Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Requesting assistance regarding Source
Line 534: Line 534:
:I'm kinda wondering too, as state representatives meet [[WP:NPOLITICIAN]]. There are stylistic and sourcing issues; sources need to be in-line with the text they are supporting,(see [[WP:REFB|Referencing for Beginners]]) and the style should reflect other articles about politicians, but I don't think this should have been outright rejected. {{u|TheBritinator}}, would you object to allowing this user to resubmit?
:I'm kinda wondering too, as state representatives meet [[WP:NPOLITICIAN]]. There are stylistic and sourcing issues; sources need to be in-line with the text they are supporting,(see [[WP:REFB|Referencing for Beginners]]) and the style should reflect other articles about politicians, but I don't think this should have been outright rejected. {{u|TheBritinator}}, would you object to allowing this user to resubmit?
:How did you come to take his picture on the floor of the Missouri House? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:How did you come to take his picture on the floor of the Missouri House? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 09:12, 3 March 2024

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


February 26

03:41, 26 February 2024 review of submission by MathewArmstrong

I am wanting to get some assistance on this Draft. Sources I have been able to find initially mentioned about the production company he owns, however I was able to find further sources on a show he was on and also notable shows he had produced, which in some regard, I thought may be able to get him over the notable like for Wikipedia. I will be patient however, thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about the company he owns, or about shows he has been on, are not relevant unless they contain significant coverage of him. ColinFine (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MathewArmstrong, you need to find articles (or books, etc) that are just about him. Keep in mind that interviews usually won't be accepted, because those are things he's saying about himself - you want something written by someone else, someone with no connection to him at all, someone who is writing about him because they think who he is and what he's done are important and people need to know about him. If all you can find are mentions of him, then sadly he probably won't meet Wikipedia's very specific standards of notability. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have been able to find some articles yes but also films that he is credited with. But yes articles I found that are focused on him. See [https://www.localmatters.co.nz/entertainment-news/coast-becomes-renovation-star/]. Please do feel free to take a look @StartGrammarTime and thank you @ColinFine too for your feedback here! :) Thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry and I have added this one too [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/consumer-watch-choice-closes-gap/QHZLMUB3NHF563Y6G533XPR4HQ/]. Thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! Found he was also a radio host back in the day. This is now added. Much appreciated! MathewArmstrong (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:06, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Shravani Chary

what are the changes i can make in my draft for it to get approved? it's rejected saying that it looks more like an essay. Shravani Chary (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shravani Chary, I'm sorry to say that when a draft is rejected, that means it will not be approved no matter what you do. The reviewer has left you a note (below the big box at the top of the draft) with suggestions for how to make use of some of the information. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:59, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Umepand99

Could you please guide me on how to publish this draft version of the modification? As they are also a CCaaS provider! Umepand99 (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Umepand99: this draft was rejected (a year ago!) and will therefore not be considered further. In any case, it consists of nothing more than a list of redlinks, which does not add up to a viable article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how to merge article with other articles Shravani Chary (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shravani,
Thank you for message.
They have developed an impressive LLM model and offer their CCaaS platform to telecom companies. Their expertise in the domain and AI innovation prompt me to reconsider the request. However, it's challenging as I've included all referenced online articles, which I believe are crucial for establishing the brand and company name for approval.
Could you please provide guidance on what specific information is needed for approval? This company's innovative work deserves recognition. Umepand99 (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which article does this message refers to? Shravani Chary (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Contact_Center_as_a_Service_(CCaaS) Umepand99 (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its a deleted article Shravani Chary (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not intended as a form of recognition or honor- our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet the notability criteria. If you have
You seem to have written about your company(as well as another draft about yourself)- you must declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID, and read conflict of interest. The text of Draft:StarTele Logic was highly promotional and the sources provided merely documented the routine business activities of the company- they did not summarize what they see as important/significant/influential about the company- what makes it a notable company. We don't want to know merely what the company does or what it thinks about itself. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Hrtacp

This page has been rejected by a bot, please help in regards to this Hrtacp (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected by an experienced reviewer User:Usedtobecool I concur that there is nothing notable about you, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious as to how you own the copyright to the image of yourself, which is not a selfie and appears to be professionally taken. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 49.229.136.124

