Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


September 25

[edit]

01:29, 25 September 2024 review of submission by Lucas489

[edit]

I don't know what or how to fix what needs to be fixed can someone please let me know! Lucas489 (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas489: No sources, no article, no debate. We also frown upon writing about oneself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas489, not only have you failed to present evidence that you are a notable music performer, but everything you have written indicates that it is far too early for you to have an encyclopedia article written about you. Come back when you have a smash hit record and a national tour. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, we also frown on AI-written articles. -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 25 September 2024 review of submission by Joao Pedro Jose

[edit]

Hello, I don't understand why the page has been declined. I read the articles Wikipedia sent me and still don't get it what is the issue of the page? The issue is the references I added? Those references are true sources on the internet well-established brands and the press. Please give me some guidance on where I need to improve. Thank you Joao Pedro Jose (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joao Pedro Jose, you need to show significant coverage of the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). -- asilvering (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 25 September 2024 review of submission by Dwanyewest

[edit]

I sourced my information, I demonstrated notability by showing he managed an international women's national soccer team and that Reto_Gertschen actually played professional soccer and it the article was still rejected. Why what was wrong with it now. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest, please have a look at the decline notice, which explains, with links to relevant explanations, what we mean by "notability". -- asilvering (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 25 September 2024 review of submission by Searching Nan

[edit]

I wrote about Aniyan Midhun and saw the draft needs some improvements. Please let me edit my draft and add some more reliable sources. Also if possible, help with the editing process. Searching Nan (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Searching Nan, you're allowed to edit your draft as much as you like - go right ahead. If you have any specific questions about how to edit, you can ask them here or at WP:TEA. "Help with the editing process" is a bit too vague for any of us to answer. -- asilvering (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Searching Nan. Would you enter a tournament in a sport that you only took up two days ago? Would you give a recital on a musical instrument that you had never played before yesterday?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 25 September 2024 review of submission by 212.247.166.254

[edit]

I have a few references from Expressen, BreakIt and TravelNews. All sources are reliable, but it's not considered neutral since it's Avionero-people who comments on Avionero in the articles. I wonder – how can I get this page approved? 212.247.166.254 (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft now has zero references so...zero chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find reliable sources that are wholly unconnected with the subject: see 42. Then forget everything you know about it and write a summary of what those sources say. If there are no sources, or they do not say very much, then there is literally nothing you can put in the article, and an article is not possible. ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:06, 25 September 2024 review of submission by 117.245.175.69

[edit]

What can do for list this article, please help for adding this article on wikipedia 117.245.175.69 (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person would have to pass the criteria at WP:GNG and there is zero evidence that they do. Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 25 September 2024 review of submission by Morieux Th

[edit]

Please tell me what should i change or add. I can't find any more media talking about this business. Morieux Th (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no more sources are available, that's the end of the line for this draft, at least for now. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not quite sure why. I didn’t provide a large amount of information and included two sources that consolidate the relevant details. What else are you expecting? Morieux Th (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they do or their offerings. 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. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 25 September 2024 review of submission by Mr. Lechkar

[edit]

Hello, I would like to request assistance on the method for citing sources meant to cover the entirety of this list.

My main concern is the source for the foreign dignitaries section, which is drawn from this page of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs's Diplomatic Bluebook for 1989, but I have decided not to repeat the same citation (potentially hundreds of times) due to WP:REPEATCITE, and so assumed it would be better to include it as a single-line overview at the beginning of the section which included a single citation for that page (i.e. "Information as compiled by Kyodo News agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[1][2]").

I understand that this may have potentially led to flaws in the citation method, and so would like to discuss potential alternative methods to listing all sources used, in addition of course to adding more secondary ones due to the nature of the topic covered by this draft.

Some ideas I had in mind for the sourcing method were:
A: whether the entire article should be left without inline citations and all general sources covering it mentioned in a section called "Sources" or "Bibliography", or;
B: the aforementioned section titled "Bibliography" included with the sources, but also used alongside inline citations.

