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 Wilfie66 (talk | contribs) at 13:55, 10 March 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding User:2A00:23C8:8908:E301:1C29:2D4B:88C2:639D/sandbox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, 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


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]
Hello, Arkadev.ghoshai. Generally, when an inexperienced editor tries to create a new article, they have a miserable and frustrating experience, because they don't yet understand a number of basic concepts about Wikipedia. If they are trying to create an article about a subject they are close to, it is even more tricky, and they are even more likely to have a frustrating time. (I know you have had your account for a long time, but you haven't made many edits, so I count you as inexperienced in Wikipedia).
My advice to you is, first, read WP:BOSS, and show it to your boss.
If you are determined to proceed, then my next advice is to put it aside and do an "apprenticeship", where over a period of weeks or months, you make several hundred edits (that stick) to existing articles, and learn about basic principles such as notability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view. Then you can come back to it and read your first article. ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 7 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]

No sources and basically an advertisement will always be rejected. Wikipedia is not a place for a topic to merely tell about itself. Please read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:41, 6 March 2024 review of submission by SpaceElegont

This is not a page for any big visitors, but a free and easy to use place to jot down some information about something local. Ex: Friends. Please reconsider this SpaceElegont (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceElegont Wikipedia is not free web space for you to use as you wish. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 6 March 2024 review of submission by Raisingmamaygma

please advice me why you reject Raisingmamaygma (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because, Raisingmamaygma, that draft in no way resembles an article. Here, at random, John Nottingham, that looks like an article. What you submitted looks like a very poorly formatted resume full of completely irrelevant information, besides some attempts at self-promotion: "Reymark has done more than 160 freelancing projects in the last 4 years and he have good knowledge in Google Adsense." In fact, it is so blatantly promotional (besides a violation of all kinds of policies including WP:BLP) that we have no choice but deleting it. Please try LinkedIn for this kind of thing. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

00:14, 7 March 2024 review of submission by 49.157.61.171

I was researching the credibility of this news outlet. I found a Wikipedia draft with tone issues. I tried to fix them, but I'm currently seeing that the draft is locked for editing. Why? 49.157.61.171 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help-me request regarding Draft:Gaganyaan-4

Three days into the AfC process and already I'm stuck. The process at Draft:Gaganyaan-4 became side-lined when someone else created a stub Gaganyaan-4 article. (Disclaimer: I've been hacking at the draft myself, not just commenting as a reviewer.) (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdsds: yeah, that happens occasionally; it can be frustrating, but not easily prevented, unfortunately. The draft author (or anyone else) should now selectively merge the salient additional info and sources into the published article. I've declined the draft on this basis. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:50, 7 March 2024 review of submission by 50.200.118.243

Can you please edit the page title for this draft to James_Fox_(documentarian) because the page James_C._Fox already links to another page. I can't seem to update the page title. Thank you. 50.200.118.243 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to worry about the title for the time being. If (and that remains quite a big 'if') this is accepted, the accepting reviewer will move it to an appropriate title when it is published.
Feel free to ask a question either here or at the Teahouse, but not both, as that duplicates the effort and wastes resources. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 7 March 2024 review of submission by 176.33.244.31

The submission must be accepted without reason, stop rejecting and declining this. All the ones named "Woodle" or "Woodles" are already mentioned, and I'm able to find the fourth. What will happen after the submission being accepted? 176.33.244.31 (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This dab draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, let alone "accepted without reason" (whatever that means). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, how to accept this disambiguation? If declining and rejecting are not allowed, what will be happened? 176.33.244.31 (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't "accept things without reason"; you need to make a case. Why do these topics need a disambiguation page? 331dot (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are comments I sent, and the cases are already made here. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you have answered my question. Why do these need a disambiguation page? They don't seem likely to be confused with each other. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you can see the questions at the draft. Second, the disambiguation also includes what "Woodles" means. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care what Disney wiki does.(on-draft comments are for reviewers only, discussion should take place on the draft talk page) Please review WP:DAB and cite the specific policies which you feel support the creation of a disambiguation pagem and the reasons why. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see any disambiguations with citations or references of anything? 176.33.244.31 (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my job to make your case for you. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I'll try to make it enough to accept if I could not find one. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 7 March 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:14:BC4C:98A8:94BD:BF85:9236

Need to Create article for actor Jishnu Raghavan because he was an Indian actor I written this article with reliable sources 2409:40F4:14:BC4C:98A8:94BD:BF85:9236 (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you "need" to do this? You appear to be editing while logged out, please return to your account. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot:, they do have several accounts which is why they are WP:LOUTSOCKing. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I wouldn't recommend letting them create this article, especially on Ponyo's talk page, where they had the WP:IDHT attitude of saying they would never give up on creating the article. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It (in its various permutations) must be on so many reviewers' watch lists by now that it'll be some feat to get it through. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Maestro110