May I know what additional infos and references should I add in? Thanks. 49.229.136.124 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Any article about this person(is it yourself?) should summarize what independent reliable sources say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you have such sources, please discuss it with the reviewer directly first. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been rejected, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms, the draft will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:27, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Rj8

This is a local movie with limited coverage or source citation like journals. I have cited the necessary articles to confirm its a real film. why cant it be published? Rj8 (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rj8: because there is no evidence that the subject is notable, either by WP:GNG or WP:NFILM standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said it is not real. Wikipedia is not a mere database of things that exist. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's literally hundreds of articles about different movies, tv shows, etc. There's already precedence for articles like this. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See other stuff exists for that argument. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong so y'all are going to delete the thousands of articles that exist on the genre? Sounds like a group of editors actively trying to ruin a once great website. Stuff like this is LITERALLY what the website was created for. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@12DionneJ, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - are you old enough to have grown up with Encyclopedia Britannica, either as a book or the exciting new technology of CDs? (I had the CD version and it was amazing). If so, you'll probably remember that a lot of things were covered, but not everything. Even with a website it's simply not possible to cover everything, especially if we want the information to be correct and up-to-date - there's only so many volunteers, and only so much time, so we have to find a way to limit the information. This does include deleting and rejecting articles - it always has, even from the very beginning.
Over time, Wikipedia has settled on certain standards for what we can and cannot cover. Sadly, it seems the movie you want to write about may not meet those standards. You can always keep looking for sources. If it's a local movie, perhaps it's been covered in local newspapers? Not everything is online, and we do accept offline sources if they can be verified. You are unlikely to be able to change the standards, which have been developed by thousands of people over more than two decades - but you can see if it's possible for this article to meet them. I genuinely wish you the best of luck in researching! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I grew up with hard copies. Like 26 books. Then Encyclopedia Brittanica on CD-ROM. Also, I merely commented on this. I'm not the one writing an article about a movie. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@12DionneJ My apologies, I should have double-checked. StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 193.187.220.2

Please support, this is supposed to be just basic info about that company, what needs to be adjusted and I will, thx tom 193.187.220.2 (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is insufficiently referenced, and the sources do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has zero interest in basic information about that company, Wikipedia reports what reliable independent sources say about a topic, also see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 122.161.242.21

why my article was rejected? 

122.161.242.21 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for self-promotion. You want a social media or blogging platform, rather. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 12DionneJ

Simply continuing work that has been done regarding the topic of Toyota Transmissions that has been done over the past 2 decades here on wikipedia. Please approve this article as well as the other 3 I have created regarding these transmission series. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Kevin-Luv

This About The Famous Artist Lil 2jay I Work With Him Can You Please Out This On His Google thank You Kevin-Luv (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin-Luv: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Bettylella

Hello, as you can see from the talks we have modified the page multiple times, can you help me figure out what could be keeping it from being published? It seems to me that it respects the criteria of notability Thanks in advance Bettylella (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bettylella: what's currently keeping it from being published is that it hasn't been resubmitted for another review. If you feel that you have sufficiently addressed the previous decline reasons, click on that blue 'resubmit' button and a reviewer will take a look at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick glance suggests that some of the sources do not mention him and others are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I think that the problem is, that I'm not use to work on the English wiki. In the reference 9 you have put "failed verification" because I have referenced the web link instead the report but, if you open the report, at 39 page Annexe I, you have the name of Mr Leclercq as one of 39 members of the High Level Expert Group of the European Commission. I apologize for all these problems and thank you so much for you time and help. Bettylella (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettylella: yes, you should wherever technically possible point to the specific URL that contains the source which directly supports the given statement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the EN wikipedia is different from the italian and french ones with which I am used to work and it seems I cannot reference PDF files. Can one of you make it or tel me how to do it? Bettylella (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettylella: citing a PDF should work the same as citing any other online resource, just by pointing to the PDF's URL. But yeah, I'll take a look at it shortly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your answer. Bettylella (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:04, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Siqi Huang

What should I do to improve my reference? Siqi Huang (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Siqi Huang: I don't know, and I can't read the sources; pinging Johannes Maximilian who was the last reviewer to decline this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please improve the citation style. Bare links or a set of characters aren't very useful; please use a common citation style, e.g., author, title, work, date, access-date for online sources. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Wowlastic10

