offending you. It wasn't my intention to take anything out on you, nor did I think your question was silly, I was just trying to give an honest answer. If you could see and hear me personally I think that would be easier to know. There is a difference between raising awareness as an effect of an article and being the purpose of an article. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Anything else is a secondary benefit. I regret contributing to any bad feelings you have. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Technobabylon

Hello - My draft keeps getting declined. I have amended the article countless times to address the published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject points. I have even used exclusively references which are independent of the subject. What do I need to to do to resolve this please? The reviewer just keeps repeating the same generic comment which is extremely unhelpful. Technobabylon (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should address the claim of paid editing.
It's not clear how he is notable as Wikipedia defines it. You have summarized his work but not described what sources say is important/significant/influential about him. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Kakoli moni

how to move this draft to mainpage Kakoli moni (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted as unambiguous promotion. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Grvindia85

why deleting Grvindia85 (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Cullen328 (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:40, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Jayanta Saha Politician

I want to create my own Wikipedia page. please let me know the process. Its urgent for me. kindly advice me . Jayanta Saha Politician (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly advised that you not attempt to write an article about yourself, please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 3 March 2024 review of submission by Rectitudo

I'm attempting to get this published in Twin Cities drummer Kenny Horst and apparently can't find adequate sources as per the rejections. Can someone assist me with what they're looking for? Rectitudo (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golden rule will tell you what we're looking for. If such sources don't exist, then I advise you not to spend any more time on this draft, as all further effort will be wasted. ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

07:37, 4 March 2024 review of submission by Tom.Romanski

I would like some advise on how to re-draft this article so that it may be approved for Wikipedia. 

Tom.Romanski (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Romanski: you need to show that the subject is notable, by citing sources that satisfy the WP:GNG / WP:NCORP standard. Currently no such source is cited here, and we need to see at least three.
Also, not that it's would be a reason to decline this, but please correct the multiple wikilinks throughout. Just link to the title of the target article, not the entire URL. See WP:WIKILINK for more info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:04, 4 March 2024 review of submission by 2402:4000:B280:326F:9045:A335:D4BC:8DB9

Why is this article not suitable pls? 2402:4000:B280:326F:9045:A335:D4BC:8DB9 (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing to suggest that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Being the 'first X to do Y' is not a notability criterion. Also, the draft, such as it is, cites only one source, and a non-reliable one, at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pls reconsider the article, thank you 2402:4000:B280:326F:9045:A335:D4BC:8DB9 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to reconsider.
Please don't start a new thread with each comment, this is not a chat room, this is a discussion forum; just add your comments to the existing thread. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 4 March 2024 review of submission by 2402:4000:B280:326F:9045:A335:D4BC:8DB9

There are newspaper articles in Sinhalese about this topic. this is correct information 2402:4000:B280:326F:9045:A335:D4BC:8DB9 (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If some of those newspaper articles meet the requirements set out in golden rule, then they may be enough to establish that she is notable in Wikipedia's sense. But any that have only a brief mention will not count, and nor will any that are based on interviews or press releases from her, her employers, or her associates. See WP:NONENG for how best to cite non-English sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 4 March 2024 review of submission by 2402:4000:B280:326F:9045:A335:D4BC:8DB9

Would this article we alright now? 2402:4000:B280:326F:9045:A335:D4BC:8DB9 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there is no indication of notability using your sources. Qcne (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also created Draft:Anna_Weerakoon_Karunatilleke. Please do not re-create rejected submissions. Qcne (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Draft:Kim10.
And they're still creating new threads with each comment.
At some point this will start to get disruptive... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 4 March 2024 review of submission by Jamesinhere

Hi User:Bonadea

I have made changes to the content based on the recommendations and requesting you to please take a look at it and share your views.

Looking forward to your suggestion to further improve it and answer any query.

