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 Edizengoff (talk | contribs) at 08:39, 6 November 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding That They May Face the Rising Sun). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


October 31

00:09, 31 October 2023 review of submission by IWasIAm

Is there anything else I can add to have this being a better chance of being accepted? IWasIAm (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IWasIAm: This draft has no references, and not even the slightest indication that the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability standards for musicians. “Up and coming”=“Not notable yet”. “Not much is known about [him]”=“Not even close to being notable”. Come back when he’s actually accomplished enough that newspapers and magazines are writing about him. --Finngall talk 06:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IWasIAm: no, nothing; this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. For future reference, adding referencing would be a good idea, see WP:REFB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is completely unsourced and specifically says he is not known. A musician must already be known and receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, in order to merit an article. When that happens, come back. 331dot (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:12, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Editing and contributing

In reference to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_styles_and_titles

Help me make it wikipedia worthy Editing and contributing (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Prerna Shetty 124

The article titled 'Huzur Phadnis (Fadnis) Family of Indore' is an original piece of work based on a noble family from the court of Indore State and has been written with diligent research. I have written this article with the consent of the said family. The article was rejected stating that "it appears to be a duplicate submission of 'Draft: Abbas Shokri' (Link: (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Draft:Abbas_Shokri&action=edit&redlink=1))" but that draft isn't available I request you to please help me gain more clarification on the rejection of my article and the unavailability of the said draft. I also request you to assist me in publishing my article as soon as possible. Awaiting a positive reply. Thank you. 

Prerna Shetty 124 (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prerna Shetty 124: I don't see how the two drafts could be related in any way, I expect this was an erroneous decline in that respect. Perhaps you could ask the reviewer directly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 31 October 2023 review of submission by 87.49.146.37

Hi, I tried to create this page a few months ago. It has not yet been created. Is there a particular reason why it has not been posted, or is there something that can be done to get it posted. 87.49.146.37 (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was submitted on 1 Sept (twice), and again on 11 Oct (BTW, please don't submit multiple times, once is enough). We have a backlog of over 3,000 drafts awaiting review, and it can take four months or more, so it was simply a case of waiting longer. However, it has now been reviewed, and declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 31 October 2023 review of submission by KannappaSara9

I made the changes accordingly for the draft. Wanted to check whether it is submitted for review or not. How to check this KannappaSara9 (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KannappaSara9: yes, the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KannappaSara9. All your citations are randomly hanging off the bottom of the page instead of in-line with text. Each citation should come directly after the sentence or statement it is referencing. Please fix the referencing. You can follow this tutorial which may help: WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The citations are now directed to refer a sentence or a statement. It's fixed and re-submitted fore review. KannappaSara9 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 31 October 2023 review of submission by 212.98.137.244

What do you mean reliable source.lbc is the most prestigious media in lebanon. And beside its already in all other wiplki page that lebanon has one shooter in the olympics. What is wrong with you. This is becoming xenophobic. 212.98.137.244 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have one source- an article should summarize multiple independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP Editor. Please do not accuse me of xenophobia. Your single source references the Asian Shooting Championship 2023. But the draft is about the 2024 Summer Olympics. I am sure you will agree that these are two different sporting events. There are no references that discuss Lebanon at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Please find references that discuss Lebanon at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Qcne (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:46, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Faran Sajid

The information I Provided was 100% Right I also can provide the links of that articlea Faran Sajid (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is a place to write what independent reliable sources say about topics deemed notable. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 31 October 2023 review of submission by ZaidoonHJ

How to add verified page ZaidoonHJ (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaidoonHJ Please read the comment left by the reviewer. Qcne (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZaidoonHJ I fixed your link for proper display. We don't have "verified pages" here, we have articles about topics that meet our notability criteria. If you are associated with this journal, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Mr. Vinay Mudagal

Further assistance Mr. Vinay Mudagal (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Vinay Mudagal: that's not really a question, but just to say that your draft (such as it is) has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not the place to write about yourself, you need to find some social media or blogging platform for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i'm just writing about a musician whom i thought had potential in case he became popular
what egotistical maniac would do that. Uwuboi69 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Catgull1

Because my submission is declined but other submissions of similar things passed and were published. Please follow me on scratch, https://scratch.mit.edu/users/DogManLoc/ is the link. Also, please friend me on Minecraft by adding Seagull1097 as friend. (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article summarised what reliable independent sources say about a subject, nothing else. Knowyourmeme is not a reliable source (it is user-generated: see WP:KNOWYOURMEME) and therefore there is your draft is unsourced, in Wikipedia terms.
The fact that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is of an unacceptable standard is unfortunate, but does not justify adding more sub-standard material. ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Uwuboi69

what can i do to improve my biography on my favorite youtuber / musician Uwuboi69 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwuboi69: nothing doing, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

02:29, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Qk193

How can I make it approved? I have all the citations and info on the soccer player. Qk193 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qk193: football players must now show notability per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. You must also cite the sources correctly so that they can actually be verified. Currently this draft fails on every count. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:07, 1 November 2023 review of submission by RobertRedfield

Hello, My draft is rejected with the reasons that there are not enough reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. But 3 of my 4 references do fit that criteria. Please provide more specific requirements such as "need 10 or more" or "Reference 1 is not independent" or ... something else, and I'll do the best I can to satisfy them.

I would really appreciate the guidance in order to focus on the most effective edits. Thank you.

Robert RobertRedfield (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertRedfield: the first source is obviously close primary one, so that doesn't count. The next two are about the person, not about the film. The last source seems okay, but it alone isn't enough. (It's also very local, which usually means the threshold for covering local news is very low.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing - thank you for the guidance and that helps me understand. Makes sense. More articles are being written about the film as it plays in film festival (e.g. on Nov 6) and so I'll add that media coversage when available. Thanks again. RobertRedfield (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:54, 1 November 2023 review of submission by ZaidoonHJ

Dear assistant team, Greetings I am trying to create content regarding Journal of Faculty of Medicine Baghdad; and I try my best to do so unfortunately the references on such topics for subject from Iraq are rare and it is not available most of the time any suggestions to help me do so. Sincerely Zaidoon Jabbar MSc Clinical Embryology 

ZaidoonHJ (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the references on such topic ... are rare is almost a definition of "not notable". If you cannot find the (reliable, independent) sources, then there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Alan347

Hi, why is this draft being declined please ? Alan347 (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan347: it was declined for the reason given in the decline notice (the grey box inside the larger pink one), namely that there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:09, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Congrats.deberg

I'm not very experienced at creating brand new pages on Wikipedia (I used to create with an account with my personal name which I've requested deletion in the meantime for personal reasons) and I'd like to learn how I can improve the current draft in order to address the following comment: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."