User:Zoglophie This article is different from Laccadive Islands but it assists in gaining knowledge of islands present in Lakshadweep, so it would be helpful if you move it to the main article page. Thanks!! Wowlastic10 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wowlastic10: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. The last reviewer suggested incorporating the salient new content (appropriately supported) into the existing Laccadive Islands article instead. Feel free to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 26 February 2024 review of submission by James.mcgilfoy203

The rejection issue was "not reliable sources". I was wondering while writing the article if citing the primary sources for app store links was incorrect. However, it has sources from large publications as theverge.com. I'm a bit unsure if they are not considered "reliable", but based on the article linked it was a secondary source reviewing the original article. Would it help if I removed the primary source app store links from the sources list, and only used them in the external links section? Any help appreciated. I'm trying to get into Wikipedia editing. James.mcgilfoy203 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the core question is complying with WP:Notability, which here boils down to finding a couple of independent published sources that cover the topic in depth. The closest thing you have to those is three websites each of which reviewed ~5 of this type of product and an interview of the creator in a web site. IMO this puts you in "edge case" territory". There are also some minuses which maybe technically shouldn't matter but give it a bad look. Some of your "sources" besides being "primary" are really not sources.....sales type pages on web sites. Also the article is written like a self-description. My advice:
  • Find and add another independent source which cover it in depth
  • Re-write it like you are and editor trying to inform your readers about this product
  • Take out some of those listings that aren't even sources. Don't even put them into external links (although it is OK to put the supplier's main website in as an external link.)
I'm guessing that the above would make it fly. Or, if you do all of the above ping me and I'll review it. Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

00:19, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Boxinglove

This is an event as a boxing lover we need to know about any upcoming boxing event and its always in media and its official, not promoting its just for information for our boxing fans. Boxinglove (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

advice all how can i fix this. Boxinglove (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have little more than announcements of the fight as sources. For this fight to merit an article before it occurs, you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the fight and how it is notable. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:23, 27 February 2024 review of submission by AWolfSpider

I'm confused as to why this was rejected. These sources are both about as reputable as they get in terms of spiders and there is no information in the stub I wrote that isn't verified in one if not both of the sources. AWolfSpider (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given for the rejection was a WP:Notability criteria one. Prima facie this requires in-depth coverage by confirmed WP:RS's. This article falls short in both the "in depth" part and the wp:RS part, the latter being due to just mentioning on 2 web sites vs some authoritative published publication. (BTW, there are more species on the planet than there are articles in the entire Wikipedia, so vetting of some type is needed) IMO the common practice for a species article is that when there is a confirmed reliable source that says that the species exists with some content to put into the article, and the editor takes the time to write more than a stub on it, that the "in depth" coverage-in-sources criteria gets relaxed. My advice is to find and add a published confirmed-reliable source and build the article a bit more. If you wish to do that and ping me I'd be happy to take a look at it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:26, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Designedits

The decision that this figure is not notable, is entirely subjective and by virtue of the fact that this designer works in the public sphere at an International and domestic level on projects of significant public and private significance is pedantically short-sighted and completely inconsistent with the existence of other Australian figures in this industry who currently have live wikipedia articles. These call on far inferior references and are outdated or not even correctly attributed. (see links at the base of this entry to two examples).

How is it that the importance of the 20 year career of an award-winning, author, internationally published and actively working Australian designer isn't deemed notable? The superficial and subjective nature of this review by user Xegma - a self-professed resident of Kolkata, India, whose special interests are Indian television - demonstrates little understanding of the place this individual holds in this industry - locally or abroad. How is this not peer reviewed, in the context of other articles that have been approved for Wikipedia. It makes very little sense.

James Treble Greg Natale Designedits (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Designedits I fixed your link, the "Draft:" needs to be included. We don't need the whole url when linking to an article or page on Wikipedia, just place the title in double brackets, as I've done here.
That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. These other articles could themselves be problematic and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing based on a misunderstanding of WP:Notability. The most viable route of the the two possibilities is to meet WP:GNG which means to argue that there is in depth coverage of him in independent WP:RS's. BTW IMO this criteria has been met in the sources provided in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable" is perhaps an unfortunate word. What it means in Wikipedia speak is none of "important" or "influential", or "famous", or "popular", or even "significant"; it means "there is enough reliable independent material published about the subject to base an article on" - remembering that 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) 21:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:56, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Rafaelquint99