Regards. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lechkar, you can use a single reference multiple times by using the named reference technique. Please read WP:REFNAME and follow the syntax carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue addressed isn't reusing a single reference on its own, rather the handling of the "References"/"Bibliography" section in this scenario.
Since the principal source in this draft is most likely one of the few with explicit detail on the subject (even if it comes from an official government ministry), the use of the same named reference tag for this source, once for each entry in the list, is likely to create clutter in the "References" section, with the aforementioned source having attached to it dozens of tags bearing the terms aa, ab, ac, da, db, dc, dd, etc. This is the problem which I have been looking to avoid.
There are some other articles which instead provide a general "Bibliography", "References" or "Sources" section without any inline citations (such as LOGO.SYS, Batoo, Curses 'N Chaos), but these seem to go against the general Wikipedia:IC policy. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 25 September 2024 review of submission by Warshipnyc

[edit]

What wording is not allowed when publishing about a restaurant? I would like to make sure the restaurant has a wikipedia like it's peers. Additional citations have been noted. Warshipnyc (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warshipnyc, promotional language such as reflects its purpose as a space where culinary artistry meets creative ambiance, offering a setting for chefs to showcase their craft written by Wikipedia editors is strictly forbidden. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and is mandatory. Your references do not verify the assertions that precede them. Three sentences in an Eater New York list article is not significant coverage. Several of your references are worthless for establishing notability, such as the restaurant's website. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which is taken very seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warshipnyc Restaurants do not "have a Wikipedia"; "Wikipedia" is the name of this entire website, composed of articles about topics meeting our criteria. They are not for the benefit of the topic in any way, and the topic has no special rights to any article that might be here about them.
Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits, and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves could be inappropriate, and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 25 September 2024 review of submission by Demsuz

[edit]

Hello! I need help editing the page I created. It got declined yet the graphic artist has mainstream art. Demsuz (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Demsuz: some of your sources are not reliable (esp. Discogs and Medium), and there is no evidence that the subject is notable. You need to show how they meet the WP:ARTIST notability standard, or alternatively the WP:GNG one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having "mainstream art" is not relevant. Nor is being famous, or important, or popular, or influential. Wikipedia's criteria are mostly about whether enough independent material has been reliably published about the subject. Remember 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) 18:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 25 September 2024 review of submission by IVM21

[edit]

I would like to know what could be added so that this page is accepted within the community, be it grammar, sources, history, among others. IVM21 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IVM21: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be considered because he’s a credible graphic artist whose work is documented. Please show me one mistake in my research. I have used credible news organizations and art institutions. Demsuz (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:38, 25 September 2024 review of submission by Amightycatproduction

[edit]

Can you help me edit it so it will be accepted Amightycatproduction (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amightycatproduction: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if you're going to do it, you'll need to start again.:
  • Find several places where people wholly unconnected with Ripeanu have chosen to write in some depth about her. Ignore anything written, published, or commissioned, by her, her relatives, her editor, her agent, her publishers, her associates of any kind, and anything based on an interview or press release. Ignore anything published without editorial control, such as all social media, wikis, blogs, iMDB, LinkedIn. Ignore anything which is from any site which is primarily there to sell something. On the other hand, it doesn't have to be in English, and it doesn't have to be online. See WP:42 for more.
  • If you can't find any, or hardly any, sources like that, give up.
  • If you can, forget everything you know about her and write a summary of what those indpendent sources say about her.
ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 25 September 2024 review of submission by 2C0F:F5C0:520:6D50:587A:58FF:FE6E:ACAD

[edit]

My submission has been declined several times citing that my lack of reference as the issue. I have added required citations all to no avail. Kindly assist me in solving this matter. Thanks and best regards. 2C0F:F5C0:520:6D50:587A:58FF:FE6E:ACAD (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. Make sure that you are logged in when posting. You'll need to disclose your connection with this person, as you had access to them to take a photo of them, see WP:COI. You have not provided any independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her, describing what makes her a notable person. One source is an interview, which is not an independent source(it's her speaking about herself) and thus does not establish notability. The awards do not contribute to notability as the awards themselves do not merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize and Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the "Early Life and Education' section has zero sources, remove it or cite it correctly. Theroadislong (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

[edit]

02:31, 26 September 2024 review of submission by Soccerondemand

[edit]

I received feedback indicating that the sources provided for verification of Eddie Loewen’s accomplishments were deemed unreliable. However, I believe all the sources I submitted are credible and accurately reflect his achievements.

Could you please advise on this matter? Thank you for your assistance.

Soccerondemand (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally half the links go to press releases, which are not suitable sources. Another couple are simply interviews, which are also not independent. Of the few remaining links, it's mainly Loewen talking about something, not coverage about Loewen. Not a single fact in the main text is properly cited; the references are just dumped in a pile at the end. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, at least two of the press releases ([1] and [2]) are in fact the same press release published in two places. That's one (primary, non-independent) source, not two. --bonadea contributions talk 07:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soccerondemand: we also require pretty much every statement you make (in an article on a living person, especially) to be supported with inline citation to a reliable sources. This draft has precisely one inline citation, and that's to a non-reliable source. Additionally, there are various external sources listed under 'References', but they aren't cited anywhere so it's not clear which source supports what information.
I'm doubtful whether notability is there, but let's first get the referencing right so that can be assessed properly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your feedback. As I'm new to the platform, I am still familiarizing myself with proper citation practices, which can feel a bit overwhelming. However, I will do my best to improve. Is there a simple step-by-step available that I can follow? Soccerondemand (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 26 September 2024 review of submission by Rawvandom