Dear Wikipedia, my question is that, if there is no any supporting reference is available except facebook and youtube, but the original place/thing exists physically, and it is well notable place in the related entity. So how can I publish my article where nothing is it at the newspaper or the magazines etc.? Maestro110 (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maestroi110 Your draft is in your sandbox, so I fixed the link to it. If you have no independent reliable sources to summarize in an article about this topic, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Wikipedia is not for merely documenting the existence of something. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Hritacharya

What are the details you believe i must add. From the web we have around 100 mentions. Hritacharya (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hritacharya: I have rejected this draft, and it will therefore not be considered further at this time.
You still need to disclose your COI / paid-editing, though, lest you get blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Arhan Jain

Look, some dumb fellow- 'KylieTastic' is disapproving my Wikipage! He gives multiple reasons!

1.) 'Not in-depth'. OK true but bro there are like 100 pages where there are incomplete informations...what happened while approving that?? That to I personally told him that I would write more after confirming the facts with the elders...oh the wikipage that I am reffering from is about our temple by the way.

2.) 'No Reliable source'. What the hell bro...I did say him that it was my temple...of course I (or my family) know the maximum...!

3.) 'Secondary'! Wow bro...secondary source he asks for! Bro, say one thing...how should I write some reference of the new topic if the topic is new(i.e. new topic means I am the first one to talk about and so there is no 'another editor' to refer from)!

4.) 'Independent'!? Bro...I have no words....

Bro look, I gave my proper reasons for you guys...now it is up to you guys. I want him to be notified if you find me way and reason for this defense right! link for the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Koti_Basadi,_Moodbidre Arhan Jain (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the first to write about a topic, then it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article about it can be accepted into Wikipedia. Period.
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) 23:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Arhan Jain

Look, some dumb fellow- 'KylieTastic' is disapproving my Wikipage! He gives multiple reasons!

1.) 'Not in-depth'. OK true but bro there are like 100 pages where there are incomplete informations...what happened while approving that?? That to I personally told him that I would write more after confirming the facts with the elders...oh the wikipage that I am reffering from is about our temple by the way.

2.) 'No Reliable source'. What the hell bro...I did say him that it was my temple...of course I (or my family) know the maximum...!

3.) 'Secondary'! Wow bro...secondary source he asks for! Bro, say one thing...how should I write some reference of the new topic if the topic is new(i.e. new topic means I am the first one to talk about and so there is no 'another editor' to refer from)!

4.) 'Independent'!? Bro...I have no words....

Bro look, I gave my proper reasons for you guys...now it is up to you guys. I want him to be notified if you find me way and reason for this defense right! link for the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Koti_Basadi,_Moodbidre Arhan Jain (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arhan Jain: please do not insult reviewers, or anyone else for that matter; and I for one don't think 'bro' is an appropriate way to address others.
As for your draft  Courtesy link: Draft:Koti Basadi, Moodbidre, it is completely unreferenced. This means it fails the core requirements of verifiability and notability, and was therefore correctly declined.
That being the case, do you have a question you would like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. Wikipedia likely has many inappropriate articles that volunteers simply haven't addressed yet. This is not a reason to add more inappropriate articles. If you want to help us, please identify any inappropriate articles you see for possible action. We're only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Nahnathanhatthat

To make this worthy to be on the wikipedia page Nahnathanhatthat (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnathanhatthat: that's not a question, any more than this is a viable article draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:04, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Sativasir

Why did my article get rejected? What can I do different to get it published? Sativasir (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as advertising and misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. That's all I can say because your draft was suppressed from even administrators. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:21, 7 March 2024 review of submission by 1Tytonidae1

Since having my article rejected, I've implemented revisions, added substantially more content, and added reliable published secondary sources to demonstrate notability. What are next steps? 1Tytonidae1 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typically a rejected article may not be resubmitted, but if you have fundamentally changed the draft in a way that you think addresses the concern of the reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected it. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Hkc345

The name of the Person on the Wikipedia page has an accent on top of the letter "a" (Suárez) but the cited sources do not have the accent (Suarez) because some languages, newspapers, etc. do not use accents, would it be an issue overall? Thank You. Hkc345 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming https://www.jorgesuarezpianist.com is owned by Suarez himself, so per WP:ABOUTSELF (and the newspapers you mentioned) the accent should not be there. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

06:06, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Jameskelivn22

Article publication Help Hello wiki team,

Thank you for assessing my content. I am interested in contributing valuable information to the Wikipedia knowledge hub. however, I am new to here. Please help me to how I can do so. Jameskelivn22 (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameskelivn22: you can find pretty much all you need for article creation by following the advice at WP:YFA. As for general editing advice, the welcome message on your talk page provides many useful links.
As for advice on the AfC review process and drafting, you'll need to be more specific as to what sort of help you're looking for? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:40, 8 March 2024 review of submission by 2406:B400:72:B39:2846:C6C3:986C:8310

I have added Multiple independent references. Kindly suggest what specific changes and references are required. 2406:B400:72:B39:2846:C6C3:986C:8310 (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If new sources are available which were not considered earlier and which you believe would establish notability, you may appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 8 March 2024 review of submission by 2001:EE0:4BCC:2E80:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E

Why did my draft get declined? I just made a circular redirect for the template. 