I'm happy to collaborate on other articles too. Either already created or pending approval. Congrats.deberg (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content like " attracted customers on a global scale, and partnered with multiple industry players" reads like something from their marketing brochure. Theroadislong (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:43, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Nitajk

I have quoted major mainstream Indian newspapers in my article like the Hindustan Times, Times of India and The Indian Express. I was asked to remove these links and add "reliable" sources. Please let me know what you mean by reliable sources. My username is Nitajk. Nitajk (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitajk: you were asked to replace inline external links, which are not allowed, with inline citations, which are required. Please see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice. (And note that Moneylife is not considered a reliable source.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India is also not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 1 November 2023 review of submission by 80.155.22.6

What can I do, to upload a translation of the german Wikipedia? 80.155.22.6 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is acceptable on the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. Each Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Gozips1870

I am trying to create a page for a prominent political scientist. I am wondering about the use of independent sources. I understand that I cannot use sources of a university she is employed by, but can I use sites of past universities she was employed by since they are no longer connected? Also, how do I navigate mentioning her research if I must use sources that do not have a vested interest in the individual? Gozips1870 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gozips1870: you can use close primary sources to support non-contentious factual information, eg. the person's current position and research interests, etc., but you cannot use them to establish notability per WP:GNG. You also cannot cite them as a neutral source on qualitative matters, so eg. if her current university website says that she is a "leading expert" on something, that wouldn't be acceptable to quote. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you're seeking to demonstrate notability per WP:NACADEMIC instead, then it is possible to do this even by citing solely primary sources, eg. her university website stating that she has a named chair, or a major journal confirming that she is their editor in chief. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did cite the university webpage that noted that she was the appointed director of an applied politics institute. Did I do that part incorrectly? Gozips1870 (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gozips1870: you did it partly right. The citation is correctly formatted, but it appears at the end of the body text, rather than immediately after the statement that it supports. (And the other citation doesn't appear in the body text at all, but rather in the 'References' section, where it supports nothing.) Especially in articles on living people, inline citations must be done so clearly that the reader should never wonder where a particular piece of information comes from, it should have the corresponding citation right next to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That was not specified during the initial rejection so I appreciate your explanation. Gozips1870 (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:15, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Actorsaurabhsuman27

How to live the article.? Actorsaurabhsuman27 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to resubmit it for review, but you must first address the concerns given. Be advised that writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Flexibilityandcommunity

I am wondering which sources I mention don't meet the criteria? thank you Flexibilityandcommunity (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fleximilityandcommunity It's not necessarily the sources themselves that are the issue, but their content. The raising of funds is a routine business activity that does not contribute to notability. Awards do not usually contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). "Startups" almost never merit articles- a company typically must be established and recognized in its field enough that independent sources choose to write about it and what makes it significant. Please see WP:ORG.
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared per the Terms of Use, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not work for them and am not affiliated in any way, shape or form. I have no connection to them at all. I am an avid gamer and lover of all things nerdy. In our community of Prince George, this store is well known and most of us geeks here love it. Personally, I believe it deserves a wiki page. Momzilla007 (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must apologize. I have responded in the wrong area to the wrong comment. Please disregard. Momzilla007 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 1 November 2023 review of submission by 2400:1A00:B060:A298:88F:F021:E969:1F24

to make good draft. what should be done? 2400:1A00:B060:A298:88F:F021:E969:1F24 (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can be done- the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a company. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Momzilla007

Looking for a bit more feedback. After reading the notability requirements, as I understand it, I have cited 2 acceptable sources and now I just need to find 1 more? Is this correct? Momzilla007 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Momzilla007 At a glance I'm not sure any of the sources you have now are acceptable (for notability purposes), which do you think are your two solid ones? -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the 2 acceptable sources were the CKPG and the MyPGNow articles. They are both news articles. However, I've discussed this with my mentor and they have suggested that because it is a local store and not so well known outside of this area, it is not a great addition to Wikipedia. Admittedly, it is only a local treasure to the geeks of northern BC. So I am going to put the article to the side and focus on other stuff on here until the day comes that Game Quest is more notable in a larger area. :)
Thanks for responding. I appreciate the help with this. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and I see I have lots to learn still. :) Momzilla007 (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Momzilla007 The PGNow one is almost certainly written by Game Quest - see how it has no byline, just "staff"? That's usually a good hint that an article is a PR piece. It's fair to use as a source for facts but doesn't tell us much about notability. The CKPG one, I would say that is too short. For an article on a company, you're looking for something more in-depth than that. Good luck with your future editing! -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it does feel kind of sales pitchy, so that makes sense...I did not know that if there was no author it was likely written by the store itself. This is good info. Thank you. Always learning! Momzilla007 (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Haidar2521

I have written this article without any bias or supporting or promotional content, but then also a reviewer found it as "cited sources promo" and did not accepted it. I want an assistance who can help me out from this issue, so that my article got published. Haidar2521 (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot read Hindi sources, but I suspect the reviewer labelled the sources as promotional based on the concerns described in WP:RSNOI Mach61 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But i got those sources only for my subject. as my subject is an Indian politician. now what should i do, so that it will be published without any issues? Haidar2521 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maliner, can you provide some additional clarification? @Haidar2521 it may be a couple days or so before Maliner can reply. I can say is he does not hold a state-wide or federal office so fails that part of WP:NPOL and sources that are mostly was the subjects says are not useful for notability, nor is routine coverage (standard election coverage, press releases/announcements, etc). S0091 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 I am pretty much familiar with the reputed Hindi sources. Most of the cited sources are junk failing WP:RS. KhabarGali, Taza Khabar, Chattisgarh are really not good sources. Punjab Kesari and Dainik Bhaskar sources are passing mention So fails WP:Sigcov. He fails WP:NPOL too as you pointed out. Cheers. Maliner (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maliner thanks for the quick reply. Very helpful. S0091 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Most welcome. Maliner (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:07, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Walkadwill