Thanks James Jamesinhere (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way to get a draft rereviewed is to resubmit it. We don't do reviews on request. But I notice something problematic in the first line: no Wikipedia article should ever use evaluative language such as "leading" about anything, in Wikipedia's voice. I haven't read on to see whether this is an isolated example, or whether the whole thing is full of peacock language. ColinFine (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 4 March 2024 review of submission by 164.39.1.239

I am waiting for an update on my page

Last year the page was waiting for review. Can you please update me? 164.39.1.239 (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: speedily deleted under G5. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 4 March 2024 review of submission by 164.39.1.239

Can i please have an update on the status of my Project Submission? Its been pending for a long time Thank You

mike.potter@mpa-consulting.co.uk 

164.39.1.239 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop it now, please. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 4 March 2024 review of submission by Rushigangurde4

Hey there, I had made changes to draft as per wikipedia instructions 20 days ago but there is not any response please help Rushigangurde4 (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rushigangurde4: that's because you haven't resubmitted this draft for another review. What's more, you had removed the earlier review, so the 'resubmit' button wasn't even there; I've restored that. (Please don't tamper with the review templates or comments, they need to stay there throughout the process.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 4 March 2024 review of submission by DigiKnown IT

how can i add my company page DigiKnown IT (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked, draft G11'd) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@DigiKnown IT: Short answer: You don't. Longer answer: Wikipedia has no "company pages"--it has articles on subjects which are considered notable by our community standards. To show notability, a subject must have received significant coverage from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a corporate directory, and encyclopedia articles must maintain a neutral point of view. Your draft had no sources at all, independent or otherwise, was purely advertising copy which was wholly unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and has already been deleted as such per our policies.
Furthermore, our username policy prohibits usernames which give the appearance of being a role account for a company, and your account has already been blocked for this reason. You are free to create a new account which represents you as an individual--"[name] at Digiknown" would be acceptable, for instance--but even with a new account you are strongly discouraged from any editing where a conflict of interest is involved, and you are required by the terms of use (to which you agreed when you created your account) to disclose whether you are being paid by any entity to edit Wikipedia in any way.
Hope this helps. Feel free to ask more questions if you have them. Thanks. --Finngall talk 16:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 4 March 2024 review of submission by Milliehaze

Hello, this article was not accepted because he is a " local/regional successful businessman " and the sources are "routine local coverage". Looking at the notability guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)_, I do not see any mention of being important to a region as something that should invalidate this submission. The reviewer mentioned that Bergstrom has routine coverage. Multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability in this submission. Milliehaze (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Milliehaze you are welcome to resubmit it to get another opinion. S0091 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 4 March 2024 review of submission by Tropical Storm Angela

Would it be sometime around late March, April or May that the article of Miss America 2025 be stamped on Wikipedia? Whenever the first contestant of Miss Whoever 2024 is crowned, would it be appropriate to submit the article at those times? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 19:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate time would be when there are enough independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this future event to summarize in an article- such as sources describing the planning and preparation of the event(such as 2028 Summer Olympics). You don't have this now. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Storm Angela, please read WP:COATRACK. Your draft is not about the 2025 Miss America pageant. It is a coatrack for unrelated commentary about trans women competing and the age and marital status of contestants and other things not specific to the 2025 pageant. If well referenced and written neutrally, this type of content belongs in the main Miss America article. These matters are not specific to 2025, as opposed to 2024, or 2026 and 2027. Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody please clarify how this article draft piece can be made as neutral and proper? Is there some way to make the article better and meet the standard for Wikipedia? I'm devoted to improving the Wikipedia in more ways than ten. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 14:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should be trying to add this information to the more general Miss America article, not an article about a specific holding of the pageant(which hasn't happened yet). I suggest that you discuss it on Talk:Miss America. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

00:47, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Salfanto

I need assistance improving this article Salfanto (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@salfanto: in what way? ltbdl (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main feedback I got was: "Article is a mess and is unfit to be reviewed." I need help cleaning it up and better organizing it Salfanto (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...in what way? ltbdl (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a start, get rid of all the unreliable sources like Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.
Writing an article begins with finding sources which meet all the criteria explained in golden rule; then writing a summary of what those independent sources say. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Hana Shinohara

move my draft:colors telugu to articles colors telugu Hana Shinohara (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hana Shinohara: it will be moved to the main article space if/when it is accepted, but at the moment it is still far from an acceptable state.
You had also removed the AfC template which puts it into the pool of drafts pending reviews; I've restored this. Please don't mess with the templates, thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Mahi6317

