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 Kalinators (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 3 June 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Kalin_Stefanov_(backgammon_player)). 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


May 28

08:57, 28 May 2024 review of submission by BrianRasmussen

Hi. I want to have this draft deleted since it is difficult for me to improve the article further more. The person is definitely notable on his own in Denmark (he is even more known and recognized than his fellow band colleague Claus Asmussen) but I cannot get more relevant sources about his merits. Best, -- BrianRasmussen (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BrianRasmussen I've tagged the draft for speedy deletion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 28 May 2024 review of submission by Mehdiaic

I'm new to wiki. Please Guide me how can I do this? Mehdiaic (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehdiaic: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.
Do you have some kind of external relationship with this organisation? I see that this was queried on your talk page, and you responded by promising to disclose any conflicts of interest, but I don't see any actual disclosure anywhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 28 May 2024 review of submission by BeenaMehta

Hi, I am having some issues writing a topic. I am new to Wikipedia so I need help editing the topic I have submitted. Please I request you to consider my points and help me with this. It would be a great help. Thank you, BeenaMehta (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenaMehta: the decline notice gives details of why this was declined. Please study it carefully. If after that you have specific questions, come back here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 28 May 2024 review of submission by Rinuverse

Help me out about Draft to Publish it Rinuverse (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rinuverse: what help do you require? The decline notice and the accompanying comments tell you what you need to do. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ya means this movie is releasing on 31 may 2024 for it is stay in my draft or will delete? Rinuverse (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rinuverse: I'm not quite sure what your question is, so I'll answer what I think you're asking. A declined draft will stay in the draft space for at least six months, and more or less indefinitely if it is edited at least occasionally. So if you're unable to find sources to show that this unreleased film is yet notable, then waiting until after its release may be a good idea, in anticipation of more and better sources appearing then. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for understanding my issue and helped me out. Rinuverse (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 28 May 2024 review of submission by Bvedavyas2024

Please clearly mention the unreferenced sections Bvedavyas2024 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bvedavyas2024: I'm not sure why you're asking, given that this draft was rejected for lack of notability, but at least the 'Early life and education' section is entirely unreferenced. Also, a lot of this is allegedly supported by election reports, some of which cannot be verified, leaving those sections also unsupported.
I must also ask you, did you ever get around to reading the message I posted on your talk page more than three months ago about autobiographies, and why we strongly advise against creating one? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
made all changes along with references please verify and live the article Bvedavyas2024 (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bvedavyas2024: I think I'll have to leave it for someone else to deal with you, as this is going nowhere. You seem to have a habit of issuing orders, then disappearing, until you resurface somewhere else. It's very difficult to build dialogue with someone who does that.
But for the future benefit of other help desk hosts:
  1. Can you confirm whether or not you've read and understood WP:AUTOBIO?
  2. Do you understand that rejected drafts can no longer be submitted?
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:39, 28 May 2024 review of submission by Martin.hennerfors

Hello

This page have been updated a bit since the last review/comment. It follows the same reference/sources as all the other WK League seasons and if we cant accept the 2024 seasons all the others need to be deleted to follow a red line/the same logics. Martin.hennerfors (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the page should have been the draft-page, see Draft:2024_WK_League Martin.hennerfors (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin.hennerfors: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been submitted and is pending review. (And no, existing articles would not need to be deleted, even if this one gets declined or rejected.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 28 May 2024 review of submission by Jazibrands

my page keeps getting met back with resistance when there are far more companies that do not have valid Wikipedia pages. candyfunhouse is the same business type as dylans candy bar and they have a wiki page. can someone please help edit the page so I can have it posted. Jazibrands (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jazibrands Please let us know of any companies that you feel do not have articles showing them to pass WP:NCORP We clean Wikipedia as assiduously as possible, but poor articles exist a-plenty.
No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
Please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
Now, you have work to do. Please go to it with a will. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jazibrands: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; it doesn't matter what other articles may be out there, this draft has to stand on its own legs. And no, we won't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk at the best of times, and certainly not in the case of a paid editor whose job is to edit this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you are the marketing associate at CandyFunHouse, I doubt you are going to find anyone here to help you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft deleted, user blocked 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 28 May 2024 review of submission by 97.144.121.141

We've included a lot of sources and citations of published materials about IndexNow. Need assistance clarifying what more is required? This is a digital entity like Sitemaps... 97.144.121.141 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links. There should be no links pointing to external sources until those in the 'References' section (with the exception of one optional link in any infobox).
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
You have two conflicting reference schemes.
It is impossible to review this if submitted in this form. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:12, 28 May 2024 review of submission by MASTERBING21

Hi there, I am working to try submitting my article "Chatham, Ontario" for submission, but I need a little help making it good for submission, is that possible? I also was told that the article already existed as "Chatham-Kent" but Chatham is a city in a county known as Chatham-Kent.

Have a amazing day! MASTERBING21 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MASTERBING21 I reinforce the firm suggestion that you merge this with Chatham-Kent instead and thus improve that article 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 28 May 2024 review of submission by Neer1al

I have included resources about the Macomb Symphony Orchestra.

Multiple newspaper resources and proof of existence. There are no awards to speak of other than the Detroit Music Awards nominations. This is a regional symphony that isn't in the news very often. Not sure how entities/organizations like this document history on a larger scale if any mention in a newspaper is considered trivial. It may be trivial to some but is a bigger deal to others. Neer1al (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is not our inclusion criteria, see also Alan Smithee. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Do you have any offline sources (books, newspaper articles) that discuss MSO in any depth? Sources need not be online (and given this was founded in the mid-70's I'd expect there to be at least some offline sources). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 28 May 2024 review of submission by VWellsMicro

Thank you for reviewing our page. We have reviewed other similar pages (Bing Webmaster Tools, Sitemaps) and both have fewer references from most of the same sources. One of our categorizations does appear to be under math and science, this is not correct. Could this incorrect categorization be a reason why we are having difficulties? IndexNow is a digital search engine optimization protocol (IndexNow.org) similar to sitemaps developed by Google, which does have a Wikipedia. Can you make some suggestions how we can correct the issues you are seeing? VWellsMicro (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:34, 28 May 2024 review of submission by Mendellapine

this is my grandmother and she self sacraficed herself for her religion and i want to post it but i dont know why i cant Mendellapine (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendellapine: Because you lack the sources to support an article on her. We do not host memorial pages. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

00:32, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Jdrmax

This is my first page and I was rejected. I want to learn how to do so properly. Jdrmax (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdrmax: This reads like it's trying to promote the centre. As for your sources, refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are usable for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance. It is very helpful! Jdrmax (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:32, 29 May 2024 review of submission by 59.9.253.65

I believe I am receiving severe racist treatment from Wikipedia. Please help. 59.9.253.65 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am receiving serious racist damage from Wikipedia. help. 59.9.253.65 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? You made personal attacks on my talk page after I rejected it. And now I'm racist? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This man is a deeply racist and undemocratic dictator. This person's behavior is very immoral, rude and unreasonable. He simply rejected the materials without even reading them. 59.9.253.65 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does not read any of the submitter's material and simply rejects it. Rejecting a submission simply because the submitter is of a different race is highly immoral and discriminatory. 59.9.253.65 (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:CanonNi: He does not read any of the submitter's material and simply rejects it. Rejecting a submission simply because the submitter is of a different race is highly immoral and discriminatory. 59.9.253.65 (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@59.9.253.65: Drop the insults. Irrespective of your draft and its contents, accusing other editors acting in good faith of being racist is a very good way to find yourself blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:27, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Sanuja nayak

ମୋର ନାମ ସାନୁଜ ନାୟକ ଅଟେ Sanuja nayak (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanuja nayak: I strongly urge you to NEVER put your personal contact details onto Wikipedia ever again; it's a VERY bad idea that can result in real-world harassment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:32, 29 May 2024 review of submission by 2601:603:780:C710:14F:A198:BC47:43FF

I need know how to create a Wikipedia article for Author Dana Priyanka Hammond 2601:603:780:C710:14F:A198:BC47:43FF (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, look at your references
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:48, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Cristygarna

I have added as many references as I can. After that they again say to add references. I add news reports from top news agencies and YouTube video references also the photos Cristygarna (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and implement WP:CITE 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cristygarna In addition, more is not better. Use only references which pass these criteria: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:13, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Jaclyn.v108