Requesting a review of the cuisine section to make it more encyclopedic. Added references to section and rephrased part of the section otherwise. Rafaelquint99 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelquint99: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have successfully submitted the draft, and a reviewer will assess it at some point; please be patient.
Do you have a connection with this business, by any chance? If so, it needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:23, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Manonmission1970

Hi, Last week, I created article shell for Post Disaster Management Australia, in my sandbox. ... I am working with Dr. Pau Steinfort to co-create this page. There is NO other page on this topic. He brings over 47 years experience in this area, has a PHD and order of Australia, and I have over 20 years in post disaster and community projects, and over 30 year in general program management. I'm really struggling to understand why the core index which i have created in my sandbox was not approved. We are aiming to populate this article, but if Wikipedia doesn't approve the core skeleton of the article, it is not possible to populate the rest of the contents. we have decades of experience in this area, and the materials being consolidated does not existing in a single location. Last week, we were asked again to provide inputs into post disaster recovery, which could easily be put in wikipedia. How can we move this forward. Paul Manonmission1970 (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manonmission1970: you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. We publish encyclopaedic articles on subjects which are deemed notable. They are written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, and those sources must be cited both to verify the information and to establish notability. Your draft was unreferenced, and therefore had no evidence of notability. You and your co-author may well be eminent subject matter experts capable of writing about this topic knowledgeably, but that's not what we want; we instead want to see a summary of published information, appropriately referenced, as explained above. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An index will not be approved as an article. An article must do as DoubleGrazing states.
Wikipedia is not a free webhost for you to host information for a "target audience". This is an encyclopedia, typically written by lay people for all lay people. Please see WP:EXPERT. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the reason why the table of contents in the sandpit was left unpopulated is because there is a substantive amount of work to be completed in the sandpit, to fully populate the article. If wikipedia is not going to approve the premise of the draft, this is not much point, doing lots of work, only for wikipedia to reject all this work.
This seems to be counter, to the logic of having a sandpit to build a strong draft, into a ready to publish article, that meets the wiki standards. We can achieve/prodcuce, better than encyclopedia level notable article on this topic, which is nowhere on Wikipedia, or not really on the internet, except one lite-weight and incomplete source from one Australia Government department. This source is an incomplete view of the topic.
We would appreciate your advice, how we can move forward, with decades of experience and knowledge on this topic, we are tryinh to find a way forward on Wikipedia. There is a sea of information, which is challenging to navigate. I would be most grateful, if you can share acceptable pathway forward. We have been trying on best efforts, to advance this consolidation of high value knowledge on this topic. Bye Paul Manonmission1970 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:46, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Mustafdesam

The article Draft:Chaman_Chakko is about a notable and upcoming film editor in Indian films.  Mustafdesam (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mustafdesam: "notable" and "upcoming" are pretty much mutually exclusive. In any case, this draft has been rejected for lack of evident notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the reason why the table of contents in the sandpit was left unpopulated is because there is a substantive amount of work to be completed in the sandpit, to fully populate the article. If wikipedia is not going to approve the premise of the draft, this is not much point, doing lots of work, only for wikipedia to reject all this work.
This seems to be counter, to the logic of having a sandpit to build a strong draft, into a ready to publish article, that meets the wiki standards. We can achieve/prodcuce, better than encyclopedia level notable article on this topic, which is nowhere on Wikipedia, or not really on the internet, except one lite-weight and incomplete source from one Australia Government department. This source is an incomplete view of the topic.
We would appreciate your advice, how we can move forward, with decades of experience and knowledge on this topic, we are tryinh to find a way forward on Wikipedia. There is a sea of information, which is challenging to navigate. I would be most grateful, if you can share acceptable pathway forward. We have been trying on best efforts, to advance this consolidation of high value knowledge on this topic. Bye Paul Manonmission1970 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 27 February 2024 review of submission by JoeManMac

I am the staff of Multiable Company and I would like to create a page for the term "Multiable". I am stuck with the reference links since Multiable does not have much qualify reference links. What can I do to create the Multiable page successfully? JoeManMac (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeManMac: the very first thing you need to do is to formally disclose your paid-editing status; I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions.
As for your draft, Wikipedia articles are mostly written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. If you cannot find such sources, then it may not be possible to write an article on your employer at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoeManMac What you are essentially asking is "I want to build a house, but I don't have land, the permits, or the materials, so how can I build a house successfully?". If you don't have appropriate sources, there cannot be an article about your employer. Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist, nor is it a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 27 February 2024 review of submission by সফিউল ইসলাম

