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 StarryGrandma (talk | contribs) at 22:25, 2 April 2024 (→‎21:13, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Seeking absolute truth: Reply). 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
desk		Backlog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


March 27

05:30, 27 March 2024 review of submission by T.rabia

Hello,

I wanted to know how I could help the process and get the article published. Have I not cited enough sources? The subject of the article is a very well-known investor and entrepreneur with F1 investments and more. The topic of the article seems notable as per the Notability guidelines.

Your guidance on this matter would be much appreciated. T.rabia (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T.rabia: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If you believe it was rejected incorrectly, you may discuss this directly with the rejecting reviewer, although please be aware that you will need to show how and why the rejection was unjustified, not simply that you disagreed with it (and the subject being a "well-known investor" etc. is not sufficient, as this is not a recognised notability criterion). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I will talk to the rejecting reviewer and try to get their perspective. T.rabia (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 27 March 2024 review of submission by Fellow22

Kindly requesting what it will take for this page to get approved by Wikipedia, all complaints have been reviewed, but it still has not been reviewed, can you please look into this? Fellow22 (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fellow22: this draft hasn't been resubmitted, that's why it hasn't been reviewed again. What's more, it has been rejected, which means the end of the road – time to move on, and find something else to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 27 March 2024 review of submission by 50.234.189.47

Hi, I wonder if anyone can review this draft and give some feedback? 50.234.189.47 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been submitted for review. In time, a reviewer will get to it. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 27 March 2024 review of submission by Digitalaudioworkstation

My draft article was rejected because of a lack of reliable sources. I have tried reaching out to the editor who reviewed and rejected the article but have had no luck. I am seeking assistance in determining which sources in the article are not considered reliable so that I can remove/replace them and re-submit the article. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! Digitalaudioworkstation (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did you obtain the picture of him? The file page says a photoscan and that Mr. Tat is the photographer, but the image is not a selfie. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources seem to document his work and accomplishments, but do not seem to be significant coverage of Mr. Tat that shows how he is (narrowly) a notable creative professional or (broadly) a notable person. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 27 March 2024 review of submission by AlexOYz

how to i create perfect wiki AlexOYz (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. Asking "how do I create a Wikipedia article"(not a "wiki" which is a type of entire website of which Wikipedia is but one example) is like asking "how do I build a house?" without knowing anything about land acquisition, permitting, construction, plumbing, electrical work, etc. Please take the time to learn more about Wikipedia by first editing existing articles in areas that interest you- history, science, government officials, math, etc. Also using the new user tutorial may help you. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 27 March 2024 review of submission by 2601:47:4B02:7220:9DD3:5BC8:8665:85B6

This page has been queuing for months, is it possible to get a review? A short blurb about one of my favorite composers. 2601:47:4B02:7220:9DD3:5BC8:8665:85B6 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. You only submitted it today, not months ago, There is no way to guarantee a speedy review; reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers, doing what they can when they can. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 27 March 2024 review of submission by Avempati1015

why is this top for speedy deletion and why was it declined? I don't see how it is promotional at all. I am not associated to the individual at all. Avempati1015 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have to get past the first line, "has etched an enduring legacy in the realm of badminton" is highly promotional. Articles should be written as dry and matter of fact as possible. Sources also need to be in line with the text they are supporting, see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:23, 27 March 2024 review of submission by JNOJ1423

can you help me so get appecting JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JNOJ1423: not sure what you're asking... what help do you need? This draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok i mean do have any advice be appect it JNOJ1423 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

05:11, 28 March 2024 review of submission by 79.110.130.73

We are continuing to work on the resubmission of the article. However, it appears that it has already been written from a neutral point of view and references a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Could you please provide more specific details about the parts of the article that need to be rewritten to ensure compliance with the policies? 79.110.130.73 (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has not been edited since it was declined nearly five months ago.
Who is "we"? And what is your relationship with this business?
If you are Upstream99, please log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:11, 28 March 2024 review of submission by 103.172.73.129

I don't know now what to publish. I think I need 3 years degree course to publish anything on Wikipedia. It's all a waste of time. 103.172.73.129 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional platform for your non-notable business.
Please log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 28 March 2024 review of submission by SouthPole5423

I have submitted my article's review request almost a week ago, but haven't gotten a response. Every time before this, it would only take like 2 days. What's wrong? SouthPole5423 (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthPole5423: nothing is wrong, except that there are many drafts awaiting review. As it says on top of the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,045 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That your other reviews were quick was likely just pure chance. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthPole5423 your draft is poorly sourced and promotional... "The magazine is known for its diverse and vibrant content, which includes stories, novels, poems, quizzes, magic tricks, adventure tales, travelogues, scientific articles, jokes, and a variety of other engaging features" is CLEARLY not neutral tone! Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Kicks of seven