I am new to writing articles on Wikipedia. This is my first go. Please let me know what more I can do to prepare this article for resubmission to make it more likely to be published. Thanks so much! Jaclyn.v108 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove all references to IMDb and YouTube, they are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaclyn.v108, welcome to writing articles! This is the most difficult thing to do in Wikipedia, and writing about a living person is probably hardest of all. We usually suggest doing some easier tasks editing other articles, such as helping find citations, clarify confusing sentences, and do spelling and grammar corrections. If you still feel you want to begin by writing an article, take a look at this page about your first article if you have not done so.
Because Faught is a living person, you will need to abide by the requirements for biographies of living people. One of these requirements is that every single piece of information must be referenced to a reliable source. So for example, looking at your draft: who says Faught was born in 1975? Who says he was born in Kansas? Who says his family legacy was of hard work? Who tells us his mother worked in a factory and then became a beautician? And this continues through the entire article.
You will also need to be very careful about saying anything in 'Wikipedia-voice' - we can't say anything that reliable sources have not explicitly said. So unless a source says that his father 'worked tirelessly', we also can't put that. If the source says he worked in a paper mill, we could put that, but we can't add 'tirelessly' (or any other adjective).
Photographs are another tricky topic. Photographs belong to the person who took them; the photograph you have in the draft looks like it might be a school photo, or otherwise taken by a professional photographer. Unless you are that photographer, you can't upload the photograph, because when you do so you are saying that it is your work.
As you can see there is a lot to consider, which is why creating a new article is a difficult task. I don't intend to overwhelm you, but you do need to think about all these things before you put any more time and effort into your draft. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:43, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Satyridium

My draft has been recjected on the grounds that the topic of bootblacking is basically the same as boot worship, which already has a page on wikipedia. However, these two topics are clearly differentiated in terms of content. While Boot Worship describes the erotic play with boots (licking, kissing, being trampled) in the context of a BDSM scene, Bootblack is an identity and a title (similar to the contests to Mr/Ms Leather) within the leather community as well as a craft and service (basically specialized shoe shining and leather care) which is performed at leather bars and events like pride marches, conferences, etc.

Is it beneficial to expand the article further (especially the parts on history and contests) to make this difference clear? Also, I could try to get more photos as these are currently missing on Wikimedia. I'm happy to work on the boot worship article too, but merging the two topics doesn't make sense in my eyes. Any help is greatly appreciated! Satyridium (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Satyridium Remove references to YouTube. These are not allowed.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
With that in mind, look at the references remaining. Do they pass? if not, replace them with references which do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Bvedavyas2024

after all the changes made and what the reviewer exactly asked I'm trying to resubmit my article but not accept Bvedavyas2024 (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bvedavyas2024: it's because rejected drafts can no longer be submitted; that's the definition of rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the solution for my article Bvedavyas2024 (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bvedavyas2024 The solution would be to not attempt to resubmit it, nor copy/paste it to your user page. Just stop. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My article need to be submitted, I didn't do that again I need a detailed solution for my article Bvedavyas2024 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove every claim that is not supported by a reference to a reliable source. Rewrite with a neutral point of view. A member of a state legislature is usually considered notable, but an article about a notable person still needs to meet Wikipedia's standards. For an example of a short article about an elected politician that does meet Wikipedia's standards, see William A. Flemming and note how the claims are supported by references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Chevelue

I had created a new draft with changes to referencing and a new list of sources but I don't know how to send it and I am afraid you are using the old draft which will certainly be rejected again. How do I send the new one? I thought I had sent it early in May this year but apparently it did not reach you. Chevelue (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chevelue: Reviewers look at the article at the time of review, not prior revisions. If you've added the references and content to the existing draft, then they will be considered when a reviewer gets to it. (The most recent edit from you is, indeed, May 3; however other editors have taken time to try and clean it up and incorporate it more naturally into the draft.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 29 May 2024 review of submission by IWrite44

Hello,

I recently submitted an article draft for Chef Cristian Marino, but it was declined for reading more like an advertisement and not meeting the criteria for neutrality and verifiability. I want to ensure that my article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and would appreciate specific feedback on the following points:

Neutral Point of View: How can I rephrase the content to ensure it maintains a neutral tone?

Independent, Reliable Sources: Can you suggest examples of the types of independent and reliable sources I should include to establish the notability of Chef Cristian Marino? 

I've used sources like his official website and book listings, but it seems these might not be sufficient.

Verifiability: What are the best practices for citing sources to verify the information included in the article?

Here is a brief overview of the article content for context:

Cristian Marino

Early Life and Education: Background in Milan and Calabria, formal culinary education. Career: Over two decades of international experience in Italy, France, the UK, Spain, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Indonesia, Dubai, and the Maldives. Positions with Radisson Blu, InterContinental, and Silversea Cruises. Notable Positions and Achievements: Awards like 'The Golden Q' from Ospitalità Italiana and 'Silver Plate' from Accademia Italiana Della Cucina.

Consultancy and Publications: Offers consultancy services, developed the 'CMmenu,' and authored several books on culinary arts and leadership.

Books: Titles include 'The Healthy Italian Chef,' 'The "Recipes" of My Smile,' 'The Black and White "Smile",' and '10 Rules of the Chef in the Modern Era.'

I want to make sure the article meets Wikipedia's standards before resubmitting. Any guidance or specific examples would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your help! IWrite44 (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IWrite44 For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for providing such detailed information and for your help.
I truly appreciate the time and effort you put into this.
Kind regards, IWrite44 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IWrite44: in order:
As for your sources, refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Your sourcing is noticeably poor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the incorrect sources. Please feel free to remove anything you believe is not appropriate.
Kind Regards, IWrite44 (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:23, 29 May 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A212:A23F:FE80:BC8D:F0A5:741E:3CF3

Hello, I have received an email from somebody called, Asher, who says they are from wikisubmissions. They first sent an email to inform me that if I had created a page or a friend had created a page on the business behalf, there were problems with citations and it would be possible to call him in USA for help on how to fix the problems. Is this legit? Because I responded that I didn't create this page though, I can see in the history the name of the creator, and it is somebody who I know in the Netherlands. However, he contacted me again offering a phone number in USA where we could call and get help. I worry that a call might be a scam and we might get charged. Is this common practice for your crew to contact businesses?

Also, I have read this draft, and all the information about my label is correct. And, although you have deleted submission twice saying the company isn't notable, our record label artists are on radio every day, also some are on National television, magazines, newspapers and radio.

Hopefully somebody can fix this as it is frustrating to get these emails that it is incorrect. Thank you for any help you can offer. All the best, Katthy Keller, Owner OOB Records 2A02:A212:A23F:FE80:BC8D:F0A5:741E:3CF3 (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SCAM. Definitely not legit, and almost 100% certainly a scam. We never contact anyone, and in any case we would never ask for money (which, if they haven't done yet, will undoubtedly be the next step). Steer well clear, and please report any such contacts to the e-mail address shown on the SCAM page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/junk any emails you get from them; they're looking to rip you off. As to your draft, we're looking for evidence of having been noticed and written about by others outside of routine business coverage, and as written the draft is blatantly promotional; refer to my /Decode subpage (linked below as "critiques"):
None of your sources are any good. Just because OOB has notable acts in its roster does not make the label notable in and of itself (since a record label that's solvent would be expected to have at least one, and ideally multiple, successful acts in its portfolio). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Angaiyarkanniedits

need support to fix all issue in this page Angaiyarkanniedits (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angaiyarkanniedits every single statement in a biography must be accompanied by an in-line citation to a reliable source. Vast parts of the draft are unsourced.
More importantly however: you need to prove Vinod meets our notability criteria under WP:NPEOPLE. Qcne (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:15, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Somalipictures

I have brought reliable references, such as the BBC, which is one of the biggest media in the world; the other, Rooti Abuukey, is only a name known, so they should write a report only from the Somali media that I have quoted now. because it is mostly used in Somalia. Somalipictures (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BBC is usually a reliable source. But that is only one of the three requirements on sources in order to contribute to notability. The other two are independence from the subject, and having significant coverage of the subject.
As far as I can see, the two BBC news items you cite do not even mention Rooti Abuukey. They both have "rooti" in the headline, but judging from the Google translations, both of them are about politicians in other countries doing something with bread, and have absolutely nothing to do with a particular Somali dish. Including them tells the reader absolutely nothing about Rooti Abuukey, and including them is unhelpful and dishonest. (And even if the type of bread that Erdogan once sold was Somali bread - which the article doesn't seem to say - this would be a trivial mention, not significant coverage of the subject.)
First find your sources (and make sure that each one of them meets the triple requirements in the golden rule, then - if you have sources - write the article. If you write so much as one word of a draft without finding solid sources first, you are probably wasting every moment you spend on it. ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Dr Susan Tatah

Greetings, I am new here and just created my first page today. I guess i made a mistake and clicked on the submission button. All i wanted was to continue editing in sandbox Dr Susan Tatah (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Susan Tatah: yes, I expect that is what happened, since the resultant submission was blank.
Before proceeding further, please see WP:AUTOBIO, which is probably pertinent here. TL;DNR = you shouldn't be writing about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Susan. In my experience, editors who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning the necessary skills usually have a miserable and frustrating time. Would you pick up a tennis racket for the first time, and immediately enter a competition? Or have your first violin lesson, and book a public recital?
I always advise new editors to spend at least several weeks making a few hundred improvements to existing articles, and learning about how Wikipedia works, before ever trying to create a new article. Creating an article is not the only way, or necessarily the best way, to help improve Wikipedia (I have been editing for nearly nineteen years, and made over 24 thousands edits, but I've only ever created a handful of articles).
When you have understood fundamental principles such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources, and notability, then is the time - if you wish - to read your first article, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 29 May 2024 review of submission by 118.179.205.98