[edit]

I not able to submit requests on this page Rawvandom (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rawvandom: That is because the draft has been rejected, which means that it is not possible to resubmit it. What is your connection to the users Sathishlee58 and SKumar58? --bonadea contributions talk 09:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 26 September 2024 review of submission by 2A0A:EF40:103B:2201:384D:9861:109A:42C7

[edit]

Please clarify 2A0A:EF40:103B:2201:384D:9861:109A:42C7 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected as a non-notable company whose draft's purpose it to promote itself on Wikipedia - this is prohibited. Qcne (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 26 September 2024 review of submission by Rahulkentwal0007

[edit]

provide us the information why our article are declined Rahulkentwal0007 (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulkentwal0007 No indication of notability. Qcne (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the man can read the future in the stars, surely he should not need to ask why the draft was rejected? --bonadea contributions talk 12:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 26 September 2024 review of submission by Neelesh Pandiyath

[edit]

Sir, Request for your kind assistance to improve this article. Neelesh Pandiyath (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neelesh Pandiyath The draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Sir. Will submit a fresh draft Neelesh Pandiyath (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neelesh Pandiyath It has been rejected, do not submit a fresh draft! Qcne (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 26 September 2024 review of submission by Lewiseguy

[edit]

I'm trying to ensure my content complies with the guidelines and isn't flagged, but I'm unsure how to proceed. Lewiseguy (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lewiseguy, the majority of your sources are just links to homepages of organisations. You need to source every single statement to a reliable source, and to the precise location on the webpage that the source is being used to reference the information. Take source #8, which points to the UN home page. How does a reader verify "He is also certified in Cyber Diplomacy by the United Nations" when the link just points to the homepage for the UN? But more importantly, why does this certification even belong on an encyclopaedic biography? Qcne (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, appreciated, any other comments?
did some adjustments and i'm reviewing the rest accordingly, I took some info form his linkedin, btw is it common to link linkedin pages? Lewiseguy (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewiseguy We're trying to establish notability first, and LinkedIn is useless for that as it's the subject talking about themself. Qcne (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:12, 26 September 2024 review of submission by Cfcplay

[edit]

Hello

I am looking for someone who can write the best way to get my page approved on wikipedia. I recently got rejected because Submission reads like an advertisement Cfcplay (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, wow. This is actually the most promotional draft I've ever seen. Normally I would offer advice but in this case, I'm sorry to say, I think all I can do is advise you to do something else with your time. Wikipedia is extremely unlikely to ever have an article on this free calculator website. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cfcplay (ec) I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. The draft does little more than state the calculator exists; a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You shouldn't be just documenting its appearances in media. I think you will essentially need to blank the draft and start over, first gathering appropriate sources. Please see referencing for beginners as well. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks for the info i will find someone to write Cfcplay (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one said anything about that being an issue. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks Cfcplay (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 26 September 2024 review of submission by Peacehappinesslove

[edit]

Hello, can someone assist me in letting me know why the article I created was declined? Peacehappinesslove (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer. Do you have a more specific question about it? A different account created the draft. Was that you? 331dot (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Confirming I was able to find the feedback from the reviewer and fixed the problem. I am not the creator of the draft. Peacehappinesslove (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did you know the draft existed? 331dot (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot when I tried to input the name in draft it said the someone created information on the subject Peacehappinesslove (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

[edit]

03:14, 27 September 2024 review of submission by Dark, the Editor

[edit]

How can I delete my draft Dark, the Editor (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a tag on the draft requesting deletion. Next time you want to request that a page you have created be deleted, you can edit it and add the tag {{db-author}} at the top. --bonadea contributions talk 07:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:01, 27 September 2024 review of submission by VikrantG0095

[edit]

I'm a beginner. i don't have a idea writing a article . VikrantG0095 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's best not to attempt the difficult task of writing a new article until you have an idea of what the process is and what is being looked for. Please use the new user tutorial and spend much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you first, to learn how things work here.
Note that writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume or to tell the world about yourself. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability; like a notable person. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:46, 27 September 2024 review of submission by JD John M. Turner

[edit]