I want to know what could be the reason for the rejection of Wikipedia? Mahi6317 (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahi6317: presumably you mean Draft:Siyamak eliasi, in which case the reason I declined (not 'rejected', which is terminal) it because the referencing is insufficient and there no evidence that the subject is notable. Just like it says in the decline notice on top of the draft (those grey boxes inside the large pink one). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can be meant by insufficient content? Mahi6317 (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahi6317: I didn't say "insufficient content", I said insufficient referencing: most of the content in unreferenced, and most if not all of the sources are inappropriate (social media, Spotify, Apple Music). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean there should be no social media? Mahi6317 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, social media is generally not acceptable. We want to know what independent reliable sources say, not what the subject says about itself. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:15, 5 March 2024 review of submission by PeculiarUser

Page has been flagged for Quick Deletion, under the terms that the person is not notable enough. There are plenty of sources online citing that this individual is well-awarded, and recognized by various reputable organizations such as the World Bank and the United Nations, and that the page should be kept as a draft for further contributions to properly credit and cite this information. PeculiarUser (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PeculiarUser: this help desk isn't the place to dispute speedy deletion requests. That said, the request has now been declined. The draft remains rejected, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PeculiarUser, any draft containing promotional baloney like author, poet, and social entrepreneur working at the intersection of creativity, displacement, and youth empowerment is almost guaranteed to be rejected. That's overtly promotional social media jargon, not neutral encyclopedia writing. Who would possibly talk that way, except to promote someone online? Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Marco Novecento33

I have written the article based on a reliable source (since it is the official document on the DOC appellation of the wine I am writing about) - what can I do to have the page approved and te article created? Marco Novecento33 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article must summarize multiple independent reliable sources. Only one source is insufficient. It appears you have gone about this backwards; you should first gather sources and then summarize them, not write the text and then look for sources to support it. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the draft is unsourced; and the official document is a primary source, and should be used only to verify a small amount of uncontroversial factual information. The bulk of the material in any article should come from secondary sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:08, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Clonesen