About this page he is a reputed journalist. Lyricist, composer, director and singer. His work was reported in the leading newspapers of Bangladesh. 118.179.205.98 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question; did you have one in mind you wanted to ask?
This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:58, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Atikul Islam Kabbo

Why are my articles getting deleted every time? Atikul Islam Kabbo (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atikul Islam Kabbo: This page is for assistance with the drafting process, but I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazi Shameem Farhad if you haven't done so. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Wizata

Please let me know what to add/remove to get it approved. Thank you! Wizata (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizata: We do not allow usernames implying official/shared use, and you are obligated to disclose your connexion to Wizata. As to the draft itself, it's written as an investor brochure as opposed to an encyclopaedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Added the disclosure to my profile and resubmitted with edits. Thank you for the help. Wizata (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Mastersmithie

I've been working on it for a while now, but I feel like it could use some more clarity and structure. I've been trying to follow some of the tips I've read online, such as keeping it simple and using visual verbs, but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right. Mastersmithie (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mastersmithie, your draft has been deleted because it was unambiguously promotional. Promotional activity is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 29 May 2024 review of submission by 104.255.133.231

Could you please provide feedback in depth as to what is not sourced or referenced correctly please. 104.255.133.231 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does Reyes meet WP:NCHESS? Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Who am i fr

First time making a wiki page and this is for my business ALATIC MUSIC (music producer,dj and record label) Who am i fr (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Who am i fr: You are obligated to formally disclose your connexion to the company. The draft has since been deleted as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion (your conflict-of-interest here does not help). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 29 May 2024 review of submission by DeemDeem52

Seems like this page has been moved into article space without being reviewed. Someone already moved it to draftspace, but the creator of the article moved it back -- what are the procedures for this? DeemDeem52 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeemDeem52: Start an AfD debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should nominate it for deletion? It cannot just be (for instance) moved back into draftspace until it is reviewed? DeemDeem52 (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeemDeem52: You really don't want to continue a move war against an obstinate user. You're better off taking it to AfD; let the community decide what to do with it (draftification is an option at AfD) and give the other user an opportunity to be a better person or to swallow the key to the gaol he's been locked inside. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Thanks - I'll start that now. DeemDeem52 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeemDeem52 in these cases I start with "Disputed draftfication" and explain the route I think the community might take. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 29 May 2024 review of submission by 91.120.151.59

. 91.120.151.59 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected twice. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been rejected, and will not at present be considered further. Once the version has been released, there will likely be sufficient reliable, independent, sources with significant coverage to base an article on; (note that almost nothing published by Microsoft will be of any relevance). But at present it is TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 29 May 2024 review of submission by Rubyzinner

Please help - I do not understand how this subject is not notable enough for an article. I included so many sources. I am so frustrated! Rubyzinner (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubyzinner You appear to have a basic misunderstanding of referencing.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
You introduced a multitude of references but they failed the criteria. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me an example of a reliable source on this particular subject? All sources show he is credited with the work that he did. Rubyzinner (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubyzinner, the difficulty is that there may not be any reliable sources out there! We do not doubt that he has done some work as a writer/producer; the trick is that you need sources that show he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Have a look at WP:CREATIVE which I believe would be the notability criteria that covers Abrams. If you think he meets criteria 1 or 2, you would need to include that in the draft (with evidence). I am not familiar with his work but I think that you will agree that his musical, having opened only a month ago, is probably not yet regarded as a significant or well-known work (compared to, say, Cats, Wicked, Les Miserables, and so on) and thus he cannot meet criteria 3. Likewise I suspect his work has not yet won significant attention, so criteria 4 is out.
Maybe this article is too soon. I believe Abrams is a young man with a couple of works under his belt - he has many years of creating ahead of him. It is entirely possible that in a few years (even Andrew Lloyd Webber needed time for his career to take off!) he will be notable, and you will be able to write an article for him. Don't let yourself get frustrated or upset; keep an eye on his career, collect information, and if you feel like it practice editing Wikipedia so it's easier to get your article approved when the time comes. StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:28, 30 May 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) 19:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 29 May 2024 review of submission by SparrowsQuest

Hello, my article has been declined several times, and each time I have understood a bit more what makes a good article. I've made some additional edits and would be grateful for any input that might help to highlight any remaining obstacles to its acceptance before I resubmit. Thank you. SparrowsQuest (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SparrowsQuest I note youi have declared a WP:COI. Please disclose the nature of this. Are you receiving any compensation for writing this draft? I will ask this question formally on your talk page im a moment.
I think you have received sufficient advice from each of the six reviewers. Patently you have not written a draft whose references show he passes WP:BIO. You case is not helped by the use of a copyright photograph. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

00:28, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Kellyooouuu

I'm requesting for assistance on how I may improve this article that I want to publish. Kellyooouuu (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellyooouuu: the reason why this draft was declined is that there is insufficient evidence that the person is notable. Given that local politicians aren't notable per WP:NPOL, and there no longer is a special notability guideline for football players, you're left with the general WP:GNG guideline. You need to produce multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent, and that have provided significant coverage of the subject. (You also need to support the draft contents better, as there is currently unreferenced biographical information, although that wasn't the reason why this was declined.)
What is your relationship with the subject? I've posted a conflict of interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:33, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Emmabellarudd

Hi! Does this article appear neutral? Thank you so much for your help! Emmabellarudd (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmabellarudd: it does have some fairly peacocky expressions like "captivated audiences and shed light on the critical issue". We also don't use hashtag terms, this is not a social media platform.
More to the point, this seems to be you telling the world about yourself, and citing some sources almost coincidentally, or perhaps to show how much media coverage you've garnered. This is not what Wikipedia articles are about. You need to find a few (say, 3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and summarise (in your words, and without putting any additional spin on things) what they've said. As long as this is just you writing about yourself, the whole thing is inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO).
And even if written as outlined above, it shouldn't be you writing about yourself, for all the reasons explained in WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Danasbiz

I need help editing my draft Danasbiz (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is required there is not a single reliable independent source there, and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Danasbiz Your username is "Dana's biz"- are you associated with Dana Hammond? 331dot (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
associated with Dana Priyanka Hammond Danasbiz (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz then it is mandatory that you make a paid editing disclosure, by following the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so will result in your account being blocked. Qcne (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how do you make paid editing disclosure? Danasbiz (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz see WP:PAID. You can do so by adding the {{paid}} to your user page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but as I mentioned before, I am not receiving any compensation for my edits. Therefore, I'm not required to add the {{paid}} template to my user page. If there's anything else you'd like to discuss or any further assistance you need, please let me know! Danasbiz (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not receiving any compensation for my edits, I am not required to make a paid editing disclosure. My edits are made in good faith to improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. If you have any further questions or need more assistance with the article, please let me know! Danasbiz (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz did you write that with ChatGPT?
If you are not being paid by Dana Pryanka Hammond, why is your username "Dana's Biz"? Qcne (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the confusion. The username "Dana's Biz" was chosen based on the context of the information provided by you about Dana Priyanka Hammond, not because I am personally connected to her or her business. It was intended to maintain context and coherence in our conversation. If this has caused any misunderstanding, I apologize. Danasbiz (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you outputting replies that sound like a large language model wrote them? Qcne (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Your username was chosen when you created your account, not when you started this post. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no connection between me and Dana Priyanka Hammond. I simple created an account that came to me on top of my head that would be easy to remember for me. Again, I am very sorry for the misunderstanding because I am not trying to create any confusion or start anything that was not meant to be harmful. I just came in to input information. I did not realize my username would be a problem and if there is a way I can change it, I would. Danasbiz (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right... so pure coincidence then... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizarre thread this is turning out to be. I'll get some popcorn. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are having such a big problem with me or why your picking on me, but you sure are acting like you know me for whatever reason. If you must know. My name is Dana also. So, can you please relax and lay off of me. I am brand new here and I just created an account for the first time, I am a newcomer here so please don't treat me like I should have known the rules when I don't. Danasbiz (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are you associated with Dana Hammond? What is your relationship to her? Are you Dana? You affirmed earlier that you are associated, so we just need to understand that connection. Qcne (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz: could you please explain how you came to take the photo, if you have no connection to the subject? It has clearly been taken at close quarters, and you uploaded it as your own work, with Ms Hammond posing for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wow, you guys are very relentless just ready to chew me up and spit me out for whatever reason. If you must know also, I am the authors friend and I know her personally so I have access to her photos she has provided me with plus various of things. I am doing this on my own free will for her, that is why I am not getting paid for this. I am doing it because I feel her information is important enough to share and create. Danasbiz (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I recommend you read WP:COI, as you have a clear one. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finally letting us know. You just need to make that conflict of interest declaration by following the instructions at WP:COI. Qcne (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the WP.COI and I am making sure that I write neutrally Danasbiz (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read WP:NPOV then, as sentences like As a bestselling author, Hammond is renowned for her candid memoirs and self-help books, which provide insight, inspiration, and guidance to readers around the globe. aren't exactly neutral. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz also, please do not use AI when writing drafts. (quite obvious from this edit summary) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no problem Danasbiz (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does she own the copyright to the images she is providing you with? Usually the photographer is the copyright owner, it isn't usually the subject. I'm sorry you feel "chewed up and spit out", but diving right in to creating articles is the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that new users first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles first, as well as using the new user tutorial, before attempting this difficult task. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hers and is rightfully owned by her and the photographer as well. I guess I really did not know what I was really getting myself into when I came on here, but rest assure that I am following Wikipedia rules in everything and making sure I am correcting everything as well. Thank you for your concern. Danasbiz (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danasbiz: nobody is "chewing you up", but you seem to have totally misunderstood what Wikipedia is, and is not. It is an encyclopaedia. It isn't a marketing channel for you to tell the world about you, or your friend, or whatever the relationship is between you and Ms Hammond (and so far you've said you are "associated", you have "no connection" at all, and now you are a personal "friend", so who's to say which if any of those is true). DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes I completely get it. Thanks. Danasbiz (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:10, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Ss ram