How many more sources are needed in the article? JD John M. Turner (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JD John M. Turner To establish notability, we usually look for at least three sources which are each independent of the subject, from reliable places, and provide significant coverage.
To be honest I think you've probably got enough sources to show notability, so I am pinging in @Tavantius to see if they have any thoughts. Qcne (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some parts of the article are unsourced. If @JD John M. Turner can source those, I'll accept it. Tavantius (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Tavantius, I'm uncertain about which sections of the article require additional sources. I assume that the content not backed by sources ought to be removed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ JD John M. Turner (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 27 September 2024 review of submission by Aidillia

[edit]

I don't understand why @98Tigerius declined the submission and stated "please resubmit after the series airs" can anybody explain? i don't think there's a problem with submission per WP:TVSERIES. Aidillia (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidillia: the problem with unreleased films and TV programmes is that the sources are invariably just pre-launch publicity. We don't want to see what the producers' marketing teams have said, we want to see what independent and reliable third parties have said, without any inducement by the producers.
Resubmitting a declined draft without any improvement is not helpful. If you disagree with the reviewer's assessment, you're welcome to publish this yourself, since you have the necessary permissions. Just be aware that New Page Patrol applies the same criteria (more or less) to newly published articles as we do, so publishing this against the AfC reviewer's advice may result in the article being sent back to drafts anyway, or worse, deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now i understand. Aidillia (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 27 September 2024 review of submission by Madison Durand

[edit]

Hello,

I removed external links from the body and converted them to references. I would like to know what else I need to do to ensure that this draft is not rejected or deleted.

Thank you. Madison Durand (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews here, the best way to get feedback is to submit it. Even if rejected I don't see why it would be deleted. It won't be rejected if you've made changes and there seems to be at least a prospect that the subject merits a Wikipedia article and it is properly sourced.
You took a very professional looking picture of the professor and he posed for you. What is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 27 September 2024 review of submission by Mrblieu2011

[edit]

Please remove draft article for Elizabeth Barlow Artist. Mrblieu2011 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 27 September 2024 review of submission by 216.106.47.88

[edit]

When I click on the blue words in the English version clothing sections, a note comes up saying “this page does not exist (saraguells). The page does exist in Spanish https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarag%C3%BCell. Does this mean you won’t be redirected there until it is translated, or what? (Umlauts over the U) I don’t need an answer, but just thought this might need fixing. 216.106.47.88 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is to ask questions about the draft submission process; I'm not clear on what your question has to do with this. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 27 September 2024 review of submission by Cassandra L from NELP

[edit]

Hi! I need some assistance and recommendations on amending this piece so it sounds less like an advertisement. I see some tone shifts I could make in the first paragraph, but I'd also appreciate some recommendations in general as I continue to work on this. Thank you! Cassandra L from NELP (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've summarized the work of your organization, but not what independent reliable sources say is important about the work of your organization and how that makes the organization notable as Wikipedia defines it. You've largely summarized primary sources like House/Senate websites and said things like it "advocated" or "led" for certain policies. I get that you think what your organization does is important- and it may be so- but we need independent sources that state your organization had a particular influence on a policy or other government decision. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your specific feedback and find it a huge help. I will do some additional research to see if there are sources that are not just citing my organization for its research, but specifically crediting it for work on specific policies. Thanks @331dot. Cassandra L from NELP (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 27 September 2024 review of submission by 41.114.177.55

[edit]

How can I delete the draft 41.114.177.55 (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the principal author? It will also be automatically deleted after six months of inactivity. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

[edit]

07:17, 28 September 2024 review of submission by Luterceiro

[edit]

Hi folks, I would love some advice on this matter. I haven't used generative AI, but I used a lot of Grammarly here. Is it possible to continue editing the article and improving it? I'm new to Wikipedia and planning to improve the article; however, now I don't know if the best is to try and edit it (I'll try this way, but not sure if it is the best alternative). Thanks a lot for any guidance!

Kind regards, Luciana Luterceiro (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Luterceiro: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further.
...at least not in its present state. If you were to rewrite it in your own words, there might be some prospect of turning it into an acceptable article. The reasons for this (need to rewrite) are two-fold, IMO:
  1. There are potential copyright issues associated with generative tools, because they tend to take content from unknown sources, and either straight-up copypaste snippets, or at least closely paraphrase them. We have tools available to detect this, but they're not quite 'water tight'.
  2. This draft has a vaguely promotional feel to it, which is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. We want to see 'boringly factual' description, without unnecessary hyperbole and embellishment.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @DoubleGrazing, thanks for the feedback! I rewrote big parts and added the references, but I didn't work on the promotional feel aspect. I'll review it again. Thanks a lot for the guidance! Luterceiro (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Luterceiro. Thanks for the good-faith edits. I will revert my rejection, and I think this could be a viable article once the vaguely promotional tone has been removed. Qcne (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I tried to remove it, but I'm still trying to find the right tone, so let me know if I need to make more changes. Thanks for all the guidance! Luterceiro (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key is to find a reliable source and then paraphrase/summarise that in your own words, sticking to a tone that is strictly neutral. Try and pretend you're writing an autopsy of the subject. Some good words to avoid are at WP:PEACOCK. Qcne (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luterceiro: The crucial thing to remember if you use any automated tools such as Grammarly is that you must check every single change the tool recommends and make an informed decision about whether it is a good, bad, or zero-sum change. Most of the changes suggested by Grammarly will not be improvements, and a lot of them will introduce errors into a text that was perfectly fine. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 28 September 2024 review of submission by Editorrking