Do you think this article is like a promotion? সফিউল ইসলাম (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuous submission without improvement constituted WP:DE, which also shows that your intent is not about any value addition to Wikipedia, instead about just having an article by any means. Also your previous creation draft:Safiul Islam (Researcher), which is the translation of your name in Bengali shows that you are here only to promote yourself and related others. zoglophie•talk• 10:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:14, 27 February 2024 review of submission by SejalMedia

Why Rejected Articles? SejalMedia (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:17, 27 February 2024 review of submission by SejalMedia

I created article Saurabh Sudam Tamhane, Saurabh is indian actor, There is NO other page on this topic. SejalMedia (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 27 February 2024 review of submission by 102.220.41.253

I don't have enough experience in editing article in Wikipedia, kindly help me, need for support in submision of this article 102.220.41.253 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. I have rejected your article draft as not being notable enough for inclusion in the project. There is no indication Ayub meets our criteria for inclusion, sorry. Qcne (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will help you by advising you to not even try the challenging task of creating a new article until you have spent at least a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles. When you have an understanding of notability, reliable sources and neutral point of view, you may be ready to read your first article and have a go at creating an article. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Yoleeth

Hi! I used another wikipedia page as an example when writing this one, as they are similar in company type, and also lists some of the product produced. I also used independent, reliable, unbiased sources. Other feedback on why this submission was declined would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Yoleeth (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! Forgot to include the example I used, Adafruit Industries. Yoleeth (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoleeth: modelling your draft on an existing article is risky (unless, perhaps, the article is rated good, which the Adafruit one isn't), as the article may have issues that haven't been picked up yet, and which you won't want to replicate in your draft.
Your primary objective is to find sources that clearly satisfy the WP:NCORP standard for notability, summarise what they have said about the subject, and cite each source against the information it has provided. No additional 'spin' or promotional content should be included. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your posting above, translated into housebuilding terms, is something like "I tried to build a house that looks like that one", when you don't know anything about surveying, construction methods, or legal requirements for housebuilding in your area. The crucial part of the work (finding suitable sources) needs to be done before writing a single word, because otherwise you risk all you work being wasted if you can't find the sources (in my analogy, the site not being suitable for building on). ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 27 February 2024 review of submission by JackMorley23

Good Afternoon, please advise me on why this isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia? Alex Blake is an world famous actor appearing in some biggest and best selling series of the century. JackMorley23 (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackMorley23: the sources simply aren't sufficient to establish notability. (Not to mention that this is very promotional throughout.) Anyway, the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Double Grazing, can you please explain how the sources are sufficient enough. IMBD is probably one of the biggest platforms for actors in the world (This is the main source). In terms of it been very promotional I would strongly disagree and align that this is the same as any other actor on WIKI. Please advise if this can be reviewed again. JackMorley23 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is user-editable and as such is unacceptable as a source here. If there are other articles that are similar to this draft, please identify them so we can take action. Other poor articles cannot justify adding more poor articles, see Other stuff exists. Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors have come to the consensus that IMDB is not a reliable source, see WP:IMDB. Qcne (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:38, 27 February 2024 review of submission by 31.4.159.31

If Gibraltar Wave FC were a men`s football club there would be no doubts. Being a women`s team......what a pity guys 31.4.159.31 (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking a question? The rejection has absolutely zero to do with the fact that this is a women's team. As a reviewer stated "A new football club with no participation in notable events. Records section is also unsourced." 331dot (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:58, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Sojijos

How can I create relevant articles that will not get rejected? Sojijos (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to your user page, but are you referring to Draft:Advenser? It was declined, not rejected. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By understanding Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Hewer7