Hello All,

Today I got to know that "Draft:Niranjan BS" that I had submitted to Articles for Creation for review has been declined to failure to provide reliable secondary references regarding notability of the subject. I kindly request you to read below my humble opinion regarding this.

Additional criteria for notability state "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" and elaborates it per WP:ANYBIO for any biography as "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." The subject of this draft, Niranjan BS, is a prominent South Indian television actor who has won quite a few awards as listed in the draft, but I would like to bring to your kind attention 2 specifically noteworthy awards (noteworthy because they were awarded by well-known independent organizations) - which are "Kala Nekara" award (from Karnataka Art Weavers forum) and "Padmamohana TV Awards" for Best Debut Hero from Padmamohana Arts (another prestigious organization that has been conducting several social and cultural programs for around 30 years in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states and presenting state wide awards). These 2 organizations are independent of the TV Channels that telecast the subject's shows, thus imparting a real significance to these awards as they hence stand apart from the other awards too that he had been conferred with.

Also, additional criteria for Entertainers (actors) state "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." As listed in the draft, the subject has played significant roles mainly in TV shows (3 of which including the current one are as the male lead, hence significant roles) but also in other forums like short films and briefly in movies.

All these cover a span of around 10 years, but unfortunately secondary sources like books, etc, are not usually written about actors within this relatively short span for actors, so could not find any reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, but could find many primary sources like magazine articles which I have included in the draft, and importantly, many of these references are exclusively about the subject himself and I did not include anything that made just a passing reference about him or include any gossip-type articles, carefully read and corroborated information in these articles before deciding on their veracity and their inclusion as references; a couple references that would seem like passing references were included only as a sincere attempt to provide proof for his involvement in whatever show/activity that the reference is about and truly not any insincere attempt to provide too many insignificant references). I honestly adhered to all Wikipedia rules to my knowledge and ensured that I do not include even a single piece of information for which a reference could not be found online, and in the process, I myself left out many references which did not seem satisfactory or authentic to me or ones that just made passing references about him. If this draft gets approved, I promise to devote my time and attention to update it as and when other additional references (primary and secondary) become available. Hence, I request you to kindly consider approval of this draft because not only the subject meets the above 2 additional criteria for notability but also the draft only contains 100% verifiable facts and made with real sincerity towards adherence of rules. I once again humbly request to consider the above 2 Wikipedia Additional criteria regarding notability for entertainers as the basis for approving this draft.