I have read the article about reliable sources and have iterated the draft several times to eliminate any other unreliable sources but I'm still getting declined and need someone to be quite specific about the areas on the article that are non-compliant. Could someone please help me? Thanks Walkadwill (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Walkadwill most of the content is unsourced and it looks like the sources provided are standard announcements about her exhibitions and/or interviews so not helpful for notability. The obituary was not written by a journalist so also not helpful. See the notability guidelines for artists. Generally for artists you need critical reviews of their work from reputable publications (ArtForum, major newspapers, etc.) or to demonstrate they have had solo shows at major galleries or museum, etc. S0091 (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:28, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Craleigh25

Hi there, I am new and feel this is a place in the community worthy of covering. It's been included in multiple versions of the Michelin guide. Unfortunately I do not know what other information to include. I would appreciate the help Craleigh25 (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page 25 of this Washington Informer review works. However, the draft is currently written like an advertisement; please use a more encyclopedic tone Mach61 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Negative student newspaper review Mach61 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WaPo Mach61 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:17, 1 November 2023 review of submission by 209.166.64.238

I have provided more than enough sources that prove that this band is noteworthy enough to have an article. I do not understand what other bit of information needs to be provided to show that this band with over 500,000 monthly listeners is worth inclusion in the compendium of human knowledge. 209.166.64.238 (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the draft is rejected so will not be reconsidered. See WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. S0091 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Brian.butt

I have provided more than enough sources that prove that this band is noteworthy enough to have an article. I do not understand what other bit of information needs to be provided to show that this band with over 500,000 monthly listeners is worth inclusion in the compendium of human knowledge. Brian.butt (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked for help in multiple locations- this duplicates effort. Please use one forum at a time.
The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Anyone can put music online, so the number of listeners is not indicative of notability. As noted by a reviewer, you have not demonstrated that this band meets WP:BAND. A threat of legal action doesn't do it. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular reason you are so invested in this draft? You've edited about no other topic and have attacked those who have looked at it in the past. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 2

00:01, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Tashialala

Regarding references Tashialala (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I have advice on the press release references? I can also find other Wikipedia articles using many press release sources. Tashialala (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read other stuff exists; the existence of inappropriate content does not mean more inappropriate content may be added. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. We can only address what we know about.
Press releases may be used on occasion for some purposes, but never to establish notability. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You have only described the routine activities of the company.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be declared, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:01, 2 November 2023 review of submission by 65.92.207.113

I would like to request help with disclosing that I am a paid editor. I thought I had followed the instructions but the reviewer said that it wasn't there. Does the paid editor disclosure go on the article or my user page? Thank you for your time. 65.92.207.113 (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot to log in before posting. You should place the disclosure on your user page. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:42, 2 November 2023 review of submission by 185.169.74.90

Hello! This draft was rejected because of unadequate reliable sources. I was wondering more specifically what this is referring to? Many parts are clearly referenced with links to different sources. Which parts are problematic? Is it a problem that some sources are in Swedish?

I'm hoping to improve the draft and submit it again, because Professor Arrhenius is a very internationally known and distinguished philosopher within the field of population ethics, climate ethics and moral philosophy. 185.169.74.90 (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be in Swedish, they don't have to be in English.
I don't know if this is the reason the reviewer had in mind, but my issue with this draft is that there is information which isn't supported, eg. the DOB and the second half of the middle paragraph. You say "many parts are clearly referenced", but it should be that all parts are clearly referenced, especially as this is a draft on a living person (WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Aniruddh17895

Sorry but i have written summary wrong now i have written it right please publish this page 

Aniruddh17895 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your one line of text with no reliable sources has no chance at being an article, and was correctly rejected. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what they say about themselves, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Alleycat1995

Hello! I am writing this because I was hoping that I could have some additional feedback with what meeting the requirements given in the rejection information would look like. The feedback that stood out to me was "Two solid sources from the same time period, but no obvious on-going coverage or impact." Can this please be expanded on? Thank you and have a good day! Alleycat1995 (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are lacking in reliable sources that discuss the use of this term. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:40, 2 November 2023 review of submission by FactsThatFlourish

Hi, I'd like to contain the section "Sources, notes and other references" in a grey box but can't figure out a way to do this. Any help would be much appreciated. Many thanks. FactsThatFlourish (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FactsThatFlourish: why would you do that? Pretty sure that wouldn't be compliant with the WP:Manual of Style. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. If it's not compliant, I'll simply leave it as it is FactsThatFlourish (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Tmedia12

This page is redirected on many media pages I have seen. Hence I tried to improve it but I think it didn’t worked. Subsequently need help to improve this article and get it reviewed. Thanks Tmedia12 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tmedia12: this draft was declined for lack of notability. The sources provide coverage of the various programmes, with only passing mentions of the company. We need to see significant coverage of the company itself, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing hope you are well. I have revised the citations as per my knowledge. Added citations more specific about the company. Additionally can you help to improve the article? Just have a look and please let me know if its ready to be reviewed. I also noticed one major thing missing about this company about its Producer. His page is also not available on Wikipedia. Do you want me to create that? Will that support this article in more better way? Do let me know. Thanks Tmedia12 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tmedia12: if you feel you have adequately addressed the earlier decline reason(s), then you're welcome to resubmit the draft.
Having an article on the producer in no way affects the chances of this draft being accepted. In any case, if you mean Guroudev Bhalla, then there already exists a draft on him at Draft:Guroudev Bhalla. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Wisest Arab

Hello , i would like to ask for assistance on this biography. i tried to cut all the not reliable sources.. and it is still rejected, also i tried to rely on good and confident sources such as Scout.org.. i will be thankful if you can help me. thank you Wisest Arab (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected means that there is nothing more that you can do- it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your relationship with Mr. Abdulmonem? (since you took a picture of him) 331dot (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 2 November 2023 review of submission by 77.39.234.178