I've been trying to write this wikipedia article from a notable company in the Portuguese eco system of audio software developers but keep having the article being reject because it "looks like an advertisement". I've found the initial draft which was very vague and tried to add all the sources I could find to establish notability, including more than 4 different sources, independent of the subject, as required per the guidelines. I would like to know what else is wrong about the article so I can do the necessary adjustments. Can you please provide me some assistance? Clonesen (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have too many sources, most of them are announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability(as Wikipedia defines a notable company). You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this company- coverage that goes beyond merely telling of their activities and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about this company, not what it sees as important about itself. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. References [1] [2] [3] [17] [18] [19] [21] are general wide, reliable sources, completely subject independent which mark the company notability, specially in the context of Portuguese and the fact that there is only one other company doing what this company is doing.
Which references do you think are irrelevant, can you please be specific about it?
Which paragraphs "look like an advertisement" and are not written from a neutral point of view?
Which paragraphs are irrelevant from the point of view of wikipedia guidelines?
Thank you once again for your collaboration and help. This is my first collaboration to wikipedia and I'm still learning. Clonesen (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are
  1. an interview with the founder of the company, not an independent source
  2. a brief piece based on an interview with the CEO, not significant coverage
  3. mostly tells of the products the company is developing
  4. a recording of an interview with the founder
  5. seems to just document UNESCO's involvement, doesn't even mention the company
  6. seems to just document the existence of the company
  7. seems to have no mention of this company
  8. a product review, not about the company itself
  9. another product review
  10. a place to obtain a product
  11. video from the company
  12. product review
  13. product review
  14. no mention of the company from what I can see
  15. same source as previous
  16. same as #8(see WP:REFB for information on using a reference more than once)
  17. walled but seems to be a product review
I could keep going but it really looks like none of the sources you have are appropriate for establishing notability. This will need to be radically rewritten to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this company, as I mentioned above. I see the term "startup" used a lot to refer to this company- "startups" rarely merit articles- a company must be established and recognized in its field to draw the coverage needed to merit it an article. It may be too soon for an article. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I wrote the first draft, which did seem like an advertisement, I investigated a lot about other similar companies' Wikipedia entries such as: Native Instruments, Arturia, Teenage Engineering, among others.
Most of these article references seem to be of the same types: interviews with the founders in websites independent of the subject and product reviews in non-subject-independent websites. What is the difference in these pages that make them compliant?
How can someone refer to bits of history if it weren't for stories told by key figures in interviews? I think that's the main purpose of interview references.
Some brief comments about your comments on the references:
1 - A interview with the founder by a portuguese newspaper. The source is subject independent.
2 - A whole article about what the company was doing. The source is subject independent.
3 - A relevant financial news source in Portugal. The source is subject independent
4 - I would agree this one could be removed, but still relevant to get pieces of the history and therefore not completely irrelevant.
5 - The idea is to show that Imaginando is a company located in a creative city of UNESCO, something that was mentioned in this paragraph. If it is not relevant, it can be removed.
6 - This states that the company makes part of this internal network of media arts hub, in the city of Braga
7 - I would agree that this could be removed.
8/9 - The early history before the company foundation is being told. Not relevant? It can be removed.
10 - Not a product download page. It's just to give relevance to the fact that he was a contributor to this project, as mentioned. Not relevant? It can be removed.
11 - The video is actually from The Qt Company and shows the founder of Imaginando giving a presentation in a conference of The Qt Company, telling the story of how and why he used Qt to build the technical foundation. This is ultra relevant to the previous paragraph.
12/13 - A reference from the subject dependent media outlet showing that the product got out (this is something that seems to be very common in many wikipedia company pages and one of the reasons I learn so much while reading wikipedia articles).
14/15 - Agree it can be irrelevant
16 - It is not a product, it's a media art piece.
17 - Walled for not registered users but it is a printed news paper and it is a story about the company with focus on their Harpa Laser media art piece.
Regarding 16 and 17, Jean-Michel Jarre made a Laser Harp, in his wikipedia page it says:
"The stadium was almost full when the concert began, but as Beijing's buses stopped running at about 10 o'clock, about half the audience left before it finished." with a reference to -> https://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/22/arts/china-is-exposed-to-laser-rock.html?scp=13&sq=jean%20michel%20jarre&st=cse
How is it different?
The company is 10 years old and has released multiple products used in professional environments and widely covered by media. The term startup is these days used very commonly for companies that have since become very successful and relevant, and therefore deserving of an article.
"Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered."
I believe that numerous sources do exist, especially when comparing with existing Wikipedia entries of comparable companies. With that in mind, I don't fully see how it is to soon for an article.
I will start performing the changes based on your feedback. If you have any further comment, please advise.
Thank you very much. Regards Clonesen (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. It doesn't matter whether it is published by the subject or quoted in a newspaper: if the words come from the company, Wikipedia isn't interested in them.
As for other articles: Wikipedia has thousands and thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles, most of which were added long ago before we were as careful about standards. Ideally they would all be improved or deleted; but this being a volunteer project, that doens't happen very often. New drafts submitted are assessed against our policies and standards, not against other articles. If you find similarly poor articles, you are very welcome to improve them, or nominate them for deletion if their subject is not in fact notable as Wikipedia uses the phrase. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 5 March 2024 review of submission by 83.97.35.24

Hi, has this article reached notability now? I have included several interviews with the subject. 83.97.35.24 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews do not contribute to notability, as by definition an interview is not an independent source. As this draft has been rejected, it won't be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 5 March 2024 review of submission by John snow05

19 sources posted and linked but can’t see them John snow05 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

huh? ltbdl (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You only have two sources. Perhaps you forgot to click Publish which would have saved the new text to the draft. I have rejected the draft and it usually will not be considered further, but if you do find 19 sources and add them, let me know. Qcne (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John snow05, please do not create a new request for each new reply. It would be much appreciated if you could simply add your reply in this same section. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dupe ltbdl (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

16:40, 5 March 2024 review of submission by John snow05

Help John snow05 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32:54, 5 March 2024 review of submission by 182.191.139.113


182.191.139.113 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked a question and haven't linked to a draft. If your question is about the article you mention, you should discuss it at Talk:Institute for Legacy of Polish National Thought, not here. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't ask a question, but this article was published three years ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Isaiahmh0712

I don't know how to put a biography on Wikipedia. Isaiahmh0712 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiahmh0712 You edited your user page and submitted it a an article draft, but your user page is not article space, but a place for the named person to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor or user. Creating an autobiographical article in article space is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, can you tell me how things work around here? Isaiahmh0712 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would direct you to the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you, I will use the user tutorial now, goodbye Isaiahmh0712 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