Hi. This draft article was declined due to needing more published sources. I have included the following: a published article in a peer reviewed scientific journal; a link to a article by UPI - United Press International, and a recent book written by experts in the field, which covers the idea, showing that it has gained at least some acceptance. I don't understand why more sources should be needed. Could someone expand on what exactly is needed and why please? Hewer7 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hewer7 I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. You have described their theory, but not offered sources that discuss what makes it important, or notable. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the book I referenced explains why it is notable. It is an alternative idea that fits within general relativity and produces a universe that is “looks essentially identical to the aftermath of the big bang” according to big bang supporting cosmologists Barnes and Lewis. Geraint Lewis, according to his Wikipedia page is " a Professor of Astrophysics (Teaching and Research) at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, part of the University of Sydney's School of Physics. He is head of the Gravitational Astrophysics Group. He was previously the Associate Head for Research at the School of Physics, and held an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship between 2011 and 2015. Lewis won the 2016 Walter Boas Medal in recognition of excellence in research in Physics. In 2021, he was awarded the David Allen Prize of the Astronomical Society of Australia for exceptional achievement in astronomy communication." Hewer7 (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Hewer7

Hi. The draft article was declined due to needing more or better sources. However I have included references to: a well respected peer reviewed science journal; an article published by United Press International; a book written by experts in the field around 17 years after the initial scientific paper. I felt that these should be enough. Could you please explain what more is required, if so, and why? Hewer7 (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore please, duplicate Hewer7 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Founderofthecity1234

Please help me fix this draft, I do not know and understand why it keeps getting rejected when it is done in the same tone and context as other pages in the same field Founderofthecity1234 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has many big problems but IMO the article could be passed anyway. The key thing is meeting wp:notability and I took the time to go though that mess of a "reference" section (which is really set up as just a list of external links) and found sources that provide the requisite coverage. Hypothetically you could resubmit for review and ping me and I'd pass it but why not fix up some of the severe problems and have some fun and learn first? Start by learning the basic way on how to do references and citations in Wikipedia and then put n references and cites to them into the article. Also convert those two in-line external links into cites to references. The tone isn't too bad but you can improve it by finding the sources (in your list) that provide in depth coverage of the topic and put some material from them into the article, cited to that reference. Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 27 February 2024 review of submission by RRCC6200

Please 

tell me what I did wrong in creating the River Ridge Commerce Center page RRCC6200 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too many serious problems to try to cover here. BTW including copyvio. Suggest not pursuing trying to create this at this time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked. Also, renamed to Robinlee6200.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 27 February 2024 review of submission by RRCC6200

Can I keep the name and change the content to abide by the rules of Wikipedia? RRCC6200 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RRCC6200 this is likely to be deleted for violating Wikipedia's rules against promotion but you are welcome to recreate a draft that is within policies and guidelines. See Your first article for guidance along with WP:BACKWARD and avoid WP:PEACOCK terms (i.e. start with what reputable sources that have no affiliation with the topic have about written it and work from there). S0091 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Artisticresearch

Jason Pine is a Berlin Prize-winning writer and anthropologist, and serves as a full professor at the State University of New York. His distinguished career and contributions to the field of anthropology are well-documented through numerous secondary sources, underlining his fulfillment of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Pine's work, which spans ethnography, cultural analysis, and the study of socio-economic dynamics, has garnered recognition for its depth and impact. Artistic Research (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? I have declined your draft because the tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. For example it is littered with ridiculous, inappropriate puffery and unsourced content “Pine’s work eschews the use of ethnographic research for transcendental theory-making” “He immerses readers directly into the environments he studies,” “Pine's work demonstrates a commitment to making scholarly research accessible to a wider audience through careful attention to the art of writing and reading” etc etc etc it will need a complete re-write.Theroadislong (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now rejected this draft, @Artisticresearch, as you submitted it again with promotional language throughout. Either read and understand WP:NPOV or don't waste any more volunteer time. Thanks. Qcne (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


February 28

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

Dear Wikipedia Expert Editors,

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

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

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

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

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

Note: I have fixed the link to the draft as a courtesy to responders; Franciscoevan is the draft creator. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Franciscoevan: the draft has been submitted (for rather than by you, but still), and a reviewer will take a look at it at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello,

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

Thanks and kind regards,

Shaseeb 

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

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

Hello!

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

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

Yet my draft was rejected.

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

Thank you in advance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 29

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

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

Ppotatoman I fixed your link so we can look at the draft. It was not only declined, itnwas rejected, as you provided no summary of independent reliable sources that discuss this Sims character and why it is notable If you just want to tell the world about it, you should use social media, or perhaps a wiki type project on Fandom. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, thank you for your patience. Please note on their talk page that I blocked a few accounts. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 1

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

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

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

Article link: Draft:The Civic Caucus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason is in the grey box of the decline, I would have also declined it for being blatant advertising too. Theroadislong (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1211584415"