Thank you for your response. It's indeed a wonderful feeling to contribute to the growth of this encyclopedia. I've made the modifications to the article based on your comment, "You've shown that The Fast Guide to Architectural Form is probably notable, but what about his other books?...." To begin, I've added information about the second book that holds scientific importance. I've corrected the article, but I'm unsure whether it has already been rejected or is still under review. I'd like to know if, in the event of rejection, I will receive further feedback to understand whether I haven't delved enough into the sources or if there's another reason. Additionally, if I'm making any mistakes in the publication process, I'd appreciate guidance on the correct path to follow, as I have several entries related to architecture that I'd like to contribute. In the meantime, thank you, and keep up the good work. 77.39.234.178 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I am assuming you are the User George Taylor Bown? If so, please remember to sign into your account. You successfully resubmitted the draft so it is pending which may take some time but yes, if it is declined again you will get feedback. Likewise, if it is accepted you will be notified. S0091 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:15, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Daisy Dhakre

Please provide assistant to resolve the issue. Daisy Dhakre (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:44, 2 November 2023 review of submission by SerenityCoxFan

Wondering what I keep doing wrong? SerenityCoxFan (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further; prior reviews must remain on the draft. You did not demonstrate that she passes the notability criteria, and your sources do not offer significant coverage of her.
What is your association with her, since you took a picture of her? 331dot (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:53, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Lj alta

The editor said that the submission wasn't notable since the source weren't the ones he/she provided as examples. However, looking at comparable pages The LaSallian and The Guidon, the sources are similar in nature. Lj alta (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lj alta, an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic say about the topic. Your draft contains no such references to independent sources. As for the other articles, perhaps they should be deleted. Do not base your draft on poor quality articles. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lj alta: the sources are three cites of the publication's own website, and one of Scribd (which is user-generated), none of which contribute towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Wearefromjersey

Hi, I wanted to reach out and see if I could get clarification - while I understand why my submission keeps getting denied, I can't help bring this to your attention. I have looked at other independent labels' Wikipedia sites as a reference as to what to correct and they have nearly the SAME reference sources and they are approved. Please refer to Fat Wreck Chords: Fat Wreck Chords You can also refer to Hopeless Records as well: Hopeless Records Please advise, thanks. Wearefromjersey (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist. Their own website’ interviews, press releases and Spotify are not independent sources, Facebook is not reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, what is the protocol then to escalate to have these pages removed. All pages should follow the same guidelines. Wearefromjersey (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing poor quality sources in those articles though? You have used their own website’ interviews, press releases, Facebook and Spotify which are are not independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The preferred term is articles, not the broader "pages", this may affect your mindset. Please see Articles for Deletion to learn about how you can propose articles for deletion. I would highly advise you to learn more about Wikipedia guidelines like notability and sourcing before you attempt doing so, or you risk your requests being declined quickly. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help, I think I realized what I'm doing wrong with the links running through their website. I will find and source the original interviews from the media sources directly and remove Facebook and Spotify as sources as well. Thanks again for all the info! Wearefromjersey (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Mitch199811

Is there any way I can speed up the publishing process for articles with redirects. I am confident in that it is a fine article and have even gotten approval from a more experienced editor; the one thing slowing me down is that I don't know what to do with a redirect. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that you are confident that the draft would survive in mainspace, and you would move it there but for the existing redirect Hurricane Tammy, then you can request a Technical Move. See WP:RM#T. ColinFine (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 2 November 2023 review of submission by IndieSaer

My draft submission for the lost synth-pop song "Everyone Knows That" was rejected without an explanation. Could you please explain to my why my submission was rejected? IndieSaer (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IndieSaer I fixed your link for proper functionality.(it lacked the "Draft:") The reviewer did leave a reason: "The topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". 331dot (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. IndieSaer (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:54, 2 November 2023 review of submission by BooBoo314159

Hello,

The draft has been declined with the rationale that the cited sources are not enough to support the content of the article (WP:OR). But I believe all I wrote there can be found in these sources so I am confused.

Could someone help me identify what part is not supported by the sources I cite? Or maybe should I use the sources differently throughout the article?

Thank you for you help BooBoo314159 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BooBoo314159 Your first sport of call is to ask the reviewer who declined this. You have a right to understand their reasoning. If that fails, and it should not, please come back here, ideally to this thread, and add to it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:10, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Privinsathy

I need to create an article for my company. can help to create a good article. Privinsathy (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Privinsathy No, you do not.
If you are a staff member and have been instructed to create an article by your employer, please refer them to WP:PAID. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:42, 2 November 2023 review of submission by Skipharris

I am somewhat new to your processes. I am proposing to replace an existing page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Smith_(surgeon)) with new and more comprehensive material. I have saved my work as a draft and am editing the work now. Once I finalize the new material, how should I send it to you, specifically, how should I note that this is a proposed replacement for an existing entry? Thanks! Skipharris (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skipharris Please do 'not submit this draft for approval. It will be declined with the firm suggestion that you merge it into the existing article.
Do you have a relationship, business or personal, with Smith? We need the answer to this question before further advice can be given 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I think. My only relationship with the long-deceased Dr. Smith is my upcoming 400-page biography on him. I was intending to improve your entry, not to promote the book. This is a great deal of work and I could use some advice on how to make it work for you. 2601:500:8784:5E50:7C97:B0C8:76C:34F4 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:07, 2 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:1008:B0A7:F720:973:4B19:EED0:EE2D

Why is my page being denied ? I don't understand 2600:1008:B0A7:F720:973:4B19:EED0:EE2D (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asking this, here, is your sole contribution. Question is an article. Draft:Question does not exist. More information please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 3

00:08, 3 November 2023 review of submission by ReneOliver23

Please what else do I need to add ReneOliver23 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. You had no sources to establish notabiliyty. NotAGenious (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:23, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Madison.y

Hi my article has not been accepted, can anyone help me to correct it ? Madison.y (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Madison.y it seems many of the sources are interviews which are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. See also the notability guidelines for artists. Generally for artists you need critical reviews of their work from reputable publications (ArtForum, major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, etc.) or to demonstrate they have had solo shows at major galleries or museum, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Lin Htet Wah Wah

Notable Achievements: Hla Hla Win has achieved notable recognition and awards for her work in the field of education and social entrepreneurship. Her receipt of the Digital Innovation Award and the Netexplo Innovation Award is a testament to her significant contributions.