02:05, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Cinderellathegirlheneverloved

I want to spread the awareness of god being real. Cinderellathegirlheneverloved (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@cinderellathegirlheneverloved: wikipedia is not a place for your fiction. ltbdl (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dupe ltbdl (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


God is real

Some people think god is real so I think they should be able to write a topic about god and what they think about him. Cinderellathegirlheneverloved (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:28, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Mnuan

Hello, could someone review the draft article Battle of Sochi (1918)? Mnuan (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@mnuan: be patient. ltbdl (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:29, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Mnuan

Requesting review for the draft article Battle of Gagra (1919) Mnuan (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see above. ltbdl (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:21, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Lainisah Maruhom Sumpingan

My boss asked me to write her a biography and make it visible in Wikipedia. Please help me how can submit it or make it visible in Wikipedia. 

Lainisah Maruhom Sumpingan (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@lainisah maruhom sumpingan: tell your boss that we don't allow that. see this. ltbdl (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:11, 6 March 2024 review of submission by TAPPANHEHER

Hello I have submitted an update /second draft to an article in the Article of Creation for John Elliott Tappan by adding the page numbers for the references. How can I replace the first draft with the updated second draft? In the Contributions section there is no clear to access articles in the Articles of Creation, which has been very confusing. TAPPANHEHER (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@tappanheher: the "first draft" is at Draft:John Elliott Tappan. ltbdl (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually work that way: it would have been better to edit the text in place.
The easiest way is probably to simply delete all the text from Draft:John Elliott Tappan, and copy the source from the second draft into it. (You'll need to copy the source, or you won't get the formatting, citations etc). For tidiness, you can then inset {{db-author}} (just as it appears here, with the double curly brackets) at the top of Draft:John Elliott Tappan (second draft), and an admin will come along and delete it. Normally you shouldn't move text from one page to another without attributing it - see copying within Wikipedia) but if you are the only author of it, you can. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following comments have been moved here from the next section by ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added all pages for the references and citations. The references a book published by Palgrave/St Martin's Press in New York. The book lists all the institutions that are referenced in the book, most importantly the personal letters of John Elliott Tappan that are still in the archives at Ameriprise. I am very curious how Wikipeida could state this does not "show significant coverage about the subject in a published, reliable source that is independent of the subject." Please provide with a full and detailed explanation, and I will be happy to provide anyone who asks with a PDF copy of the book, which can be bought online directly from Palgrave Press. I look forward to receiving the reply shortly. TAPPANHEHER (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@tappanheher: you've responded in the wrong section. ltbdl (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What section should I respond then? Please advise. 87.121.72.20 (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this section, "05:11, 6 March 2024 review of submission by TAPPANHEHER", where I have now moved it. You accidentally added it to the next section, #05:23, 6 March 2024 review of submission by 103.160.240.51. ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't need to provide a PDF. Citing a reliably published book is adequate.
I am not a reviewer, but I know that normally more than two separate sources are required to establish notability. This is not a policy, but a rule of thumb, and the reviewer may feel that the two sources you have cited are adequate. But if you can find another source that meeds 42, I think it would be worth citing it. I think that citing a source that discussed why Tappan and the investors' syndicate are imporant would be a good idea. ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:23, 6 March 2024 review of submission by 103.160.240.51

Why is it rejected? Tell me and I'll try to fix it 103.160.240.51 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

read the decline notices. ltbdl (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Any help on how to fix this problem, please 103.160.240.50 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you have all the information you need. ltbdl (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments that should have been in the previous section moved there by ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 6 March 2024 review of submission by 1Tytonidae1

How can I prove that this topic is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? I added more citations from major sources since initially submitting the article for review. Do I need to resubmit the article? 1Tytonidae1 (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1tytonidae1: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:15, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Whirosss

This is my first experience with Wikipedia. Can you guide me? 