[edit]

Reason for rejection Editorrking (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorrking: this draft wasn't rejected (which is terminal), only declined, although it probably should have been (rejected). The decline reasons are given in the decline notice, namely: insufficient referencing, and lack of evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editorrking, your one sentence draft tells the reader that this person is a social worker and a student. Do you really think that every social worker and every student on planet Earth should be the subject of an encyclopedia article? Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 28 September 2024 review of submission by 103.48.160.35

[edit]

It cannot be a reason for rejection. Reason Judge about the article Check the references to see if the article is correct. 103.48.160.35 (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BMB. Wikishovel (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 28 September 2024 review of submission by T Lowndes

[edit]

Do citations have to link to a wikipedia entry, or can they be an external reference?

Thanks T Lowndes (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T Lowndes: links to other Wikipedia articles are not citations, they are internal links, or 'wikilinks'. For referencing purposes, you need to cite external sources, specifically the ones that have provided the information in a given statement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can't cite other articles; rather, use the sources from the associated articles as you go along. See also WP:CIRCULAR. However, citations sometimes do have links to published authors/editors with WP profiles (via |author-last=, |author-first=, |author-link= &c.) whenever the {{cite}} series is used.
For further assistance, please see Help:Referencing for beginners or ask around at WP:Teahouse. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:59, 28 September 2024 review of submission by 76.220.74.234

[edit]

this person is a prominent figure in sports media and has been on ESPN and many major podcasts 76.220.74.234 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much specific coverage about Kenny King Jr. as an athlete in mainstream sports media, but his journey and voice in sports are visible through his work as a podcaster and sports commentator. Kenny King Jr. is known for his podcast, Real Talk with Kenny King Jr., where he discusses football, especially with a focus on the Las Vegas Raiders, as well as pop culture and interviews with fellow athletes​(
Vegas Sports Today
)​(
Home | Blue Wire Podcasts
).
King's athletic background includes playing as a defensive lineman in high school and junior college football, where he earned All-League honors. He later played at Temple University after a brief stint at Benedictine College. Although he eventually moved away from playing, he continues to be active in the sports community through his podcast and social media channels​(
Vegas Sports Today
).
For more information, you can check out his podcast at Blue Wire Podcasts. 76.220.74.234 (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. None of the sources you provided establish notability. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention his entire argument is basically acting as the guy's publicist, which raises the question of his connexion to King. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

[edit]

00:09, 29 September 2024 review of submission by 203.121.198.6

[edit]

How can I get this new word through? 203.121.198.6 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICT is the first thing to read. For the underlying concept to merit a Wikipedia article, you would need to show, through reliable, independent sources, that the concept has to been the focus of significant coverage. Nothing is presented in the draft that suggests that an article would be suitable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:01, 29 September 2024 review of submission by Marvmish

[edit]

I am a new user and I didnt realize that my ip address would published to be publicly visible. Please suppress my ip. I have registered as a user. Marvmish (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvmish: the user details of the last two edits (assuming those were the ones you meant?) have been suppressed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intel shell

[edit]

Sorry for you declining these, but I just wanted to say that the intel Shell page is not vandalism but I need some tips to improve.

the intel Shell page is a normal page with some probelms Saolqui2 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saolqui2: please slow down, you're getting yourself into a bit of a mess. From what I can work out, you published Intel Shell. It was moved to drafts, at Draft:Intel Shell because it wasn't ready for publication. It seems rather than working on it further, you created another version at Intel Shell, which is still there (for now, at least). You also have Draft:Intel shell building, where the only content is "Can you bring this page back"; you had submitted that for publication, although it's clearly not a viable article draft. And all this kerfuffle apparently "cuz [your] brother Bruno laughs at the video of intel Shell being imploded"? Oh dear.
All that said, did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well someon put an intel Shell image it’s not me.
and see the intel Shell page map
slso it has nato map Saolqui2 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 29 September 2024 review of submission by Ahmedsalem.dev