Impactful Education Reform: She has been instrumental in reforming the education system in Myanmar and Southeast Asian nations. Her pioneering use of augmented reality and virtual reality technologies to enhance learning experiences is groundbreaking and deserves acknowledgment.

Inspirational Journey: Hla Hla Win's personal journey, from her struggles as a student in the traditional Myanmar education system to her scholarship at Harvard University and subsequent entrepreneurial success, is an inspiring story that can motivate others.

Social Entrepreneurship: As the CEO of 360ed, she has demonstrated the potential of social entrepreneurship to create positive change in society. Her work showcases how innovative technologies can be harnessed for social impact.

Impact on a Vulnerable Population: Her efforts to continue providing education during challenging times, such as the military coup in Myanmar, demonstrate her unwavering commitment to serving vulnerable and underserved populations, particularly children in conflict areas.

Global Relevance: Hla Hla Win's work and mission extend beyond national borders, aligning with global trends in education and technology. Her ideas and solutions hold promise for improving education in other developing communities and countries worldwide.

Recognition by Reputable Organizations: Her acknowledgment by organizations like the World Economic Forum's Schwab Foundation and UNESCO reflects the international recognition of her contributions.

Educational Policy and Innovation: Hla Hla Win's academic background in educational policy and innovation, combined with her practical application of these concepts, makes her a notable figure in the field.

Documented Information: There is a significant amount of credible and verifiable information available about Hla Hla Win's life, achievements, and contributions, making her a suitable subject for a Wikipedia page.

Educational Resources: A Wikipedia page would serve as an educational resource, providing information about the innovative use of technology in education and the potential of social entrepreneurship to bring about change. Lin Htet Wah Wah (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lin Htet Wah Wah: I don't see a question anywhere in that. In any case, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It is also pending speedy deletion, and if you wish to contest that, you need to do that on the draft's talk page, as the attending administrator will not be looking here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:42, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Stdedos

I don't understand what is the problem with my submission. It is a translation from https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astu_(Unix), with fixed links.

How can I get more reliable sources from a copyrighted material? Stdedos (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stdedos. The French and English Wikipedias are different projects with different standards and guidelines. The English Wikipedia certainly has the most strict content criteria.
For articles about software, check WP:NSOFTWARE which explains what we need to see in a draft. Your draft has a single reference from blogspot, so it doesn't pass the notability requirements. May I suggest you add some of your article content to the existing Mr Robot article instead? Qcne (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page I tried to translate is the only "crawled" reference that comes up when searching "astu" at Google (some 1.5y ago)
Current results look like this (https://pasteboard.co/fJiY7bNH18xv.png)
Naturally, a more-established domain to store knowledge makes it more worthy.
I am not sure what would make sense including in the main Mr. Robot page, from a small piece that "quickly" describes a fictional command. Stdedos (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, sorry but Reddit, Twitter, YCombinator, Blogs etc and such don't count as reliable sources.
Perhaps this simply isn't a topic that is notable enough for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 3 November 2023 review of submission by 2001:14BB:A0:2383:7A:628:2AFF:DD0B

I don't understand why my article keeps getting declined. I possibly need help with making it comply to Wikipedia's rules and standards or someone to explain which parts are not acceptable.

There already exists a few non-english articles of the same software (article) and other UML tools have their own article pages so it shouldn't be a problem to create one for this specific software also. 

2001:14BB:A0:2383:7A:628:2AFF:DD0B (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ps. Forgot to post this question as a logged in user. I haven't contacted the people who have declined the submission before, so I'll try that also. And it seems English wikipedia has stricter standards compared to most other languages. Tapioviina (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tapioviina. Yes indeed, the English Wikipedia has the strictest content guidelines. The other language are all separate projects with different guidelines and standards.
Looking at your draft, I would suggest the issue is that most of the sources used are WP:PRIMARY, with then some insignificant coverage in secondary sources (like installation tutorials). We would need to see significant coverage in multiple (usually at least three) secondary sources that are reliable and indepednent of the topic. Qcne (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:36, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Loreta Chilingaryan

Hi, my draft article has just been rejected. I want to know the reason of the rejection, so that I can improve it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SARD_Anti-Cheat Loreta Chilingaryan (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Loreta Chilingaryan. Your article was declined, not rejected. Rejected means you wouldn't be able to re-submit. Your draft relies on two primary sources: we would need to see significant coverage in multiple (usually at least three) secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the software in order for this draft to pass the WP:NSOFTWARE guidelines. Qcne (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay, thank you very much for clarification Loreta Chilingaryan (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:38, 3 November 2023 review of submission by ParnassusAward

Dear Friends, Could you please help me to edit and submit an article about my favorite writer Valerian Markarov? I will highly appreciate your support. ParnassusAward (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ParnassusAward. A few issues:
- you included copyrighted text in your draft. This is strictly prohibited and will likely lead to your draft being deleted. You must paraphrase or summarise the sources you use, do not copy them.
- you have zero references and no in-line citations. Biographies of living people must be fully sourced. See the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
- you have not proven that Valerian has passed the WP:NAUTHOR criteria. Only authors who pass that criteria may have an article written about them. You can prove notability by following the guidelines on that page.
- you have some tone issues, i.e. "recognizes talented, famous, and successful writers of the world, whose high-spirited, bright, and noble works promote the universal values that unite peoples and make our world better, such as humanism, peace, kindness, justice, and love" and "While his loving and caring mother taught her son lessons of kindness and morality, Valerian's father introduced him to the wonderful world of art and literature". This type of language is completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia which must be written in a neutral, dry, voice. See WP:NPOV.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Iamsekar

How can I insert the reliable source for this article Iamsekar (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamsekar: for advice on referencing, see WP:REFB. As for what you should be citing, this would be the source that has provided the information in question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 3 November 2023 review of submission by 223.123.6.22