2001:EE0:4BCC:2E80:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
request redirects here. ltbdl (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 8 March 2024 review of submission by 2601:140:9502:23B0:10D8:58F2:6159:9627

What additional sources could this article be missing? We've illustrated that he is an american lawyer and an author with proven citations from several linked resources. 2601:140:9502:23B0:10D8:58F2:6159:9627 (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read and understand the notability criteria, which are linked to from every decline notice attached to this draft. Being "an american lawyer and an author" are not among these, at least not in and of themselves. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Poplopoa

Please help me as i want to help people Poplopoa (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Poplopoa: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Don't let it stop you helping people, though; that is an eminently laudable goal. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Prasunaeco

1. We have created sandbox with all details and hyper links. While submitting it is showing an error to update the references list. We have already added references list. Request to resolve this and hel[ us to submit the contents for review. 2, My user name is appearing in title heading. Want to replace it as Dr. Asha Prasuna as title of my page. Prasunaeco (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prasunaeco: I have moved your draft from your sandbox to the draft space, you can now find it at Draft:Asha Prasuna. I also added the AfC submission template; when you're ready to submit this for review, just click on the blue 'submit' button.
Before you do, there are a couple of things you need to put right:
  1. You need to support the draft contents with inline citations, see WP:REFB / WP:ILC.
  2. Please remove all inline external links from the body text; convert to citations where relevant.
There is also quite a lot of layout, formatting, etc. work to be done, but those can be dealt with once we've established that the subject is notable and all the information has been verified.
BTW, who is "we" in your question? And what is your relationship to the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:30, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Raisingmamaygma

help me Raisingmamaygma (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raisingmamaygma: you'll need to be more specific than that. What help do you need?
There is nothing at Draft:Reymark Alcorcon, except a redirect to a non-existent target Reymark Alcorcon (Web Developer) which has been deleted. There is a draft at Draft:Reymark Alcorcon (Web Developer), but that has been rejected.
It appears you're engaged in promotional editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. My advice would be not to pursue this any further, as you're likely to get blocked for spamming, sooner or later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Cappyz

I need help with citing references, specifically for this page. This is my first page that I made & it’s harder than it looks. And I’m asking what do I do about it? Cappyz (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cappyz: for notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites a YouTube video by the publisher (non-independent), interview with the developer (ditto), and what looks like a crowd-sourced set of reviews (user-generated), none of which meets the GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the tip. I’ll get rid of those. Cappyz (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 8 March 2024 review of submission by LeahNJ

I would like guidance on why the page was rejected? LeahNJ (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeahNJ: per the reviewer's comment, "This is written up in a more promotional manner than a LinkedIn resume." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:40, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Cappyz

I don’t know how to make a page, if anyone has experience could they help?

Page Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:One_Hand_Clapping_(video_game)

Edit: slowly going insane because of Wikipedia’s wacky rules & conditions. 

Cappyz (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:One Hand Clapping (video game) was rejected it is not a notable topic, it won't be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cappyz, the "rules & conditions" are not "wacky" your just ignoring what the notices say. The notices say multiple, in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent sources are required and you kept resubmitting with primary non-independent sources. KylieTastic (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I should slow down on reading. Cappyz (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Alexjames12

I am requesting assistance because I need help to fix up my article and publish it, need help from an expert to help me fix the issues I am having when I am trying to publish it Alexjames12 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexjames12 the Help desk is here to provide advice but does not assist in creating articles. What I can tell you is that most, if not all, of the sources are not reliable so suggest taking a look at WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for some sources that are considered reliable along with Your first article. S0091 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:15, 8 March 2024 review of submission by REF17

Unclear on why article was unaccepted. There is significant coverage in local media and semi-frequent national coverage. Currently holding a high level position at a branch of a major national organization. REF17 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@REF17 holding a position at a local branch of national organization is not enough nor is being a candidate for a local political position (see WP:NPOL). The national coverage is all brief mentions or named in a list which is not nearly enough to meet notability. S0091 (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


March 9

00:53, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Peter Griffin Explains

Why did you decline it? I worked very hard on it. It took me 1 hour to write it Peter Griffin Explains (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't an article, it was an essay. It was "what PGE thinks about this topic". DS (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:07, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Bello aristol