What can I do for my draft umarjaum to be included on Wikipedia please check my draft umarjaum and then reply me. Kicks of seven (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kicks of seven: nothing, because I've rejected that draft. We only publish articles on subjects which are deemed notable, and your draft presents zero evidence that this is the case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I should delete it? Maybe I can improve the "Kishor Alo" section on the "Prothom Alo" article. SouthPole5423 (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthPole5423 you don't need to delete Draft:Umarjaum. I did an in-depth look online and could find nothing that can establish notability. Perhaps one day there will be some good sources.
Those who reviewed Draft:Kishor Alo gave you some good advice. The first step would be to remove the Medium article, apollo.io source, the mawbiz.com.bd source, because all of them are primary. The rest don't look too good either so please look at the reviewers' comments so you can acquire better sourcing. TLAtlak 14:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Agri2024

Please re check this submission Agri2024 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Agri2024: this draft was rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. If you believe that new evidence of notability has become available which wasn't previously considered, you may make an appeal to the reviewer who rejected this. (Note, though, that neither the JP appointment nor the parliamentary candidacy confer any automatic notability.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Skblole

I don't understand what the problem is here. There's over 60 sources on this article and it's structured exactly the same way as every previous season that's been approved. I need to know more about what I'm expected to do with this if I am supposed to fix it. Skblole (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skblole: what do you mean "over 60 sources"? This draft cites two sources, each only once, leaving the vast majority of the information unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single game, competition and transfer is sourced. You're just looking at the ones showing up in the footnotes. Skblole (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skblole: correct, that is all I'm looking at. That is this draft's referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be. It doesn't have to be. It's perfectly fine to have the referencing in immediate proximity to the sourced information, and it's in fact the standard for these football pages on Wikipedia. Skblole (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. If you think that you are following guidelines, why are you using this (usually) voluntary process?
I only see two sources. Sources are indeed supposed to be in line with the text they are supporting, I don't see that here. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "what about that one?" argument isn't a good one but I think it's a little different when the argument is "what about every other football season article on Wikipedia?". I have never seen one of these citing each and every game in the footnotes and I think the reason for that is that it would be a mess. It's always done with a link to an official match report next to the game it's referencing. What do you mean you only see two sources? If you think most of them are presented the wrong way that's one thing, but surely you can see that the links are there? And if there's a source that's not in line with something I'm obviously happy to change that. The reason I'm using this process is that I'm not very familiar with how Wikipedia operates beyond writing and updating articles, so when my article was removed and made into a draft I saw a link to this page and it made sense to ask about it. I apologize if I took this issue to the wrong place. Skblole (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do see places where you have "source" then a link, this isn't the standard format as I understand it, though my experience with sports related articles is limited. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Vkaralewich

Hi, the article I wrote was denied for significant mention by Nearlyevil665. I was just wondering if this was because I listed the guy's company website as one of the sources. If I remove that will I be fine to resubmit since he does have significant mention in multiple news articles in Hoboken as cited in the sources? Should I find more articles of him? I'm not sure if the reviewer just saw the one bad source and denied it for that reason Vkaralewich (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vkaralewich: primary sources don't establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you recommend that I delete the article or continue to develop it and find more articles that indicate notability. This guy has a lot of articles about him and he has ads all over hoboken/nyc so everyone knows about him which is why I figured I'd write an article. I think I met the notability unless you think there are specific items within the wikipedia notability article that I am missing? Thanks sorry I am trying to get into Wikipedia Vkaralewich (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take the image of him as you claimed when you uploaded it? It appears to be professionally taken. It's not necessary to delete the draft. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Girdyguy

what did I do wrong and what can improve? Girdyguy (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Girdyguy: what you did wrong was that you resubmitted an already rejected draft. Please don't do that again, thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Girdyguy: Wikipedia is not for things you and your friends made up in school one day. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which has articles on notable subjects, not a free web host for pages on micronations which nobody cares about except for their creators. --Finngall talk 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't made in a day it took weeks, and me and my friends didint make it up.if its a hoax then delete all the other mriconation Wikipedia pages List of micronations Girdyguy (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how is this a hoax? Girdyguy (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not? Anyway, it has now been deleted.
Please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the existing one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Cosmiclatte.sro