Why this article is not approving or delayed to approved from Wikipedia Editors. 223.123.6.22 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I declined the draft again. Please read through all the links provided in the gray box along with my comments. S0091 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:08, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Dance27

why ? I added a citation. Dance27 (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's just WP:SPAM? Qcne (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dance27: Usually multiple independent and reliable sources are needed. Regardless of sources, the page you have is blatantly promotional and would never be accepted as an article even if its subject met notability guidelines. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is not promotional at all. did you read it ? Dance27 (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's written completely inappropriately, not at all suitable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what's so, "inappropriate", about ? I can fix it to make it acceptable. 184.99.59.14 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't fix it, as the draft has been rejected and I will not consider it further.
o Qcne (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dance27: Language like "the story of how Lil GAT became a Christian Artist is amazing," is promotional. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's not promotional at all. it's telling my personal story. if you knew me, you would truly be amazed. 184.99.59.14 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not re-submit. I have rejected. It will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Aminulzisan

I want to publish this article but it's not being published for some reason can you tell me why please? Aminulzisan (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aminulzisan I've rejected your draft because it is just spam. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. Just get a LinkedIn or something. The draft will soon be deleted. Qcne (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol why it's a biography of myself. And how others getting on Wikipedia isn't that promotion? Aminulzisan (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is spam and will soon be deleted. Please go elsewhere to promote yourself. Qcne (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:03, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Llightex

Hi! I wanted to check to learn more about how I can improve this draft. The AfC request was declined because "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)." In the submission, I included several sources that were independent of the subject and included significant coverage of the article subject. Could you provide more guidance as to why those sources were insufficient and what kinds of sources / coverage would be better to add? Copying @AirshipJungleman29: in case you have any insights as well! (thanks for your review) Llightex (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llightex, my reasoning was as follows: the duplicate citations 2 and 4, along with 5 and 6, are non-independent, as they are published by the article subject's employer and thus fall under WP:COISOURCE. As for the others, citations 5 and 7 do not provide significant ccoverage, and citation 1 fails to meet WP:NBASIC—it has plagiarized text from the non-independent citations 2/4, which can be seen to have existed since 2020. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 3 November 2023 review of submission by Yeszzzz

Hello dear staffs, I want to ask you guys if you can check my draft and maybe submit it and make it an article please, because I give reliable cites and informations, and I’m trying to improve my nation, thank you. Yeszzzz (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeszzzz you have already resubmitted the draft so it is pending review which may take while. S0091 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know but will it be accepted this time because I’ve provided all the reliable and accurate informations. Yeszzzz (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will discover the answer to that when a reviewer chooses to review the draft. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 3 November 2023 review of submission by MagicN7

I'm wondering why this article has been declined. Do I just need more independent sources? MagicN7 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MagicN7. Articles about academics need to show that they pass the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Are you able to prove that Jared passes one of the criteria in that link? If so, make a note on the article stating which he passes and resubmit. Or let me know which you think he passes here and I or another reviewer can have another look. Qcne (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Qcne. He does pass 3, and I'll give proof and resubmit. MagicN7 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 3 November 2023 review of submission by 223.123.1.80

I made more better to this article and made it simple to read.Please accept it. 223.123.1.80 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected so will no longer be considered. See also User talk:Nnn edits. S0091 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 4

00:24, 4 November 2023 review of submission by MaryGrace0101

The submission I've created for Charles J. Orlando, from my limited experience and standpoint, does pass notability. So many entries I've read that purportedly "pass" notability are *obviously* paid entries and promotional. Whereas what I've written has clear, notable citations, and mainstream sources. I'm unclear what is not passing. (Disclosure: I'm not affiliated with the subject of this entry. Yes, I've followed him and read his books but that shouldn't equate to my being a shill.) I would welcome advise as to why this is rejected in its current draft. MaryGrace0101 (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaryGrace0101 If you have actual evidence that an article was created by an undisclosed paid editor in violation of WP:PAID, please follow the instructions provided in that policy.
Your sources either do not mention Mr. Orlando or are interviews with him. Neither establishes notability, which is why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:57, 4 November 2023 review of submission by MadBlade 2

Because I'm still new to wikipedia, and really don't know how to make Wikipedia well, I really want to know what stuff do I need for my Hank Parker racing Wikipedia. MadBlade 2 (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you is to spend a few weeks or months working on improving existing articles while you learn how Wikipedia works. Writing a new article before you have learnt the basics is like buying an instrument you've never played before and going busking with it: you're likely to have a miserable time.
In particular, until you've learnt about notability and the golden rule, you're never going to be able to create an article successfully.
What's wrong with your draft is that there is not a single reference with significant coverage. Never mind the results - where has somebody, wholly unconnected with Hank Parker Racing, written in depth about them? If the answer is, nowhere, then they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you shouldn't spend any more time on this. ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:12, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Benking84

Hi,

I have been trying to get this published for a while now, at first it was not enough sources I now have 33 sources, then the sources were not of high enough quality which I also fixed by finding reputable news sources.

The most recent one is that it sounded like an advert which I fixed, Chat GPT did half the work and I fixed the rest.

Now the latest comment is that it is worse than before? Can you provide any specifics on how? It definitely sounds less like an advert. I have found other new articles with minimal refererences and am confused how these get through but this article cannot? Benking84 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:16, 4 November 2023 review of submission by MagicN7

@Wingwatchers Thanks for looking at the article. I am a little confused by your comment. Aren't I showing notability by the third criterion of WP:NACADEMIC by showing he is an AMS fellow (less than 1800 all time) and a Simons fellow of math (less than 500 all time)? And which source is not reliable? MagicN7 (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MagicN7 I think this is notable under WP:NACADEMIC. That criteria is a special criteria that is distinct from WP:NPEOPLE, and I've certainly made the mistake of forgetting to check if an academic passes that criteria even if they don't seem to pass WP:NPEOPLE. As such, I've accepted the draft. Qcne (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:42, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Bobztv

Has anyone gained any benefit from using gold seal shilajit, i.e,the disappearance of brain fog,mind set,focus,etc.etc.... Bobztv (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That draft has been deleted. Missbellanash (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Sulohia