[edit]

please help me to add me on wiki Ahmedsalem.dev (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 29 September 2024 review of submission by Ahmedsalem.dev

[edit]

Done Ahmedsalem.dev (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected because there is nothing to suggest that you are notable in Wikipedias terms. Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 29 September 2024 review of submission by 206.85.199.228

[edit]

You have her listed as African American. This is falsified information. One of her parents is of Jamaican descent. In general the term African American is wrong for anyone. 206.85.199.228 (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, this is the help desk for draft articles. Please see the discussion at Talk:Kamala_Harris#RFC:_How_to_refer_to_the_African_ancestry_of_Kamala_Harris? Qcne (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 29 September 2024 review of submission by EconomicEvolution

[edit]

Hi could you help us identify the sections that do not fit the policy. We think it is important for people to have an objective and scientific understanding of the technology so happy to edit any sections as required. Thank you. EconomicEvolution (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your Talk Page. Qcne (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EconomicEvolution, that bears no resemblance to an encyclopedia article. It is an essay. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 29 September 2024 review of submission by Shashvat Verma

[edit]

Need help for citation of sources as I cannot find one. I have very less experience of how to add categories and what categories to add to it. Draft:Giovanni di Gherardo da Prato Shashvat Verma (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shashvat Verma. If you cannot find sources - where did all the information you have written in the draft about Giovanni come from? Surely it's come from a source? Qcne (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 29 September 2024 review of submission by 9rh8494ewbfwh4894

[edit]

Why are you Reject my creation 9rh8494ewbfwh4894 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@9rh8494ewbfwh4894 there is no indication "Mr Mehra" meets our strict notability requirements. Qcne (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9rh8494ewbfwh4894, you wrote He is Most Popular Person on Internet and that is obviously false. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

[edit]

04:43:17, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Cyanochic

[edit]


Hey y'all, I'm still new-ish - I just wrote my 2nd article and submitted it to AfC. Then I realized I had permissions to just move an article on my own now. I don't want to add to your backlog, but I don't want to mess up anything either. Can I just go in and move it on my own and it will remove itself from the list? Thanks! Cyanochic (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyanochic That it is now technically possible does not necessarily mean it is wise. In real terms only you can judge whether you are ready to move your own drafts to main space.
As long as you are diligent in referencing, and as long as your topics pass WP:GNG and/or the individual criteria, then move your own drafts with pleasure. I just Accepted the draft you mention.
Please tidy up after moving your own drafts to main space, removing any AFC artefacts.
I hope you have a happy time with this engaging hobby 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Cyanochic (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello there having trouble with mine can you help out ? Donblogerw (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:19, 30 September 2024 review of submission by 117.20.68.15

[edit]

Thanks for your feedback. Trilby Misso is a person a family and a historic business in Queensland, so would love to know how to redo the submission to make it work with the Wiki guidelines. Thank you for your help. 117.20.68.15 (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read HELP:YFA. You appear to have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:32, 30 September 2024 review of submission by 2405:201:400C:B8:1BA0:DB11:715D:C534

[edit]

What was lacking in the particular article, and what steps are needed to make it go live, the concerned person is notable in the CS and it would be beneficial to add his name in accords. 2405:201:400C:B8:1BA0:DB11:715D:C534 (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to ask Jeraxmoira about this since they rejected the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cillian Paul / User:2405:201:400C:B8:1BA0:DB11:715D:C534, the subject is not notable. The sources you have used are primary, i.e. sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Here, the first seven sources are the subject's website, profile and event listings, including their LinkedIn profile. Sources 8-12 are papers published by the subject, which do not pass WP:NACADEMIC. I did a google search on the subject and found only directory/profile listings. I suggest working on a different subject or improving existing articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:58, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Sussyshibainu

[edit]

What is wrong with this wiki page? Sussyshibainu (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sussyshibainu There is nothing right with it. It has been rejected. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even vandalise anything this is my own page u meanie >:( Sussyshibainu (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sussyshibainu You appear not to be here to create an encyclopaedia. Please either make sensible, useful edits, or just stop editing at all. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Nayyn

[edit]

Hello Disclosure-- this is not my draft

But I am wondering why this article fails "WP:N"

When there are: Multiple suitable sources cited about this individual, and the sources indicate WP:SUSTAINED

For WP:SPORTSPERSON this individual has made " a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" in the case of his Alma Mater and the ACC record for minutes played in the tournament. There are a number of other Sportspeople with pages on this site that have less notable records ie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giannis_Christofilopoulos so I'm not sure why this individual is not considered notable for their contributions as a coach?