The article is rejected because the references are thought to be part of a paid or press campaign. Most of the references in the article are from independent websites that write about similar products. Before I edit and resubmit the article for another review, is there a way to understand exactly which one of the references should be removed from the article? Cosmiclatte.sro (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmiclatte.sro: when a publication, even a seemingly reliable one, does a product review or roundup, provides pricing etc. details and a link to the supplier, and overtly or covertly takes a commission from resultant sales, that's not journalism, that's affiliate marketing, and the source cannot be regarded as either independent or genuinely reliable. Churnalism is not much better; it may not act as a sales channel, but is effectively paid promotion, all the same. I haven't analysed the sources in any great detail (you may need to ask the reviewer directly), but they all seemed more or less flaky to me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What is your relationship with this subject? I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and action it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 28 March 2024 review of submission by TruckRacingFan1

I would like to know how to create a good article on this topic TruckRacingFan1 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TruckRacingFan1: probably too late now that the draft has been rejected, but for future reference:
  1. Start by finding a few (3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard.
  2. Summarise (in your own words, but without putting any additional 'spin' on things) what they say about the subject.
  3. Cite each source against the information it has provided.
This gives you the appropriate content, required references, and proof of notability, all in one fell swoop. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You TruckRacingFan1 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 28 March 2024 review of submission by Girdyguy

Its not a hoax and the only reason why I made a second was because they deleted the first one when I was gonna fix it. so my I please have help on what to fix so I don't make the same mistake again. Girdyguy (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:05, 28 March 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:85D0:6690:119D:4A96:62E2:87A5

Hello, could you five me more details on why the article was declined and what I can do to get it compliant and approved. Thanks! 2600:1700:85D0:6690:119D:4A96:62E2:87A5 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in when posting. If you are the creator of the draft, you declared a conflict of interest; what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I further note that you claim to have taken the image of Mr. Chanchaleune, but it appears to be professionally taken. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

02:32, 29 March 2024 review of submission by Samnyasa

I am curious about publishing. The draft is sitting for months, and I don't want it to be rejected. Samnyasa (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is submitted and pending. Reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order. Please be patient, there is no way to "jump the line". 331dot (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:42, 29 March 2024 review of submission by İstbull

hello, we prepared this draft ourselves as a university, I don't understand why it was rejected, we were rejected for the 2nd time. everything was prepared correctly and carefully Cem Barut 10:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@İstbull, I haven't found any GNG-worthy sources. Plus, a significant portion of the draft lacks proper sourcing. You've included every small detail about the university, so please remove any unnecessary unsourced material or provide citations for them. Additionally, there's no lead section in your draft; please add one. Also, you mentioned preparing this draft yourselves as a university. Does this mean that multiple persons use this account? – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 29 March 2024 review of submission by Yuliia Vireye

Hello! The article about the game was not agreed because as you pointed out reliable secondary sources are needed. However, the sources indicate examples of media that have already written about this game. You can see that these media are not involved, and wrote on their own initiative. Also, these media have been working since 2005+, and for so many years of work, they have earned trust and high ratings. In addition, these publications mention the activity and representation of the game at major international events (not as a mention, but a specific story about the game). Yuliia Vireye (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuliia Vireye: sources 1 and 4 are the same, just in a different language, meaning they're clearly based on a press release or similar. Source 2 is the same. The only one which might (emphasis on might) be okay is no. 3, but that alone is far from enough to establish notability.
You must also disclose your paid editing; I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 29 March 2024 review of submission by Luckydigs

Hi, Can you tell me what elements this article needs the most, in order for it get approved? More press? More verified biographical info? Thank you! Luckydigs (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be notable having been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums they pass WP:NARTIST I'm happy to accept if you re-submit. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-submitted - thank you! Luckydigs (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 29 March 2024 review of submission by Amp-e728

This is the response I received telling me the article had been rejected, "References not formatted in the appropriate way." I used visual editor and added links to all material that was referenced. There must be 30 links. How am I supposed to know what the reviewer objected to. Amp-e728 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected see WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting sources and note that we don't use external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link Draft:Tracy Pun Palandjian. Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what this means? (apologies if that's a dumb question, but aren't all citations external links?) Amp-e728 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can be but they are formatted to appear at the end of the article under the reference section. See WP:REFB for how to do that. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok. i wil read about citations again. if i'm honest, when i read about inline citations on wikipedia pages i don't see a restriction about external links identified, but maybe i missed that somehow. Amp-e728 (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:External links also. Theroadislong (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

01:17, 30 March 2024 review of submission by 2402:800:63F2:93CA:D07B:31A7:BD84:1A53

went wat 2402:800:63F2:93CA:D07B:31A7:BD84:1A53 (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this means, but the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Divinxx

Article was rejected, but there is a significant sample size of articles for Edmonton City Councillors with much less information and less reliable sources about the Councillor. Examples, Ben Henderson (politician), Jane Batty, Bryan Anderson (politician). In the edit history of Druh Farrell, there is an overturned deletion request about Farrell not being deemed "notable" where the argument was a councillor of the major city of Calgary was in fact notable enough. Janz is a councillor of Edmonton, which is just as major of a city as Calgary, and in fact the capital city of Alberta.