Hello. Not sure why the reliability of the sources are being challenged? The references mention multiple leading newspapers in India, including the Times of India which is the largest english newspaper in the world. The references also has links to both Dhirubhai Ambani school which is a leading school in India, and Sevenoaks School which is a leading school in UK. The articles talk about championship victories as well as top 3 podium finishes which are factual in nature. The AI Chess tool that has been made has been covered prolifically in the media and also analysed in detail by Chessbase India which is the largest Chess website in the world. These are all very trust sources and I dont think reliability of these sources should be doubted. I have made more edits now, and added a few more press articles and references. I hope the submission wil be reviewed favourably now. Sulohia (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India is not the best source to be using, see WP:TOI. Interviews and brief mentions do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sulohia: please note that per WP:BLP, all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by reliable published sources, or else removed. Just because you know the person's DOB or family members' names, thanks to your close relationship, isn't enough; they must be verifiable from publications. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Virgobeach

how do i remove approved drafts from my sandbox Virgobeach (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Virgobeach: you shouldn't have to. When a draft is approved, it gets moved to the main article space. Often what's left behind is a redirect (as appears to be the case also in User:Virgobeach/sandbox), but you can delete that just by blanking the contents or replacing them with your next draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wonderful thanks DoubleGrazing, Virgobeach Virgobeach (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Turtle Monarch

Review this article again please, new information was discovered about this man. A picture of him is yet to be found. Turtle Monarch (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept nonsense or joke drafts. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 4 November 2023 review of submission by KannappaSara9

I have submitted the draft again with proper references and citations. Wanted to know whether it is submitted or not. KannappaSara9 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KannappaSara9 you successfully submitted it (see Draft:Tennis Premier League) and it is pending review. S0091 (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 4 November 2023 review of submission by TheEvilDrRyley

I need help removing a reference from this page that was added accidentally TheEvilDrRyley (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheEvilDrRyley you have a few references bunched up under the References section but they should be placed next the specific content they are supporting. If those are errors, just click on the footnote number, hit delete, then publish changes. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 4 November 2023 review of submission by BiGGPanTheRIndia

How we need to edit the topic. We need to have a topic on calculation of energy requirement of a house BiGGPanTheRIndia (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BiGGPanTheRIndia the draft was rejected so will not be considered. See also WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:PROMO. S0091 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:00, 4 November 2023 review of submission by 191.81.167.26

sorry, but these comments are, like most of the comments I've received, garbage. You claim that the article has not undergone significant revisions. That is false. You claim that the article is not written in a neutral tone. That is false. You've rejected the article now on the grounds that the subject isn't sufficiently notable, whereas previous editors already had accepted it as sufficiently notable--and they were right to do so: a WWII vet decorated by not one but two heads of state (the Queen of England and the President of Czechoslovakia) is, indeed, sufficiently notable. Stop being obstructionist; provide some halfway decent feedback that actually tells me what you want me to fix, in concrete terms, not some vague obstructionist nonsense about writing essays (a previous comment told me that the article was written like a CV; I changed that--and now I'm told it reads like an essay. Apparently you don't know what an essay is if you think that Wikipedia doesn't include essays on significant subjects as entries. Every encyclopedia does so). 191.81.167.26 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of your citations have been formatted correctly, and there are no inline citations so we cannot see which citation supports any of the content, the subject may well be notable but you have to make the effort to show that. See WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting your sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:16, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Sayednaz

I need assistance on the article to be published. What do I need to include for this page as a minimum, so that, after publishing I will be continuingly working on this page. Sayednaz (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a start you need to suggest why they are notable in their own right, notability cannot be inherited from relations. Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sayednaz please read through all linked material in the gray box of the decline message. You need to show the subject is notable, keeping in mind the for Wikipedia WP:notability is not inherited so who their father or siblings are matters not. S0091 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 4 November 2023 review of submission by BARTINLI

Help me for create Bartınspor page please BARTINLI (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:58, 4 November 2023 review of submission by Catleeball

Hi team,

I translated the article from French to English at Draft:Hervé Koubi. The English draft was rejected as insufficiently noteworthy, though.

Do you know if this is intentional for translations of pages? E.g. could a page in one language be sufficiently notable, but not in another language? Or was this a mistake?

Thank you! Catleeball (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Catleeball. Each language version of Wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines. Accordingly, you cannot assume that a translation of an article in one Wikipedia will be accepted in the English Wikipedia. You can find more information at WP:TRANSLATE. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you for clarifying! Catleeball (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 5

01:07, 5 November 2023 review of submission by CayDyn5

I don't understand why it's violating copywrite CayDyn5 (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You took the content directly from their website. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia defintion of notability. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:21, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Wikilover3509

I have added multiple independent references for notability. How to submit this article for publishing? Wikilover3509 (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do- the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed since the last review, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:14, 5 November 2023 review of submission by MferrariACWA

Hi, I would appreciate some guidance on how to improve the quality of citations in this article. MferrariACWA (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him; the sources you have currently are just brief biographies of him and descriptions of his activities. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just describing what he does or his existence and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about him- what we term notability. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 5 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:4041:5972:F900:BC2A:D727:E32A:6B09

Hello I received a denial of the article on the reason that the references are not related to the subject. This must be a mistake....For example if one clicks on one of the references https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/62.full.pdf immediately the Science magazine article that has "Fractional Chern Insulator" in the title appears. Same with the other references. If one googles the first set of 3 papers referenced in the article

T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236804 (2011); D. N. Sheng, Z.-C. Gu, K. Sun, and L. Sheng, Nature Communications 2, 389 (2011); N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021014 (2011)

one immediately sees they have around 2000 citations altogether (in google scholar) and they contain fractional chern insulators.