I thank everyone involved for your time and kind attention in this matter. Ss ram (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss ram, your biggest problem here is that you say there are no reliable, independent secondary sources. Each and every article must have sources that meet the criteria of the golden rule: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You may use primary sources for very basic facts, such as if Niranjan BS did an interview and stated his birth date, but they cannot be your only sources. I have looked into your first 10 sources to give you an idea of how much work is still required.
1) is an interview, which is not independent and is a primary source, so it is useless without secondary sources;
2) is from the network that airs one of the shows he was in, so it is not independent and cannot be used;
3) is a YouTube video, and YouTube is not a reliable source;
4) appears to be a highly promotional biography, and having no individual author ('Team Nettv4u') is usually not a good sign in terms of reliability;
5) is behind a paywall, so I cannot access it;
6) is just a place you can watch videos he is in, which is useless for notability;
7) is from The Times of India, which is not considered to be reliable and cannot be used;
8) is a passing mention at best, and cannot be used;
9) and 10) are from Instagram, which can only be a primary source and even then only if it is the subject's official account, which this is not. Both of these cannot be used.
You might have one reliable source, but all the rest do not help your draft and should be removed. I know this is not the answer you want, but unfortunately this is where you stand at the moment. Before resubmitting, you need to find a lot of reliable sources - read WP:BLP if you have not already - and do not resubmit your draft without fixing all the issues. I see you have it waiting for a review right now, which means you have time to work on it! If it is declined and you resubmit it without making any improvements, the draft is likely to be rejected and that means you have run out of chances to get the draft approved. Good luck in your search for reliable sources, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @StartGrammarTime,
My heartful thanks to you for taking your valuable time and answering my query and reviewing the draft. I have 2 doubts, which I kindly request you to clarify.
I really did understand about reliable and secondary sources, but unfortunately could not find secondary sources such as books and all available sources were primary, but when I read WP:ANYBIO, my understanding was reliable/secondary/independent sources are the basic criteria, but that there are additional criteria for specific categories such as actors, etc., and that "People are likely to be notable if they meet" those standards. I felt Niranjan BS meets those additional criteria, with regards to awards and significant roles. I understand that notability cannot be proved adequately when there are no secondary or reliable sources and that it cannot be proved based on available primary sources alone. But when it comes to actors, the listed reliable sources (for India) (such as the magazines like The Hindu, etc) are not going to interview every actor out there, I am not referring the ones who did insignificant roles, but rather even the ones that did substantial roles or received awards and their choices. We do not know what would be such sources' criteria to interview any particular actor, so finding references from only such limited sources for every actor in India may not always be practically possible, but that does not mean such actors are not notable at all (here too I am not meaning popularity, I mean notability only), right?. I believe it is for this very reason that Wikipedia has those additional criteria. Because if we suppose every actor would have secondary/reliable sources and the issue is only the editors not finding them, then Wikipedia wouldn't even have those additional criteria and would have mentioned only the basic criteria as the only criteria to be met for all biographies. So if there are specific additional criteria (for actors, etc), it means Wikipedia itself is providing a rightful exception for such cases. So does not our subject deserve an article even if he satisfies those additional criteria?
Second doubt is, you had mentioned that The Times of India is not a reliable source. I understand that, but I see many articles for actors that have been approved without having any reliable/secondary/independent sources and surprisingly with ONLY The Times of India as reference (example: Rakshith Gowda). This article only has 5 references listed, 4 of which is from The Times of India and another is a non-independent source that you have listed as #2 in your reply. So when that article was approved, why should our draft, which lists more references than that and (though many primary and non-independent for the reasons stated abovve, and as you said, 1 source that might be reliable, which is The HIndu), be declined? That is just one example and there are many. My aim is really not to question Wikipedia on all of this, but I genuinely don't understand this lack of uniformity regarding rules. So when Niranjan BS meets at least the additional criteria for notability (which itself Wikipedia provides as an rightful exception when the basic criteria are not met currently), can you please intervene in this matter and see if this draft can be approved based on both reasons above?
I remain indebted for your time and attention. Ss ram (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss ram, I know it can be very frustrating when you can't find secondary sources! Sadly though, you do need them if you want this article to be approved. If there are no secondary sources, the article won't be approved. And since you're writing a WP:BLP, every single statement needs to be referenced. This is one of the reasons creating a Wikipedia article is so difficult! Of course there are many wonderful actors who touch people's hearts and make great films and shows, but are still not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Not everyone gets an article, which can be upsetting, but the notability criteria have been worked on for decades and this is what has been agreed upon by editors much more experienced than you or I.
You mention other articles which seem to have only unreliable sources. It's true that there are many articles which aren't up to the current standard. Some were created a long time ago, and some have slipped through the cracks. If they were submitted today, they would probably not be approved. If you spot an article like this, you can try to improve it or you can nominate it for deletion. There are millions and millions of articles and everyone here is just a volunteer, so we really need help to find articles that should be improved or removed. Every time someone points out an article that's not up to our standards, we have a chance to do something about it - so thank you for finding that one!
I am only an editor like yourself, and I do not review AFCs; I just try to help out here when I can, because the reviewers are very busy. What I can do is have a look for sources with you, and help you decide whether what we find can be used. I can also tell you that the sources don't have to be online, and they don't have to be in English - they just have to exist and be something that Wikipedia editors and readers can find if they want to know more. Do you think there might be articles written in magazines, or offline newspapers, or even a book? We can keep talking on your Talk page or on mine if you would like, and I'll help you if I can or point you towards someone else if I can't.
At the moment I think the best thing to do is to keep looking for sources, and wait to see what the reviewer has to say. If they feel the sources are a problem, they will tell you. If they feel Niranjan BS might be notable on the basis of the awards he's won, as you say, they might ask for more evidence of the awards, or information about them to help with the decision. Good luck, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StartGrammarTime,
Thank you so much again for your detailed reply. Yes, my problem is lack of secondary resources currently for Niranjan BS, like I said he's an actor less than 10 years in field, and though his work is so much appreciated, there are no secondary resources now. But as for the facts I provided, though they are from primary and nonindependent sources, I made sure to cross-check with the actor's own interviews (which I did not include in references as I thought it's better to cite other sources than his own interviews) that they are correct and included only such information and left out all other news which were present in those references itself but which were not reiterated by the actor anywhere. So as for the facts, they are all true. But I also understand the facts you have stated. I could find other language articles too but again all which would be classified as primary sources only, unfortunately.
So I am really in a quagmire now and do not know what to do, after all the sincere attempts in creating this draft, took a couple of months to collect all those and prepare the draft and then a patient wait of 3 months now, even during which I kept correcting the draft for even minute mistakes.
And for the re-review, I really had no idea until today morning because someone else has submitted it for re-review. I have no idea who submitted it for re-review or for what purpose. When all the issues are not resolved, I know it could be detrimental and so I undid that submission, so currently it is no pending any review and it is just in declined status. I hope as the actor grows in his career, more reliable sources become available, but right now, I am at loss of words and really so disappointed.
I remain so thankful to you and wish you all happiness. Thank you, again.
Ss ram (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss ram, you are welcome and I am happy that I was able to help you. I am also very sorry that you are feeling a little lost and disappointed. Creating an article on Wikipedia is very difficult and takes much more time and effort than you would expect.
Can I suggest an idea? It seems to me that since Niranjan BS has only been acting for a little while, he might become notable in the future even if he isn't now - have a look at WP:TOOSOON and you will see that this is a common situation. You already have a draft written, and as long as you make a small edit to it every six months it will not be deleted. You could also save a copy to your computer if you're worried about missing the six-month mark. If you keep an eye on his career, and maybe look for more sources every six months or so, you will be ready to submit your draft when the sources are available. In the meantime, there are thousands of articles that might interest you, and editing Wikipedia is great practice for working on your own draft - you will soon start to understand all the policies. You might also learn about some other exciting actors and be able to improve their articles! That's what I would do, anyway.
Whatever you do, take care and I hope to see you around Wikipedia again :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StartGrammarTime,
I really cannot express in words how much thankful I feel towards you, for all the time you have taken to try and help me out and for all your valuable suggestions. This is so kind of you. I too had decided the same, to safeguard the draft and to wait for the right time that reliable resources become available, but that resolve got strengthened after reading your reply. Sure I will follow all that you have told me. I once again thank you from the bottom of my heart and I pray that you be blessed with happiness and success in all your endeavours, not only here in Wikipedia but throughout your life. Bye and take care..
~~~~ Ss ram (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, please read as "noT pending any review"
Ss ram (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Carrot6290

Hi! I dont understand how is this not notable enough if Patrick Levacic is international master in chess and also professor in university. Also there are lower ratet players with wikipedia page that have lower titles than IM: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_Trivedi 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Francesconi 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinjan_Rajkumar_Gohain#cite_note-Hindu2009-09-19-3 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Concio&action=edit

Please, notify me what am I writing wrong or different than these guys that doesn't meet the criteria of Wikipedia. Carrot6290 (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bro i think you need to add news articles about Patrick Levacic Freedun (yippity yap) 11:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrot6290: International Master is not enough to establish notability, WP:NCHESS would require the Grandmaster title instead.
The draft (stub) doesn't even mention his academic career. If you can show that he is notable per WP:NACADEMIC, then please produce evidence of that.
Otherwise notability relies on the general WP:GNG guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Freedun

There are full articles about the song in reliable music sources why was this not accepted? I think it's important for Wikipedia becuz it is the first Miike Snow single in a while Freedun (yippity yap) 11:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedun: you need to show that this is notable per WP:NSINGLE, which the current source aren't enough to demonstrate. Being "the first X single in a while" is not a notability criterion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Which I think is true here. the issue is the song isn't really popular so i dont think it will chart on a music chart anytime soon. but now it says i can approve it by myself by moving into a main article am i allowed to even though its declined Freedun (yippity yap) 11:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedun: the first source provides no coverage of the single, it only mentions it as part of a list. The other two are better, although #3 calls itself a 'blog', which normally means no editorial oversight etc., so how reliable it is, is anyone's guess. Even being generous and accepting both #2 and #3, that's only two sources, and we normally require three at least. So I'd call this at best borderline. If you want to move it to the main article space, that is indeed your right, but don't be terribly surprised if it gets bounced back to drafts, or worse, deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh ok. I'm going to add a few sources because i only added ones i needed and then i will move to main article space hopefully it doesn't get deleted! Freedun (yippity yap) 11:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedun You exercised your right, but it does not pass WP:NMUSIC. It is returned to Draft. Your job is to prove that it passes by use of references. No proof? No article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 30 May 2024 review of submission by WilliamEHillis

Greetings! I posted this article last night and it was rejected by this morning. The subject is the chamber of commerce for the 22nd-most populous city in the U.S., which is also a leading Hispanic cultural center. The reason provided was:

"This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting."