How do I resubmit while sharing these things as information to take into account, rather than firing off another submission which won't have these things considered? Divinxx (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divinxx The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the submission process, that a draff may not be resubmitted. Declined meams that it may be resubmitted.
Please see other stuff exists. Other poor articles existing cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help.
As noted by the reviewer, local politicians do not merit articles merely for being a politician. You will need to show that this councilor meets the broader notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:21, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Shivanrai1

Why my page creation got declined? Shivanrai1 (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shivanrai1 I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. I restored the previous decline message(it must remain until the draft is accepted) so you could see it. 331dot (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Noble banji

What do I do Noble banji (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking for assistance with the draft submission process, not for asking questions about articles that are actually in the encyclopedia. Please use the more general Help Desk for questions about an article. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also at Draft:Samuel Oladele where it has been rejected, I have sent Pastor S.O Oladele to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Dreamboy3143

Hi, A detailed bio (article) of the artist has been published by a prestige independent magazine. here is the link: https://www.mesam.org.tr/UserFiles/files/Dergi/34_Vizyon.pdf page.46-47 user:Dreamboy3143 13:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamboy3143 If you want to have the rejection of your draft undone, you should start by contacting S0091, the person who rejected it, on their talk page Mach61 13:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will user:Dreamboy3143 13:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:57, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Memevietnam98

This article is eligible to appear on Wikipedia, see User talk:Memevietnam98 to understand clearly. Memevietnam98 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Memevietnam98: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. And if you wish to argue otherwise, you will have to make more of a case than saying something on your talk page may or may not support this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, please also refer to the user's talk page where several AfC reviewers have made no small effort to try and explain general notability and reliable source rules to the above user and been met with a less than welcome reception, one I hope is not repeated here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:53, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Akhare 2024

My Draft has been declined a couple of times, I just rewrote it with a neutral point of view. Please let me know what else needs to be done Akhare 2024 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Patwomfcs

What can be better so that this submission is granted? This is an individual who is a Division 1 Football coach and the first female coach in several instances in the NCAA and the NFL. Patwomfcs (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Patwomfcs: you need to show that this person is notable according to the criteria described in the decline notice on top of the draft (the grey box inside the large pink one). Being a football coach is not inherently notable, nor is the first-anything (such as first female coach). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles on Division 1 position football coaches. Nothing linked was notable as in all university articles or press releases. Patwomfcs (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are you able to review sources? Patwomfcs (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being the first female head coach might be notable, as it would likely get a lot of coverage in reliable sources; I'm less sure about assistant coaches. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Gcwcd

Hi. I've been working on a draft of a new article and a comment was made, 'Article needs a lead. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)'. Please can you help with advice on how I can rectify this? Thank you. Gcwcd (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By adding a lead section? The draft doesn't suggest how the person is notable in Wikipedia terms, the lead section should do this. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm submitting a draft article and mistakenly put links to external web pages within the main article. Having read the Help articles on this subject, my understanding is that relevant and acceptable web pages can be linked to, but an inline citation should be used and then the link should be included in the References section. Please can you confirm that my understanding is correct before I resubmit my draft? Thank you. Gcwcd (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any external links in the body of the text, except as citations for information presented. Relevant external links can go in a separate section at the end of the draft. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a separate section for every question; please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Nemesia345

I believe all comments have been addressed to enable publication of this page. That said, I would like to check with experienced editors to see if any changes should be made before resubmitting for publication.

The previous comments on draft that have now been addressed are as follows:

1. Completely unreferenced advantages: New references added to this section and throughout article to address.

2. table with exclusively external links: This was a formatting error due to limited author Wiki experience. Table has been updated to use appropriate references format.

3. Based on how this article currently exists, it does not seem as if its unique existence is warranted, and would be better served on a glossary of terms as suggested by AngusWOOF: Respectfully disagree. Closed-loop geothermal is a large category of research and commercial development highlighted in US Department of Energy and other highly reputable source reports, with associated content extending well beyond level of the geothermal 'glossary of terms' page. Further, I have posted the need to break this topic into a separate page on the Enhanced Geothermal Systems talk page, with no responses for nearly 6 months indicating the talk page is inactive. There is no relevant active talk page on which to discuss this, making this comment un-actionable.