Is this because they are not a professional player? Nayyn (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayyn: When the draft was declined back in June, there were very few sources, and nothing to indicate that the person was notable. The draft looks very different now. I don't know the topic area and can't evaluate whether the draft shows notability now or not, but it did not show it back then at any rate. --bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bonadea many thanks for the reply. As it is some months now since June and there has been a number of edits to it to show its relevance.. is it still waiting for review or could I move it to the mainspace?
This individual is notable for both his playing and coaching career.
Playing: Gainey played at NC State, a NCAA Division I school. Only 1% of the 537,438 High School Basketball players in the US will go on to play for a Division 1 school in Basketball, and fewer will go on to play four years and stand out in top tournaments, as Gainey did. Fewer will set records for his program, as Gainey did, especially considering his non-standout size for his position. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/3/2/estimated-probability-of-competing-in-college-athletics.aspx
Coaching: Becoming an assistant basketball coach of one of the top programs in the United States is an incredibly rare feat especially considering his race and the amount of structural inequalities he faced to get to that position.
I am not a college basketball expert by any means, nor even a fan or follower of this sport, but it is clear even from a person with passing knowledge that this person is notable. Nayyn (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NM @Bonadea someone moved it already. Thank you @Theroadislong Nayyn (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 30 September 2024 review of submission by TheSquareTiger

[edit]

Please help me with it, I am new to creating articles. TheSquareTiger (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I got the information from Japanese Wikipedia but changed it to English, also the links on that Japanese Wikipedia were those from YouTube as well as one's like TV Tokyo article on here TheSquareTiger (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSquareTiger: you cannot cite Japanese Wikipedia as a source. If the Japanese article cites sources which could be used to support the information here, you need to cite those sources directly.
Also, please do not create inline external links (including to the Japanese Wikipedia), as these are not allowed.
Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing.
This draft was additionally declined for lack of notability. You need to show that the subject satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACTOR notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but the info I can get are just IMDB TheSquareTiger (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSquareTiger: IMDb is not considered reliable, as it is user-generated. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the citations linking to Japanese Wikipedia TheSquareTiger (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also added one's like the TV Asahi English website TheSquareTiger (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSquareTiger, first of all, stop submitting the draft for the moment. If you continue submitting it without fixing the problems, a reviewer will conclude the draft can't be improved and will reject it. Rejection means you pretty much have to give up, so you want to avoid that at all costs!
Next, read through WP:42, the 'golden rule' and also WP:BLP (biographies of living people), followed by WP:REFB (referencing for beginners). Your goal is to show that this person is notable. You do this by finding suitable sources (see WP:42 and WP:BLP) and then referencing those sources in the draft (see WP:REFB). Every single sentence in a BLP needs to be referenced by a good source. Start with your first sentence, make sure it's properly referenced, and then keep going. If a sentence has no references, delete it.
If you cannot find suitable references, then it might be too soon for this person to have an article. You can keep working on the draft and waiting until references can be found. References don't have to be in English (although we prefer English when possible) but they do have to meet all the criteria in WP:42. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Əhməd Qurbanov

[edit]

Hi. I added a lot of independent and reliable sources to the draft article. I really appreciate if you give some feedbacks about the article. I've already submitted this article for review. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, Before the review, I want to get helpful feedback. It is effective and time-saving way, I think. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to ask, but it duplicates effort. The whole point of submitting it is to request feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Əhməd Qurbanov The other side of this coin is that before the draft is submitted for review I (and others) have no interest in it. The submission triggers the review. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 30 September 2024 review of submission by TheSquareTiger

[edit]

Please help me with this. TheSquareTiger (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSquareTiger: please don't open a new thread, just add to the existing one, if you have questions you'd like to answer. (This isn't really one.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 30 September 2024 review of submission by 164.77.161.26

[edit]

What else can we add in this article?? 164.77.161.26 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Rejection means it will not be considered further 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 30 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:B08D:D600:62AB:14FF:FE8C:126

[edit]

matias 2A02:C7C:B08D:D600:62AB:14FF:FE8C:126 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 30 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:B08D:D600:62AB:14FF:FE8C:126

[edit]

matias 2A02:C7C:B08D:D600:62AB:14FF:FE8C:126 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying, but the draft has been deleted as a test page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are test edits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Yolocalasshiphopfanboy

[edit]

For some reason this was rejected, because apparently "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.", even though there are at least two fans and the artist himself who need this page to exist. Please help me get this accepted. His music changed my life and I want this to exist. Also the president wants it too. Yolocalasshiphopfanboy (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yolocalasshiphopfanboy: not going to happen. This draft has been rejected, and is awaiting speedy deletion. You shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, and any sort of promotion (including self-) is strictly not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Adipratamaa25