I had included five citations for this article from three different sources. (This is not meant to be a long article, just an introduction for now so that I and others can link other relevant articles to it.) I've twice cited a sixty-year history of the organization published in the local historical society's journal, a citation from a local newspaper of record, and two from the organization's website. The problem finding other external sources is that few reporters outside the historical society have reason to write articles at length on the subject of the chamber itself, rather than on recent activities, such as changes in leadership.
Once the article is published, I and others will be free to add more information about the Chamber's activities, such as its various committees and recent accomplishments, to the extent that these are reported by third parties.
I will close by adding that it seems odd that such an influential organization with such a long history in such an important city doesn't have an entry already.
Friendly regards,
William
WilliamEHillis (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamEHillis: Wikipedia articles essentially summarise what other, reliable and independent (and ideally secondary) sources have previously said. If such sources do not exist, then it isn't possible to summarise their coverage, and hence not possible to publish a Wikipedia article on the subject.
Our standard requirement to establish the notability of a subject is three sources that meet the WP:GNG guideline. Of the citations in this draft, #1 and 4 are the Chamber's own website, which is clearly not independent; #2 and 3 are the same, and therefore count as only one source; and #5 is a representative from the Chamber explaining why they've rebranded (again, not independent, and in any case just routine business reporting). That makes it probably just a single qualifying source, possibly two, and either way not enough to satisfy GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your reply. I'd like to address this: "If such sources do not exist, then it isn't possible to summarise their coverage, and hence not possible to publish a Wikipedia article on the subject."

Firstly, just to be clear, I myself am a third party, not employed by and never having been paid by the Chamber.

Secondly, please bear in mind that the subject is a 125-year-old industrial and commercial organization of a leading city in a relatively isolated region of historical significance to U.S. and Mexican history. That seems relevant to any objections.

Thirdly, it sounds like you're dismissing the article in the newspaper of record for having reported from the subject, which the newspaper of course regarded as an authoritative source; and that you're dismissing the anniversary account in the historical society journal as the only authentic third-party source (which also most likely relied on reports from insiders).

If this standard is upheld for all public-sector and non-profit organizations (agencies and departments, schools, churches, charities, etc.), then there would be no articles about any of those subjects, because nearly all of them rely ultimately on internal sources. Otherwise, that information would be regarded as hearsay. No-one can report about the history or the founding of an organization, or of internal changes or external policies and programs of that organization, without authoritative access to that information. For that matter, there should be no Wikipedia citations from autobiographies. But reporting on these isn't the same as reporting witnessed public events or natural phenomena. As examples, I submit the current Wikipedia references to their article on the WELL, which contain multiple citations from the WELL itself and related parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WELL.

So where do all the articles about these subjects come from?
WilliamEHillis (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamEHillis: it seems you may have missed my point. I'm not saying that the organisation in question isn't important or well-known or long-established or anything like that; I'm sure it is. I'm saying that if sources of the kind I described don't exist, then what is there to summarise, to base a Wikipedia article on? Please read the WP:ORG guideline which pertains here, and which clearly states that (and I quote):

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists ([...]). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.

As for what other articles may exist, and how they may be referenced, this is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is, alas, a fallacy: we do not assess drafts by reference to existing articles, but rather by reference to the currently-prevailing guidelines and policies. Inevitably there are all sorts of problematic articles among the nearly 7 million in the English-language Wikipedia, but they are no reason to create more such problems.
I hope this clarifies the matter.
Best Regards, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum requirement for an article is significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent secondary sources, preferably three, two of which are from outside the local area. You can read more about these criteria at WP:NORG. This is how we establish that a subject is notable, which all subjects must be.
Additional noncontroversial information can come from the subject itself -- an organization's own history would be acceptable to include the date it was established, etc. -- but the minimum requirement for notability must first be met. For your example, The Well, there appears to be significant coverage in Wired, the NYT, and The Atlantic.
The chamber may be incredibly important to the city of El Paso, but still not notable for an encyclopedia. The same is true for any organization. Valereee (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: I've checked the notability rules for organizations and companies,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement:

"...
A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization"
Password is the scholarly journal of the El Paso Historical Society. The article cited is a six-page anniversary history of the Chamber with citations from that journal.

Regarding the newspaper article, "The source's audience must also be considered. Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability."

The El Paso Times is a regional newspaper with international subscribers and coverage, comprising the Paso del Norte region of El Paso itself; Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico.

I will be glad to add other references to the Chamber from the El Paso Times if that will be sufficient to qualify the Chamber as notable.

WilliamEHillis (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The local historical society's 6-page article could count as your one instance of sigcov that is local. You need ideally two non-local (and not the same). To me, the El Paso Times can't be considered non-local when it's covering organizations in the city in which it is published, and in this case it's pretty run-of-the-mill coverage: a name and logo change for the local chamber. I just don't think the coverage is there to support a claim to notability outside its local area for this organization. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again! So as I offered, if I include other references in the Times, or other third-party publications or newspapers of record, perhaps in other regional cities, to events of significance over the course of the Chamber's 125-year history and those more recent, will it then be reconsidered, as these will comprise four or more citations (taking the current number as three)? I'd just like to add that the broader cross-border region in which the Times reports comprises 2.9 million residents, so larger than San Antonio, Texas. The name change needed to be documented. I feel like these changes would meet the black-letter requirements of notability that you and DoubleGrazing have pointed me to. WilliamEHillis (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you can keep trying, but you may be wasting your time. And if at some point someone decides you're wasting other peoples' time, too, they'll just reject the article outright. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last question then: would any news sources, or organizations, persons, or events as their subjects, within this cross-border region and its history be considered notable under WP rules by you and your fellow reviewers? This would be useful for me to know before I proceed. WilliamEHillis (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure what you're asking...are you asking whether any subject that has three instances of WP:significant coverage in wp:reliable sources that are wp:independent of the subject and include two instances in sources outside the local area supports a claim to notability? In general, yes, though there are exceptions such as WP:ONEEVENT. See WP:NBLP for rules about living people, WP:NEVENT for those about events, WP:NMEDIA for those about news sources, WP:NORG for those about organizations. The requirements differ slightly among them.
Realize that the creation of articles from scratch is difficult for newer editors who haven't yet had a chance to learn all of our policy. There are 6million articles on Wikipedia, and there are 50million back of house pages like this one, supporting those articles. Many of them are devoted to content policy, which means there is an extremely steep learning curve here. We often advise new editors to start by improving existing articles in their area of interest to allow them to learn without becoming frustrated that every time they turn around, there seems to be yet more policy telling them they've just wasted a ton of time. We appreciate that you want to make sure the El Paso area is covered adequately, but you might go take a look at WP:WikiProject Texas and maybe see what others are doing in the El Paso area. Valereee (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might the following not be considered relevant in this case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
...
Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.
WilliamEHillis (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you both and any others to continue discussion at Draft_talk:El_Paso_Chamber, as I understand that this is the advised procedure to follow before proposing declines or deletions of pages for reasons of notability re: WP:NEXIST, WP:NPOSSIBLE.

WilliamEHillis (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: newspaper reporting and self-reporting about an organization, there appears to be an overlooked distinction in the guidelines between promotional copy, and facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources
* An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or subsidiary organization to another. It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women").
‡ ^ A person's or an organization's website could contain some secondary material about itself, although this is not very common. Such material would still be self-published as well as first-party/affiliated/non-independent material, and thus would still be subject to restrictions in how you can use it.
WilliamEHillis (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Jherwen

I HAVE MY REASON TO UPLOAD MY PAGE AS AN ARTIST. PLEASE Jherwen (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please turn off your caps lock. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please see the autobiography policy, nor do we have any interest in social media or marketing efforts to enhance your career. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jherwen Wikipedia has chosen to delete the draft you submitted, so I am unable to see it. It was deleted as being Unambiguous advertising or promotion). 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Jrodriguezrentas

Hello, I haven’t heard anything from the editors. I’ve added information that was pertinent for it being a notable person. Can this be moved out of draft? Jrodriguezrentas (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that resubmission is not possible. If you believe that you have addressed the reasons for prior declines at a fundamental level(not just superficial changes), you should first attempt to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrodriguezrentas: Your references being mainly unlinked and incomplete seriously complicates matters. Any news articles that are online should have active links to them (the ones in the draft are somehow disabled) and any references from periodicals or books should be cited with the appropriate template ({{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}} or {{cite book}}). We have a minimum amount of required information for offline cites (For periodicals: outlet title, edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline, and pages the article is on. For books: Title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrodriguezrentas: Editors use Google Scholar to measure the impact of a doctor or other scientist. Amler should set up a Google Scholar profile at https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=new_profile&hl=en so that citations to his articles can be tracked and the articles will appear together in Google Scholar. LeapTorchGear (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 30 May 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener

Good day, Concerning the sources, I can only provide those that are official, such as the school's website; they only have a Facebook page. Additionally, the references regarding the school's achievements are limited to Facebook and YouTube, which are the only sources I found adhering to the Notability Guidelines. I would also like to extend my deepest apologies for my previous questions and edits. It is my first time writing and drafting what I believe to be a reasonable page for moving to the Article space. I request that this draft be reconsidered for approval, and I would appreciate any assistance to enhance it.

User:Jojit_fb Can i ask for your assistance

Thank you in advance. RexScrivener (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener this is the fifth time you have asked about the draft. It has been rejected and will not be considered further. It is not "a reasonable page", as it does not meet WP:NORG nor WP:GNG. As you said yourself, the only sources are YouTube and Facebook, neither of which we can use. Please stop asking about the draft, thank you. I'm also not sure why you pinged Jojit fb, as they aren't an AfC reviewer. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:28, 30 May 2024 review of submission by Matandi2001

I need assistance to edit my Page title from "Weep Not, Child" to "Weep Not, Child (The Novel)" due to the existence of a page with a similar title as the former.

During my review of the article, I widened thematic areas besides using the requisite citations but was unable to find the right button to edit the title.

Any help will be highly appreciated.

Best regards, Johnson. Matandi2001 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article about the novel here Weep Not, Child. Theroadislong (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, there is an article by the same title, which, however, is not as comprehensive as mine. But the issue here is: I want to change the title of my article to "Weep Not, Child (The Novel)." How do I change the title?