Thank you for your consideration and advice. Nemesia345 (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point at all in presenting the above points here: it is unlikely anyobdy will read them. If you think that you have improved the draft sufficiently, resubmit it. ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 30 March 2024 review of submission by Witejere

I need some help as I'm not sure what other information, I need to add or remove from the content I've provided. I'm fine if someone can correct/update my work.

Thanks Witejere (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Witejere: this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. Therefore you need to show evidence that the subject meets either the special WP:NBASKETBALL notability guideline (which depends on their playing career), or the general WP:GNG one (which depends on the availability of appropriate sources covering them).
You also seem to have some sort of conflict of interest due to an external relationship you may have with the subject. This needs to be disclosed. I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

04:40, 31 March 2024 review of submission by Dolemites

I'm having trouble finding examples of non-neutral or peacock language in this draft. Could someone help?

Also the editor rejecting this article seems not to have access to all the sources but makes a negative judgment anyway? This is confusing, because Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a restriction to open access sources. In fact, some of the most important (reliable) sources for Wikipedia are not open access. So it's confusing that this editor rejects this submission on the basis of the only the sources he or she could access. I don't have a direct/personal connection with this academic society but I did spend time drafting the article and that seems rather a waste for it to be completely discarded (with no one else able to contribute) just because of one editor being unable to access the valid sources relied upon. Dolemites (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolemites: I'm not entirely sure where the POV issues are; pinging the reviewer Tutwakhamoe for comments.
The reviewer didn't decline (not 'reject', which is a terminal option) the draft for lack of notability, so whether their comments regarding that aspect were correct or not shouldn't matter much. And yes, we can accept sources that are offline, behind paywalls, etc., as long as they are published and available to at least some members of the public (and otherwise meet the relevant quality criteria, of course).
The draft has not been "discarded" in any sense of the word, it remains available for editing, both by yourself and anyone else with internet access. It won't, however, be published until it is deemed ready. That said, your account is autoconfirmed so the AfC review process is only optional (albeit highly recommended) to you, therefore if you object to the review process or outcome you're of course welcome to publish this article yourself and leave it for the New Page Patrol to assess it instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for decline mainly boils down to two points: 1) The use of the organization's self introduction in the article, as Wikipedia article should generally focus on what independent sources said about a subject, not what the subject said about itself; 2) Lack of in-depth description and examples given to the claims about the organization's notability. What are the "subsequent activities" and "numerous other scholarly events"? What are the effects/significance of the events the organization held in the past? While the article did include many citations in each of the claims, as per WP:PCR Wikipedia articles are written for the general public, and as such a greater level of clarity would be expected.
As for not accessing all of the cited sources, I'm aware of the concern about my judgement here, which is why I did not cited notability as the reason of rejection. At the time of the comment I thought the fact that all of the non-journal sources were either primary or trivial mentions would need to be emphasized somehow. As DoubleGrazing said, you are free to write the article without the need to create a draft, but an article like the current draft has a high likelihood of getting flaged for issues, so it is best to resolve the issues in draft before putting it in the mainspace. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:49, 31 March 2024 review of submission by Belleandpoppy

I have moved my belleandpoppy sandbox page to Karen Annette O'Brien hoping to publish it but this appears to be the wrong thing to do. Can you locate my wikipage so that I can edit it for publication? Belleandpoppy (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it here Draft:Karen Annette O'Brien it will need submitting for review. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:50, 31 March 2024 review of submission by Connor World

My article was declined why 

Connor World (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Connor World: it was declined because of the reason given in the decline notice, namely lack of notability. (Not that it's an article yet, or even much of a draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can I fix the issue Connor World (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Connor World You can't as the draft is now rejected. Please read Your first article. S0091 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:10, 31 March 2024 review of submission by 41.78.74.34

This topic can be mentioned on Wikipedia 41.78.74.34 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has not been demonstrated, which is why the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a mere database of companies. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 31 March 2024 review of submission by GHOSHJOYDEEP

I waanted to tell about my journey and keen to learn about Embedded software product . GHOSHJOYDEEP (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GHOSHJOYDEEP: your draft has been deleted as promotional. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

01:55, 1 April 2024 review of submission by 120.29.97.141

Can you help review this draft? Thank you 120.29.97.141 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been submitted and is awaiting review, please be patient. We don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. (And please log into your account whenever editing.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Editobd

What's the problem on this do you like to tell me? Editobd (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Editobd: the problem is, as the decline notice says, that the draft isn't supported by reliable sources, and there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are have a reference link of this knowledge panel .please check it Editobd (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia, as it is user-editable. Wikipedia has nothing to do with Google Knowledge Panels, which pull information from a variety of sources. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what sources are acceptable on wikipedia Editobd (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have rejected the draft "The melody resonated across borders, marking the dawn of his musical voyage" I know it's April Fools day but you are clearly not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Nazi Bases