Whirosss (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Whirosss: I'm not quite sure what this is, but it's not in English, so couldn't be accepted here on the English-language Wikipedia as it stands. Besides, it's entirely unreferenced. And in any case, it has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you try on id-wiki. Try id:WP:1. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:37, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Desouki27

what should i change for the page i created to be accepted and submitted Desouki27 (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a message as to what was needed; please review it, and the policies linked to therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Joeworgan

My submission was declined for Draft:Grant UK because it 'appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia'. Can you advise which sections refer more like an advertisement? Joeworgan (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire thing. Wikipedia is not a place to tell about a company and its offerings, an article about a company should 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. Please see Your First Article. I will add specifically that niche industry awards do not contribute to notability, unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award)
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. Please also see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeworgan: it's promotional, because it's basically the company telling the world about itself, citing its own website, various press releases and routine business reporting / churnalism, with little or no content that is of any encyclopaedic value. The entire 'Products' and 'Support for X' sections belong to their website, and we've no interest in the business awards they've received.
What is your relationship with this subject? I've posted a message on your talk page regarding conflicts of interest (COI); please read and action as appropriate. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Dragisdr20

why my dissubmission Dragisdr20 (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragisdr20... was rejected? Because there is no evidence that the subject is notable under any of the applicable notability guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the messages on the draft carefully, this will explain why. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Tod888

how many articles are required for the notability of an article? I've added two articles from six articles found on Google, I thought they were valid, and I also wanted to ask about the length of the article. cause currently it's a short article. I'm not an expert on articles so what changes do you recommend? Tod888 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tod888: per WP:NCORP, we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. 'Multiple' isn't actually defined anywhere, but is usually taken to mean three or more. Your two sources both seem to be based on the company's publicity efforts, so probably aren't independent, and in any case not enough to satisfy NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Awtodd@gmail.com

I've made edits to my draft, but no response? Awtodd@gmail.com (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Awtodd@gmail.com: if you want us to review your draft again, you need to resubmit it by clicking on that blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Chinedu Ogugua

good day , my name is chinedu ogugua , i submitted an article on the history of my town which was declined yesterday , i made edit on some of the errors raised by the reviewer but some i was not able to do because i did not understand it clearly . please can i get an assistance to edit my article to Wikipedia standard 

 Chinedu Ogugua (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chinedu Ogugua: your draft is entirely unreferenced. We need to be able to verify all the information from reliable sources. In fact, you should only summarise what reliable published sources have previously said about the subject, citing those sources as you go against the information they have provided. See WP:YFA for advice on article creation, and WP:REFB on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Matthewcooper1998

Just have a question about the rejection of this article. I understand that Theresa Cheung is not mentioned in this article. However, there is a setion which mentions The Premonition Code, that Theresa Co-authored with Dr. Juilia Mossbridge (also mentioned in the article). If, on the article, I specify that Theresa's Co-authored book, The Premonition Code, was mentioned in the linked Guardian article, would that be appropriate? Thanks! Matthewcooper1998 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see notability is not inherited. It's possible for a book to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability but not its author; or vice versa. An article about Cheung must be based mostly on sources which are about Cheung, not sources about her work which do no more than mention her. ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Arkadev.ghoshal

Need help creating a page for my organisation. I work for a news organisation that does not have a Wikipedia page yet. I need help creating this page.

Wikipedia does not let me create this page because I am an employee of/related to the organisation.

What should my next steps be? Arkadev.ghoshal (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:South First --Finngall talk 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkadev.ghoshal: it is true that you cannot publish such an article directly, but you can submit a draft through the AfC process – go to WP:YFA where you find everything you need to get started.
The first thing you must do, however, is to disclose your paid-editing status. I will post instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, seems I had already posted a generic COI notice earlier. Well, now there's the more specific paid-editing one there as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot!
I will get this started right away! Wish me luck! Arkadev.ghoshal (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Fracy Pants

The article I created for Bertrand Meniel was rejected because it lacked reliable sources. But I linked to sources everywhere I could. Perhaps I did not use the righ formats? One editor in talk suggested I create a reference list, but I am unable to discover what that means or how to do this some other way than create the footnotes and links I submitted. I need help and instruction on how to appropriately show the soureces I linked. Fracy Pants (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Bertrand Meniel was declined not rejected, you were told to read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources correctly. Theroadislong (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:21, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Proximcode

Please Help Us Mentioning the issue, why our article has been rejected? Proximcode (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1212244804"