So i have no idea why the reviewer says the article contains no published sources!!! There are many science, nature, phys rev letters and other well known journals in the references

please respond as quickly as possible.

thanks 

2600:4041:5972:F900:BC2A:D727:E32A:6B09 (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the reviewer says that "the references are not related to the subject".
But putting that aside, you're citing 12 sources, but only two are available online, is that really the case? Of course, offline sources are acceptable, but it would make the reviewer's job much easier if you could point to online versions which almost certainly exist for some or all of those sources.
And if you are going to cite offline sources, then you must provide sufficient details to enable them to be reliable identified and verified. In most of these, the papers' titles aren't even mentioned, and generally the information is quite patchy. Journals should be cited specifically using the {{Cite journal}} template, populating the parameters as fully as possible. And please, do not expect reviewers, or for that matter later readers, to Google your sources, they should be made available without any such additional steps. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a reviewer can I ask what "phys rev letters" are? Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Aw.griffioen

This page is rejected because of lack of reliable sources. I am afraid this is a mistake. iBoost technology has been described in detail in a paper in the journal Vaccine (2018) and several follow-up scientific papers, including one in Nature Communications, have been published. In addition, iBoost technology is currently very popular, as clinical studies using the technology are planned to strart. If this is not tracable and reliable enough, please let me know what sources I could add to improve the page. Aw.griffioen (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a mistake your draft was NOT rejected, it was declined, which means you can still work on and bring it up to standard and re-submit, please note that being "popular" is not a valid criteria for inclusion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Aw.griffioen: Fortunately for you, the draft was only declined not rejected. This means you can resubmit it once you fix the issues. Johannes Maximilian, the reviewer asked in a comment for you to not cite predatory journals. I haven't checked all the sources yet, but I assume this is the issue. Edward-Woodrow • talk 15:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Qemorio

Hi, I am just wondering why the article was rejected. I am sure I can fix the issues if I know what the issues are. If this is posted somewhere and I have missed it I sincerely apologize. Thank you so much for your time. Qemorio (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qemorio: firstly, your draft was just declined, not rejected. Rejection provides no option to resubmit the draft. You, on the other hand, can fix any problems are resubmit for further review by clicking the blue Resubmit button on the pink box at the top of the draft.
The draft was declined by Vanderwaalforces, and the decline reason is listed in the grey box. It's a standard decline reason that basically says the topic has not yet shown to be "notable".

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:

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I hope this helps. Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 15:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification (rejected/declined) and information on what qualifies as "notable" I will update and resubmit. Qemorio (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:04, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Technobabylon

Hello - Thank you for your feedback. I understand that the reason for rejection of the article is that sources which were not independent and secondary were used. Please could you kindly help point out which articles and references are not compliant with Wikipedia policies exactly? The main first 4 references which are used to describe the subject are ERMC website, World Economic Forum, National University of Singapore and Streamly, none of which were written by the subject. The remainder of the references are just a list publications made by the subject and have no bearing on the description of the subject. Therefore I am really confused as to why this draft is not compliant. Appreciate your kind advice and help. Regards, Technobabylon Technobabylon (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technobabylon anything written by him is a primary source which is not useful so I suggest removing all those sources. A short list of his publications is fine though (around 5-7 of his most notable works based on reviews by reputable critics/publications). What is needed are secondary independent sources that have written in-depth about him or about his work. Also, if you are affiliated with him, you need to declare your conflict of interest. If you have any financial relationship (client, employer, etc.), you need to follow WP:PAID. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 5 November 2023 review of submission by MarvDjEng

Can I set the article "free to edit" in another way than it currently is for everyone so maybe together we can achieve to add what is currrently maybe missing? MarvDjEng (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MarvDjEng. Any Wikipedia article that isn't protected is free to be edited by anyone already, including your draft.
However, us volunteer editors don't usually edit drafts and we don't have a co-editing service. It is up to you to improve the draft and prove notability. Qcne (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit a draft, but generally drafts are only found by people who already know they exist. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was thinking of reacjing out directly to people in the bodybuilding subgenre of Wikipedia. I am not looking to "outsource" work but rather to find likeminded people who, together, find the best version that we can get. I just want to make sure it is not against some kind of privacy to do so... MarvDjEng (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:07, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Igreo

I have inserted and corrected what was highlighted. What more can you do to avoid making another mistake? Do you consider it encyclopedic enough? And in your opinion, is the draft well written? Thank you so much. Igreo (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Igreo if you want another review, please resubmit the draft and a reviewer will take look. We generally do not do pre-reviews. S0091 (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:56, 5 November 2023 review of submission by SSEKYANZI FREDERIC OFFICIAL

help me to upload my docments SSEKYANZI FREDERIC OFFICIAL (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 5 November 2023 review of submission by Gulbi Balbulus

Hey,

I wrote the article for this composition for the German Wikipedia and wanted to translate it for the English Wikipedia. My first submission was declined on the grounds of being too much like an essay and not citing enough secondary sources. As everything was already based on academic literature and not my personal opinion I assumed adding references to said sources would suffice. There is now a citation for almost every sentence. However, it was declined a second time with the same reasoning as before. I'm a bit at a loss how to improve any further. Maybe I got the criticism of the article reading more like an essay wrong? My understanding is that it means the article should be based on reliable sources, not my own subjective point of view. But everything said in the article has a citation. I'd be very grateful for any help :) Gulbi Balbulus (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 6

00:08, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest

I have added the dates Anna Buhigas played professional soccer in her inbox and I can't think of any additional improvements I could make since I have provided third person sources about her career. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "third person sources", but for notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage (not just passing mentions, match reports, player stats, etc.) directly of her, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of her (ie. not her club or university, and not interviews or press releases or her coach commenting on her, etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Kristinak98

Hello!

I have viewed, that my draft of the "Planforge" article was declined. Please review the draft again, as it is an exact translation of the german article "Planforge": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planforge

Thus, I don't understand, how the draft could not be accepted, as the exact same german article I translated it from, already existed on wikipedia for a long time. Furthermore, as it is a translation, it would be wrong, if I now wrote it completely different than the german one, right?

Thank you and best regards Kristinak98 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kristinak98: each language version of Wikipedia is completely separate, with their own policies and requirements (and the ones here on the English-language Wikipedia are probably the strictest); therefore, whether an article exists on one, says nothing about whether the same article will be accepted on another language version. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:21, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Pedropaulofb

Thank you for your review. Could you please elaborate on the aspects in which the article needs enhancements for it to be approved? Pedropaulofb (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:39, 6 November 2023 review of submission by Edizengoff

Trying to understand why the article was declined I tried to make it very similar to other book articles for example this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heather_Blazing Edizengoff (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1183756580"