  • Draft:Secret Nazi Bases

Hello, I am writing an article about this documentary, and I found lots of sources, such as Guernsey Press, and also one from Fox News. I know that unreliable sources are only used in certain cases. I put 2 Instagram posts as sources because I think it meets the criteria. However I am doing the best in this article. I am also adding press releases. Ange2444 (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases, Instagram and Fox News are not reliable sources and will need to be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok I thought Fox News was reliable Ange2444 (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FOXNEWS there is no consensus on whether it is reliable for non-political matters, though many think it isn't. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Connor World

Help me out 

Connor World (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been rejected, simply put, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms so do not warrant an article. Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Tt.aksoy

Hello, I am trying to publish this article as the intern of a marketing team. Our copywriters wrote this article in the most neutral point possible, but some info like graduation year, etc isn't really referencable as this info has been given by doctor Tiryaki himself. How can I edit and reference this article in the most neutral way possible? Thank you. Tt.aksoy (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tt.aksoy: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a channel for promoting anything. Wikipedia articles summarise what independent and reliable sources have said about a subject. Your draft, as I've already pointed out, is just your client telling the world whatever they want to tell the world about themselves. That is pure, unadulterated promotion. Tell your boss to read WP:BOSS, and to use his own website or eg. LinkedIn for his marketing needs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's a doctor, he has publications and things like that and we are stating this? There is nothing more to be said really Tt.aksoy (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tt.aksoy: if there's nothing more to be said, then I guess we can close this case?
Being a doctor, laudable as that may be, does not entitle anyone to an automatic pass into a global encyclopaedia; or even having "publications and things like that". You (or your PR team, rather) have presented no evidence that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards, not to mention that the draft is effectively entirely unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 1 April 2024 review of submission by MakkoBakkoJakko

Hi! My article was recently declined because my sources not being up to par. I understand why, as a lot of what I quote are interviews— so not secondary or independent of the subject. I understand that if no secondary or independent sources exist for a topic, it is not considered notable enough for inclusion with wikipedia.

K.S. Sze & Sons is an 101 year old jewellery store and a part of the already actively erased history of Hong Kong, and there isn’t much modern secondary press about it. They are mentioned in several shopping guides going back to the 80s, an independent shopping guide in the New York Times said they were her jeweller of choice in Hong Kong. They’re very well known in professional circles.

Within their niche, they’re largely known through word of mouth. They don’t get much press, and what they do get is largely interviews. With all of that, their history is being forgotten— even on their own website parts are getting lost.

I do believe I used the most proper sources I could. If still they are not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, it’s a shame but I do understand. MakkoBakkoJakko (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not every topic gets the coverage needed to merit an article, even if it seems like it should(for example, through being old). This store does not seem to merit an article at this time. That doesn't mean forever, just not now. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you could do, if you know a Chinese language, is to write about this on a Chinese language Wikipedia- it likely has different policies and those may permit these sources to be sufficient to sustain an article. Every language Wikipedia has different standards, and the English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply and suggestions! MakkoBakkoJakko (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Júlio Gralha

Hi there, could you please clarify why this submission is considered "not reliable", and what can I do to fix it. Thank you! Johannes Maximilian Júlio Gralha (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you must cite reliable, secondary sources, independent of the subject that discuss the subject in such detail that it appears that it's warranted to have an article on that subject. You have cited multiple "sources" in a way that appears to me like "zero effort". For example, footnotes 10, 17, 30, 31, 41 or 59 are just bare links to external sites which makes the reader guess what's to be cited. Multiple important sources for the text are 100 per cent dependent. None of the sources cited in the Prémio BIAL winners section indicate why that section would be noteworthy for inclusion in the article. All of this would be no problem if the article cited sources that tick all of the common criteria (Secondary, Independent, Reliable, Significant coverage). Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Nowhereman5691

hello

I'm Tomcsik Marcell, i'm verifying these informations myself. I just want to stay anonymous for the readers. Nowhereman5691 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and most of the infos cannot be cited as these are music theory analyses of the composition, and the description of the subject that is contained by the lyrics itself. Nowhereman5691 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand 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) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i cited enough sources. It's that hungarian article of me. The rest are the description of the content of the lyric and the music theoretical analysis of the work itself. It doesn't need to have sources because it is analysis. Nowhereman5691 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Yehabwiki

I need assistance with what to do as I have followed all the Wikipedia guidelines Yehabwiki (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, the draft was declined, rejected and now tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Left my usual deletion notice. Final warned for promo -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Jeanvaljeanjacket