Regards. Matandi2001 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Matandi2001. The best thing for you to do is to improve the existing Weep_Not,_Child article. Qcne (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to, it is pointless creating a draft of an article that already exists, you can edit and improve the actual article here Weep Not, Child. Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

02:20, 31 May 2024 review of submission by KImMoro

Good day, I tried creating a page for Photographer Karl-Edwin Guerre, however it stated that the content may not meet the guidelines. Can you let me know what needs to be changed as there are references online to the subject. Thank you. Kim KImMoro (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KImMoro the draft was deleted under G11, which means it was blatant promotion. I am not an administrator and therefore cannot see the draft, but a quick Google search found almost no useable sources. Please read our notability guidelines for photographers and other creative professionals. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Ananthua9560b

Please help me complete the draft and make it suitable for wikipedia Ananthua9560b (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ananthua9560b: see WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and WP:ORG on notability. Your draft lists (without citing) two sources, the first of which is completely useless, the other insufficient to verify the draft contents or to establish notability of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Why are we suddenly seeing all these drafts on Indian military units? Is there some sort of coordinated effort to create these? If so, can you tell us who is coordinating this, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Amar Nath Sehgal

I do not know how to add references. Most of the information in the article is from personal interview and discussions from the museum owner. So I do not know how to reference it. Amar Nath Sehgal (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Blocked indef) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:19, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Jessie GYU8

Hello, I'm Jessie GYU8, the creator of this draft. I left this message because there are some problems.

First, I found out that I can't submit the draft again, and the reason is I did not change my draft's content. I'm sorry for that, but I tried my best to avoid sentences that are "peacock", and also tried to verify that this draft is available to be included by Wikipedia.

Second, if there is any way that I can submit the draft, please let me know. I pay a lot of attention to this draft.

Please guide me to solve these problems. I would be so appreciative of that. Jessie GYU8 (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessie GYU8: just to be clear, I didn't reject this draft because you hadn't made changes. I rejected it because, even after multiple previous declines, there was no evidence at all that the subject is notable, and given that no further evidence was offered since the previous submission, I could only conclude that none was available. For that reason it would also be pointless to resubmit this, as it stands; it would only have to be declined again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply.
If I can find more evidence to certify that it's notable, do I have a chance to submit this draft? Jessie GYU8 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessie GYU8: if you have evidence that wasn't made available earlier, you can add that to the draft, and let me know, I will then take a look. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply.
Does this mean I can add the evidence to my draft and don't need to submit it again because you can read it? Should I just leave a message on your user page?
This message is very helpful. I will try my best to make the draft notable. Sincerely, thank you for your reply. Jessie GYU8 (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessie GYU8: yes, technically speaking you can still edit the draft, you just can't submit it again. And adding the evidence of notability there is much easier for anyone to assess, than if you come eg. here with it, because that way it can be seen in context.
Appeals against rejection are made directly to the rejecting reviewer, in this case me. So yes, you can come by my talk page to let me know whenever you're done with editing. Only do that, though, when you have a solid case, as I will only review this one more time. You are paid to edit this, not me, and I will not be dragged into co-editing or iterating with you.
Also, be aware that none of the four sources you currently have contribute anything towards notability, so you have quite a lot of work to do, going from zero to unequivocal notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your reminder, it really helps me a lot.
I will leave a message to let you review the draft until it has notability.
And here is the last question: if there are other troubles, such as the draft still having problems that need to be solved, do I still have a chance to edit the draft and it will be transferred to another reviewer, or is this the last chance?
Sincerely thanks for your reply. Jessie GYU8 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:12, 31 May 2024 review of submission by ItsVishalBawa

Hi Team Please help me to Realise this article ItsVishalBawa (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ItsVishalBawa You have submitted it for review and it is pending. It is unlikely to be accepted, as you only have a single source. An article must summarize what multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in your case, a notable musician.
It appears you are writing about yourself- Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can i change my user name. 122.163.173.233 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you log in and then tell me on your user page(User talk:ItsVishalBawa) what new username you want, I can change it for you. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsVishalBawa: can't do that, but I will go and decline it.
Your user name has been queried many times. Are you the Vishal Bawa that you're writing about? If you are, please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO.
Or if you're not (as you seem to be suggesting on your talk page, if I've deciphered it correctly), then you must change your username, as it is misleading. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it seems my learned friend Theroadislong got there first. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Rihanshariar12

Why am i doing this Rihanshariar12 (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rihanshariar12 that isn't really a question we can answer, but your draft was tagged for deletion under G11, meaning that it is blatant promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pubbilshed this page but it failed Rihanshariar12 (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean pubilshed this page but failed Rihanshariar12 (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because it was draft Rihanshariar12 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place for you to tell the world about yourself. You should use social media to do that. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You submitted the draft for review, and it was rejected by a reviewer. Please see WP:AUTO and Help:Your first article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Shelby Beaven

I’m very sorry for any inconvenience, I’m new here and I thought I could write an article about myself. Is there any way I could publish it or get any one to write it for me? Again I am very sorry for misunderstanding, thank you Shelby Beaven (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shelby Beaven. Your draft was declined multiple times, but you kept re-submitting with no changes. Now since I have rejected the draft you will not be able to submit it again. You are not notable by our standards and do not merit an article, and you really should not be writing about yourself anyway.
Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 31 May 2024 review of submission by ItsJustGiraffe13

Someone please help add some more cites and add more information! ItsJustGiraffe13 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's up to you to have sources in hand before you begin the process of writing a draft, not write the draft first and then look for sources to support it- see WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I just want to say, it was already rejected for that before I started working on it. I just want to make things right in hopes for it to be published in the future. 😅 Thanks for the help though! I will see what I can do! ItsJustGiraffe13 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the reasons for rejection, you may ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks! ItsJustGiraffe13 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've seen this covered extensively in Finnish mainstream media this week, so shouldn't be too difficult to establish WP:GNG notability, now that the game is actually out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Ah507

I've added more sources from notable news outlets about the subject, do see if it still qualifies under WP:N. Thanks! Ah507 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ah507 It was rejected. So I doubt it will proceed further 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ah507 Your sole edit to this draft was this one, made on 23 October 2023. Please explain "I've added more sources from notable news outlets about the subject"? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

08:17, 1 June 2024 review of submission by Sanketmore-patil

For creating Personal Page For Myself Sanketmore-patil (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanketmore-patil don't. Creating autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Your draft is blatant promotion and will be deleted soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:50, 1 June 2024 review of submission by SREEJESH PADMARAJAN

kindly update the details SREEJESH PADMARAJAN (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SREEJESH PADMARAJAN: what do you mean? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SREEJESH PADMARAJAN Please provide suitable references 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 1 June 2024 review of submission by 172.77.252.52

I don’t know 

172.77.252.52 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has just been deleted as blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not for advertising your service. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 1 June 2024 review of submission by User5428778

There are multiple sources which are reliable sources that cover Caleb Wu. What is missing to make the Wikipedia page notable? User5428778 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User5428778 Notability. This shows possible WP:BLP1E which is doubtful. bit not his passing WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 1 June 2024 review of submission by GlosHistoryBuff

Hi, I'm new to Wiki editing and seeking clarification of why this proposed article was rejected because it "is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Of the nine references cited in the draft page, I accept that one is to the website of the article subject, however the other eight are references to independent sources including the UK government register of companies and register of charities, the UK royal family's official list of charities and patronages, and several different news sources unconnected with the topic of the article. I'd also like to challenge the lack of notability argument, it has at least as much notability as existing/accepted articles on similar organisations such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gloucestershire_Society. I'm not sure if there is an appeal process, but if there is not, any advice on how to make this article fit for publication would be appreciated. Thank you. GlosHistoryBuff (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected, sources need to be independent as well as reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question you need to ask yourself is, Where have people, wholly unconnected with the Company, chosen off their own bat to write at some length about the Company, and been published in reliable places? If the answer is "nowhere", then there cannot be an article.
I don't see a single source in your draft that meets that description.
As for existing articles: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 1 June 2024 review of submission by Dr pangloss

I wanted to iterate and saw draft as the best way to do that before going live. I used AfC because I had never done it before, previously I moved something from draft to main, as the tutorial says ("just go for it!").

As soon as clicking submit, I was told there were thousands of articles and a review could take months. I then decided to just move it as the tutorial states and I had done before.

I looked for some way to back out an AfC request but I didn't see it. Once a user submits something for feedback, is he locked into waiting for feedback and the page cannot go to main until that feedback is given? Thanks Dr pangloss (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr pangloss: the short answer is, most users are in most cases free to publish directly, without having to go through the AfC process. (Exceptions being where the user hasn't the necessary permissions, or is under some sort of community-imposed restrictions, or has a conflict of interest).
The longer answer is that once your article has been moved back to drafts (especially by a highly experienced administrator), and the draft has then been declined, it wouldn't be wise to publish it at this stage, as that would effectively be disputing the draftifier's and reviewer's assessments of the articles readiness for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! My article had not been reviewed when I posted this. It happened maybe 2 mins after. I will improve it and ask the reviewer what he considers better sources. In my area, the state historical review journal and the national register of historic places are the top citations you could have for an article on a historic neighborhood, but review says poor sources. Dr pangloss (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr pangloss: apologies, I didn't realise this was only declined after you had posed the question. (I think my point is still valid, either way, though.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

07:01, 2 June 2024 review of submission by মোঃ সবুজ বিশ্বাস

How can I submission article?? মোঃ সবুজ বিশ্বাস (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, that's what rejection means. You have no sources whatsoever- and seem to be promoting this person. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Jickiebou6y6

It’s a real person how can I publish this article? Jickiebou6y6 (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jickiebou6y6: we don't doubt that, but you need to a) show that the person is notable by satisfying either the WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST notability guidelines, and b) support the information with inline citations to reliable published sources (see WP:REFB). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Leo0502

The article was rejected for three reasons:

- Links in article body - links are moved to <ref>.