I’m requesting assistance because my article was rejected. Bello aristol (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@bello aristol: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Mode Trevor

How can I fix this error? Mode Trevor (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@mode trevor: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dupe ltbdl (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

09:43, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Mode Trevor

I have changed my article and wish for it to be published. Mode Trevor (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 9 March 2024 review of submission by 2A10:8012:13:BCB4:DB:90A4:9757:57C4

I do not understand why the article was declined for  not  been adequately supported by reliable sources

since it do includes several well known and reliable sources. Regards Igal Stulbach 2A10:8012:13:BCB4:DB:90A4:9757:57C4 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Most of the sources are related to you and/or are not significant coverage of you. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Rcjqffm

It is still not clear to me/us in what way this article seems to be written in the 'style of an advertisement'. There is nothing to sell here. We, the 2 authors, have no personal interest, but want to inform readers about an important amendment of the Council of Europe's CEFR. So may I once again ask for more specific criticism so we can alter those items, parts, passages which seem to be out of line with Wikipedia policies. Thanks! 

Rcjqffm (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say you "want to inform readers about an important amendment of the Council of Europe's CEFR" that sounds precisely like advertising? Theroadislong (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Xeno21x8

New editor so I may need just a bit assistance. Does this article require more suitable references? Should it be expanded as it's too short? Or a combination of both? Just trying to play it safe here haha. Xeno21x8 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that it may not be resubmitted at this time. All the sources provided are about his company(not him personally) or are associated with him; there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I see, would you recommend I create an article about the company on that note? Xeno21x8 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the company receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization, an article may be possible. Sources cannot include brief mentions, staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, or primary sources; sources should provide in depth coverage of what they see as important/significant/influential about the company- not what it might see as important about itself. Please read Your First article. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Akaayu

Please help me or guide me to published this article.I am new here I don't know any guide or policy. Akaayu (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's a good idea to learn some about Wikipedia first, by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, and using the new user tutorial. Diving right in to creating articles often leads to disappointment and frustration. Wikipedia is not a place to just document the existence of something and tell what it does- articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Slasher2point1

Hi,

My page that I am looking to create for the wife of Tommy Nelson was rejected because Imdb is not considered a reliable source for verifying her film and TV roles. Would the Letterboxd work instead as a reliable source?

Thank you! Slasher2point1 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, No. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for editorial control fact-checking. Letterboxd seems to be like GoodReads (and iMDB, and almost all wikis, including Wikipedia) in that its content is user generated. It is therefore not usable as a reliable source. Your absolute first task in creating an article (ideally before you write so much as a single word of it, so as to save you wasted work) is to find several (generally at least 3) sources, each of which meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Alexjames12

Why is my submission keep getting rejected and the subject am writing about is notable Alexjames12 (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the subject may be in the world, you have consistently failed to show that he meets that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so the draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:42, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Sdsds

The content at Gaganyaan-5 warrants moving it to draftspace. (See also Draft:Gaganyaan-4 and its talk page.) AFCH might allow doing this with appropriate messages posted to user talk pages, etc. Is this currently possible with AFCH, or do other helper scripts do this task? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

01:11, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Emmykeys001

in writing articles Emmykeys001 (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmykeys001, your draft is highly promotional and entirely unreferenced. It is not appropriate for this encyclopedia. Read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:18, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Job R You Tshavis Victorious

The only way I could see the point is to get Job R You Tshavis Victorious (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Job R You Tshavis Victorious: what? ltbdl (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Poplopoa

why?? Poplopoa (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@poplopoa: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. deleting the rejection notice will not change that. ltbdl (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 10 March 2024 review of submission by 219.74.85.151

Hi, our draft has been declined twice and we would really appreciate any advice on this. The feedback given on this article was that it reads as an advertisement. Could you specify in what way does the article appears as so? Is it due to the lack of sources or the general tone of the article? Also, on the matter of sources, we cited from a variety of other sources apart from our own. Hope to hear back soon, thank you! 219.74.85.151 (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in to your account. Who is "we"? If you work for this organization, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure; please also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 10 March 2024 review of submission by RashidB123

I have added several independent sources to confirm the notability of the person, however, the draft has been rejected again. Can you please help me to identify the gaps/redraft to enable me get the approval.

Thanks for your help RashidB123 (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected there is nothing further you can do, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 10 March 2024 review of submission by 77.102.77.218

How can we get this draft looked at again for publication? There is a lot more information now 77.102.77.218 (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we'? user accounts are for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:55, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Wilfie66

Hi Can you tell me if my article has been submitted for review or do I need to re-submit? I see that a couple of editors made some changes on March 3rd but these don't seem to be reflected in the status of my article. I'm new to all this so would appreciate any help please. Wilfie66 (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1212981951"