Hello – since this was rejected on March 20, I have made substantial edits to prove this subject's notability. Is it possible to have this re-reviewed for submission? Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft, and convince them that there are sources sufficient to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 1 April 2024 review of submission by 64.118.223.196

This person has worked under the Carter Administration, as well as was notable during the COVID-19 Pandemic and featured in top tier including many TV interviews. He is the husband of the Health Commissioner for Westchester County. What other information is necessary for this to include? 64.118.223.196 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, as Wikipedia uses the term, is not about what a person has done, been, created, or published, or whether they are popular, famous, important, influential, innovative, or any other adjective you might apply. It is about whether there is sufficient independent material reliably published about them 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.
Your draft has not one single reference that is independent of Amler, and therefore does nothing to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria.
I imagine that the last of the four reviewers who looked at it concluded that if you had failed to find a single independent reference by now, then there weren't any to be found, and therefore rejected it. It will not be considered further. ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:30, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Freshbox

Hi I just wanted to translate the page from the German version: curious what I did wrong and hope I can fix it as soon as possible as its my first translation :) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Vockenhuber (original page)

Thank you! hope I don t bother you, just want to be sure to do it right. Freshbox (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; please understand when doing translations that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on, say, the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on the English Wikipedia. It's up to the translator to figure that out first.
For an artist to merit an English Wikipedia article, you must summarize independent reliable sources that show how the artist meets the definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Chaseghuggins

I'm unsure how the article is unreliable? It's a newspaper clipping from 1918. Chaseghuggins (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself is not the issue. An article must summarize multiple independent reliable sources. One is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 1 April 2024 review of submission by 75.162.67.159

I received this response after submission for the VC-7 Squadron page: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at RVAH-7 instead." The problem is this is a DIFFERENT SQUADRON and the responder obviously doesn't understand the Naval History. How do I get someone to understand there's a difference and RVAH-7 has nothing to do with VC-7?! 75.162.67.159 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this with the reviewer? 331dot (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

02:49, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Patemagnan

Hi, I created an article about a synchronized skating team "Nova Sénior" using template used by other teams in Canada "Les Suprêmes (senior synchronized skating team)" :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Supr%C3%AAmes_(senior_synchronized_skating_team)", "NEXXICE":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXXICE" and "Black Ice":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ice_(synchronized_skating_team). This way all teams have the same pattern. I used exactly the same references. In fact, my references are up to date and do not lead to non-existent pages (without being mean to others). Note, the page is a starting point with basic information for now. One objective is for other Wikipedia pages on ice skating to reference the team page instead of just naming the team. Ex:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Synchronized_Skating_Championships By doing it this way, I thought it would make validation easier. If ISU.org and Skatecanada.ca (the two organizations being the main references in Canada and around the world) are not good references, then all team pages should be removed. So why are references good for some and not for others? (I may have missed something here) Patemagnan (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Patemagnan: per WP:NTEAM, sports teams must demonstrate notability according to the WP:GNG guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. Even if you consider this draft a "starting point" only, to be accepted for publication we still need to see evidence of notability. As for other articles that may exist on similar topics (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), we do not assess drafts by comparing them to existing articles, but rather by comparing them to the currently applicable guidelines. (If you have found other articles which similarly do not demonstrate notability and/or which have other problems, you're welcome to improve them or to flag up those issues by maintenance tags etc.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I will add more info and references to demonstrate notability. It's a lot of work to gather the information, especially when you have to go back in time and the sources of information move the documents around. On the team's site, I have given up tracking documents that move. Maybe I should use the Internet Archive more. Patemagnan (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:34, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Online Professionals

how would I know that my article was submitted successfully? Since my last edit on March 28 I didn't receive any message regarding the submission Online Professionals (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Online Professionals: the draft was declined on the 28th, after which you made one edit to it, but didn't resubmit it. Therefore it is not currently pending another review; you need to click on the blue 'resubmit' button to send it for another review. That said, this isn't a viable encyclopaedia article draft, so if you were to submit it as it currently stands, it would be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you have written appears to be the start of an essay, which is a completely different thing from a Wikipedia article: see NOTESSAY.
In order to write a Wikipedia article on the subject of online professionals, you need to
  1. Find several reliably published sources that talk at length about the subject "online professionals" specifically.
  2. Write a summary of what those sources say about the subject.
Not one of your current sources even mentions the phrase "online professional", and not one of them meets the criteria for a source to contribute towards establishing that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Editobd

What type Source i should on there? Do you like to tell me? 