- Opinion polling for next Turkish election is not a notable subject / too soon - pages for opinion polling are created as soon as polls are published, usually a few weeks after previous election. This was the case for Portugal, Spain, Poland, Slovakia, Netherlands, Denmark etc. Why is article for Turkey being held up? It's been a year since previous election, there were plenty of polls and similar article exists on Turkish Wikipedia.

- Twitter is not a reliable source - it is, if it's official twitter account of polling firm. Twitter sources were used in article about 2023 elections in Turkey - why is Twitter considered an unreliable source in this article? Leo0502 (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo0502: to be clear, the draft (not yet 'article') was declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road) for lack of evidence of notability; the other reasons were offered as additional comments.
If you disagree with that assessment, you're free to move this into the main article space yourself, as you have the necessary permissions. New page patrol will then assess it instead.
If it were me, I would try to find better sources for those Twitter cites, because they are throwing up red flags all over the place and prejudicing the draft unnecessarily. But it's not me, and you must do as you see fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official Twitter account of the polling company probably does count as a reliable source, but not an independent one, and so does not contribute to establishing that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense. ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Arqureashipk

Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. Arqureashipk (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arqureashipk: I'm sure it is. Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Dr. Qari Ikramullah Mohsin
@Arqureashipk: Your draft is both undersourced and hagiographic. We don't accept promotional text, and every claim the article makes that a reasonable person could challenge must be properly cited to a third-party reliable source that verifies it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Leaschlatter

Dear Team, I have trouble publishing this article about Massimo Filippini. I received the comments that there are not enough external sources, however, I do feel like there are a lot. Indeed, there are sources from the national Swiss radio (in French, German, and Italian), associations, and initiatives citing his great work as an economist. I would like to seek your help on this matter. Thank you in advance. Best, Lea Leaschlatter (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaschlatter: thank you for disclosing your connection, first of all.
The decline wasn't on the basis that there aren't enough sources cited, but rather that those sources aren't sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. Please note that when the subject is commenting on other matters does not contribute to this, even when done on reputable and reliable media. We would need to see significant coverage of him, rather than commetary by him.
That said, I actually feel like this person probably is notable via another route, namely the special WP:NACADEMIC guideline, given the Titularprofessor title, h-index of 55, etc.
You will, however, need to support the contents better, as there is some unreferenced information. Pretty much every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and any private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Anything which cannot be thus supported must be removed. (And you could just get rid of the entire 'Hobbies' section, which is not only unreferenced but also IMO not relevant.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Yusofsheikh


ChatGPT I am requesting assistance because I need an article about Lottery Sambad. This article should be concise, around 200 words, and should highlight the key aspects of Lottery Sambad, such as its popularity, the frequency of draws, the impact on winners' lives, and the overall appeal of the lottery. The goal is to provide a brief yet informative overview that captures the essence of Lottery Sambad and its significance to participants. Yusofsheikh (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Yusofsheikh, I'm not ChatGPT, but I am here to tell you not to use ChatGPT to generate talk page messages any more than article or draft content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yusofsheikh: If you cannot read/write English competently enough to edit the English-language Wikipedia, then you need to work on the Wikipedia project for your mother tongue instead of using large-language models. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Noan Lowinen

Why was my submission was declined Noan Lowinen (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noan Lowinen: No sources, no article, no debate. The draft also doesn't give any indication as to why its subject is notable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 2 June 2024 review of submission by BalticSeal1209

Can you clarify what I need to add? I have added the sources which were requested. One being a secondary source of the portfolio of the individual and the notable one being the actual LABOUR PARTY website. BalticSeal1209 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing there to suggest that the person is in any shape or form notable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a statement from the person where he is a candidate to be imvolved in the National Policy Forum which is how the Labour Party policy is formulated. I would argue that such role is very notable and to be a candidate for that is impressive. BalticSeal1209 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BalticSeal1209 What has this young activist done to be notable? Fails WP:BIO as presented 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a candidate for the NPF which means he could possibly become involved with the creation of Policy for the UK Labour Party.
Furthermore, he is an ambassador for the Borgen Project which is very impressive as that is an organisation working with governments across the world (mainly US and UK) to help tackle global poverty.
Therefore, being a political ambassador and possible policy maker for the current largest UK political party is very notable. BalticSeal1209 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm afraid not, unless he has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a reliable source? Because if the Labour Party website is not reliable enough to prove his involvement in politics, then I do not know what does. BalticSeal1209 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BalticSeal1209: In-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Wilkinson news/scholarly sources that discuss him at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. Anything Labour says about him is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Also, while we do have specific notability criteria for politicians, it deliberately excludes candidates for public office. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BalticSeal1209. In this case, only persons who meet our politician inclusion merit a Wikipedia article. Hayden does not meet any of the criteria there. He may do some day! But not today.
Can I ask what your relationship to Hayden is? Qcne (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Rockkeeper

My submission was rejected as being "blank". I don't know what is required or how to correct the issue.

Thanks, in advance! Rockkeeper (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rockkeeper. Your draft was blank with no content, so cannot be reviewed for hopefully obvious reasons. You need to actually write text in order for a draft to be considered for review. Qcne (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockkeeper: it is blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I do not know where to type the information, I typed it in the sandbox and it was visible to me. Rockkeeper (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockkeeper I see now "A Journey through Avery County's Tie River Valley and Western North Carolina, from "The Ledgers of Sunny Brook", by James Myron Houston - Google "My Maps" in the sandbox. If that is what you typed and all that you typed, then it is insufficient to be an article. We do not know what the topic is, not what makes it notable 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I do not intend for it to be a self standing "article". It is just an addition of historical map information to the "external links" portion in Winkipedia's information about "Avery County - North Carolina" Rockkeeper (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockkeeper Wikipedia only accepts article which stand on their own merits, and whch pass our strict acceptance criteria. Perhaps you need a blog instead? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but no blog. I just wanted to contribute the map information, so the local history of the area might not be lost. I appreciate your time and feedback, as I, in reading the information contained on Winkipedia, did not understand that "edit" does not include the ability to contribute information, unless it was an article that "stands on it's own merits". Rockkeeper (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockkeeper "edit" allows you to edit anything you feel you can add value to. "Submit"or equivalent words allow you to save the edit. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockkeeper Light dawns. I think you were attempting to edit Avery County, North Carolina. If what you hope to add is a valid addition there is nothing to prevent your adding it in the correct place 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do not know where the "correct place" is available to place the edit. Aftwr working in the sandbox, I tried editing it on the "external links" Avery County site, as my edit contains the link to the interactive Google map. That edit was removed for some reason or I did not submit it correctly. I will continue to look for the proper place. Thanks! 65.188.73.11 (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

02:10, 3 June 2024 review of submission by 154.91.163.41

Please create this article thank you sir 154.91.163.41 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected and will not be considered further. None of the sources are usable, and the draft is promotional in tone. Please see WP:NBIO and H:YFA. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:05, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet

So I submitted lot's of article draft for review,which were abandoned by authors.One of them was Draft:Don Bosco College Panjim but it got rejected.I checked on internet,it was good presence and notability but I don't know how to include it.There are 8 references,But I am seeking a great editor who can help protect that abandoned draft,as I am not good at this. Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet: this wasn't "abandoned", it had been rejected. Rejected drafts cannot be resubmitted, hence why I rejected it again.
Why are you going around submitting drafts that you've (presumably?) had no involvement in? Did you think we don't have enough work with over 3,000 pending drafts?
And would you mind explaining your username, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I've added them to this SPI. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi: haha, beat me to it while I was making coffee! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the fastest man alive. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you part of Gloss Media,specializing in Wikipedia articles,I got a message when the article was rejected Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell us a bit more about this "Gloss Media"? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got this message from them
Gloster Media Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Ritesh Kumar, representing IDIGITALAKKI MEDIA Pvt. Ltd. Where we specialize in Wikipedia moderation. We noticed that your Wikipedia page submission was recently rejected. We're here to help you with that. If you're interested, please let us know. Thanks & Regards, Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet this is a scam. Please ignore the message and report it to Wikimedia by following the instructions at WP:SCAM. Qcne (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was so such rejected tag when I came across the article. Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there wasn't, was there? Because someone removed all the tags. Funny that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

Hello! I submitted a reviewed version of the current article, but none of the changes show up. Kamila Fomin (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamila Fomin Instead of editing your sandbox, please edit Draft:Daniel Druhora. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin: are you talking about User:Kamila Fomin/sandbox or Draft:Daniel Druhora? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing the draft Daniel Druhora. However, after I published them, I can not see them. Kamila Fomin (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin: are you talking about those IMDb citations? They were removed in this edit. IMDb is user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable; it is pointless to cite it – see WP:IMDB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Jatingarg9368

Plese suggest what should I do to get it uploaded. Jatingarg9368 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jatingarg9368 It's completely unreadable and has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. There is random text in all caps all over the place, references formatted poorly, and the only readable parts are promotional. Is there a coordinated effort to create these Indian regiment articles? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...or is there, as was suggested by Secretlondon, user/-s registering multiple accounts from which to submit these drafts? This question has now been asked several times, in several places, but never answered (AFAICT). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Savannahhannah

I resubmitted with requested changes in March, and I don't see that it has been either accepted or rejected again. Savannahhannah (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Savannahhannah: this draft shows the most recent submission date as 2 May. We currently have a backlog of over 3,000 drafts awaiting review. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Kalinators

Hello. My article has been declined twice due to apparently not having reliable sources. This is clearly not true as I have posted the pages confirming each statement. After I asked at the Teahouse, I was told that all details in biographical articles need to have a reliable source, however, the article I used to refer from, while writing mine, has only 2 sources, none of them about any detail, and both of them being a dead link. Please confirm this for yourself below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Vischjager

This is why I insist that my article has, indeed, sufficient and clear reliable sources provided, regardless of the fact it is about myself. If you deem any part of the article is not neutral, please go ahead and edit it. However, declining it due to "not reliable sources" is simply incorrect. Or if it would be correct, please specify which information is missing a reliable source.

Thank you! Kalinators (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1227070750"