Editobd (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Editobd: you need to stop this. It has already been pointed out repeatedly that the subject is not notable, and if you keep recreating this promo piece you will sooner or later get yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 2 April 2024 review of submission by 176.37.54.3

Hello, my article was previously declined, but I've made some changes and added more citation Does it look correct? Any recommendations highly appreciated 176.37.54.3 (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer, please resubmit the draft- we don't do pre-review reviews here. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly better referenced than when I reviewed it, but there is still quite a lot of unsupported content. For example, the entire 'Early Life and Education' section is unreferenced – where is that information coming from? What source provides this person's DOB (because it's not either of the two sources cited in the 1st para)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 2 April 2024 review of submission by SComfy

My article was rejected and I'd need help with making it suitable for submission. SComfy (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SComfy: your draft was only declined, not rejected (which is a terminal option). Before resubmitting, you need to address the decline reasons, namely: you need to show that this person is notable (none of the sources currently cited even contribute towards notability), and you need to support the content with reliable sources throughout (now some of the sources are less than reliable, and quite a lot of the content is entirely unsupported). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with this individual? 331dot (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Chparveshtaak

i do not have much reliable sources regarding this topic, So please help me to add this page to wikipedia articles. Chparveshtaak (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chparveshtaak, I don't see any improvement since the last decline, and there's already sufficient guidance available on how to improve it for it to be moved to the article space. However, if you can't find sources to establish notability and back up the statements, it can't be moved to the article space as your subject needs to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG for inclusion on Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Roblox678956568

Please fix the error the submission date will be changed to 9999 Years please can u do that? Roblox678956568 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean about 9999 years, but I have reverted your edit and restored the AFC comments and resubmission.
If you think that it is not ready to resubmit, you are welcome to remove the resubmission, but you should not remove the messages from the previous submission. ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Gauravdelhi.wiki

What should we do now with this draft? Should we edit the article or leave it? Gauravdelhi.wiki (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gauravdelhi.wiki, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Also, it seems like multiple people are using this account since you referred to yourself with 'we.' Is this the case? – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time. where i am living, representing yourself as a "we" is vogue. Gauravdelhi.wiki (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response; that makes sense. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Montagneverte

Hello, my draft has been rejected on the basis of a lack of inline citations. I am puzzled because I have given a long list of footnotes in the article. Help please! Montagneverte (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 2 April 2024 review of submission by 108.41.0.192

Hello - may we know the reason that this article was deemed contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? 108.41.0.192 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "we" do you mean that you work for DLC.link? If so the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. The draft talks very little about DLC.link. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Jfashl

Review for Approval of Draft Jfashl (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Call2action

We would like people to be informed about the background and history of our new unique media company for the Real Estate industry. It seems standard practice for companies to be documented and registered on Wikipedia so I do not understand the comment "contrary to Wikipedia's charter". Please advise if we did not structure this correctly, thank you. Call2action (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Promotion is that the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gave them my standard deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Seeking absolute truth

Hi, Thanks for your review. This article was declined primarily because "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". But I have pointed to secondary sources like National Academy of Education, National Academy of Arts and Sciences, and New Meridian that do not just make passing mention, but has Henry Braun's full bio. I also included independent sources (like "American Statistical Association Fellows list" and "Complete list of fellows of American Educational Research Association") to prove Henry's fellow statuses and awards. So, pretty much everything I wrote about him can be verified from other sources some of whom seem to give significant coverage. Would you please point to any flaw in my argument? Or would you please let me know if you consider sources like National Academy of Education and National Academy of Arts and Sciences to be unimportant? Thanks. Seeking absolute truth (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seeking absolute truth, the reference are fine. The criteria for having an article about an academic are listed at WP:NPROF and only one of these needs to be met. Braun meets two, as holding a named professorship and as a fellow. Many reviewers are unfamiliar with reviewing articles about academics. But the article as written reads like the sort of profile posted at places like this rather than an encyclopedia article. Forget about the keynote speaker and committee stuff. Write about his work and research. He is known and influential for his work on education inequality, and needs to be covered here. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much StarryGrandma--that is very helpful. You seem to be so much better than the reviewers whose main goal in life seems to be rejecting Wikipedia articles rather than helping people write articles that would help Wikipedia readers :-) Seeking absolute truth (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seeking absolute truth, we are flooded with drafts about non-notable people and companies who want "profiles" for publicity purposes and reviewers get tired. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Hkc345

Hello, I was wondering if there is a way to hide/remove the "paid contributions" box at the top of the page? I'd appreciated it a lot. Thank you. Hkc345 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This board is for asking questions about drafts in the submission process, not articles in the encyclopedia. In the future please use the regular help desk. To answer you, the tag will eventually be reviewed by an independent editor. There is no way to speed this up. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1216948711"