[edit]

for information on women's basketball tournaments between clubs in Asia Adipratamaa25 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adipratamaa25, your draft is unreferenced and therefore fails the core content policy of Verifiability. Please read Referencing for beginners. Also, it is too brief to be an informative encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:08, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Ethanjbrown03

[edit]

Hi my draft got declined on the 30th of Sept due to not having the following: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject

This is my first time writing a Wikipedia page and I was just trying to get some understanding on how to navigate these resources, all of my references are independent and secondary sources, and I'm having a hard time finding any that 100% match the criteria just because of the industry. If you have any ideas or suggestions, I would really appreciate it.

Thank you. Ethanjbrown03 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanjbrown03: Your issue is you're running flat into WP:CORPDEPTH. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
You have one source that's usable. That isn't enough. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ethanjbrown03. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

[edit]

00:59, 1 October 2024 review of submission by Hakimia1

[edit]

What can do to resubmit Hakimia1 (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hakimia1 you can't, as the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:18, 1 October 2024 review of submission by Sudheesh Sudhakaran

[edit]

Gopal Menon is a renowned documentary film maker from India. Many of his works which are politically relevant in the National level where reported and discussed in various media. Most of the statements in the article are from the most reputed news papers like The Hindu, Indian Express etc. I donot know why the article has been rejected Sudheesh Sudhakaran (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudheesh Sudhakaran: the draft (not yet article) has been declined (not rejected) for the reasons given on the decline notice, namely that there is insufficient evidence of notability. You need to provide evidence that the subject satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:FILMMAKER guideline for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:43, 1 October 2024 review of submission by Abhisheknandan2003

[edit]

What is issue here? Abhisheknandan2003 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhisheknandan2003: the 'issue' is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, where we publish articles on encyclopaedic subjects that are deemed notable. It is not a platform for you to tell the world about yourself; for that, you will need to find a social media or blogging platform, or some such. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 1 October 2024 review of submission by Garyshack

[edit]

Could you help in reviewing my submitted article? TIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garyshack/Propelrr Garyshack (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garyshack: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have submitted the draft, and it will be reviewed in due course when a reviewer comes along to assess it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:52, 1 October 2024 review of submission by POT7

[edit]

I need help I’m trying to draft a page but it gets declined because there isn’t enough coverage but there isn’t because there isn’t all at to talk about so i need someone to help me POT7 (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POT7 I've fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. We can't create sources for you. If they don't exist, she would not merit an article at this time. You need to show she is a notable creative professional or more broadly a a notable person.
The image of her was uploaded by an account named POT9. Do you have anything to do with that? 331dot (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @POT7. Please read No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 1 October 2024 review of submission by 210.19.145.98

[edit]

I need to know what is there to fix in terms of the information that is needed to launch the page. Besides all the other tips given what else can I do? 210.19.145.98 (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to summarize significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not just documentation of the financial performance of the company or its routine activities. You need to show that the company is notable as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. Your words "launch the page" sound as if you have the (very common) misunderstanding that Wikipedia is like social media - a place to tell the world about yourself. It is not: it is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles about notable subjects.
If Wikipedia ever has an article about your company, whoever creates it, the article will not belong to your company , will not be controlled by your company, will not necessarily say what your company would like it to say, may be edited by almost anybody in the world except representatives of your company, and should be based almost 100% on what people wholly unconnected with your company have published about it, not on what your company says or wants to say. Please see WP:PROUD. ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:20, 1 October 2024 review of submission by DavidJimPaulSean

[edit]

the article is getting rejected .. cite and sources have been added. The article is of interest for a band with 2 EPs and an album out , with another EP to be released this year DavidJimPaulSean (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to promote your band. Our only concern is if it meets WP:BAND,.amd it doesn't seem to, which is why it was rejected and won't be considered further at this time.
Your username is problematic as it suggests all the band members have access to it. Please change it via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 1 October 2024 review of submission by 83.233.139.157

[edit]

hell how can wikipedia be on the cutting edge of history if it is not part of history written?

Brodour is a new thing, an objective thing. It was generated from the mind expressed on the internet, brotha! I suspect soyboys on the internet think it is against wikipedia statutes as they cannot bench press 200 kg or nail a perfect squat. After a heavy session you have a brodour.

Go get lost in your own navels 83.233.139.157 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is this: Wikipedia is not supposed to be on the cutting edge of history! --bonadea contributions talk 12:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is written as a pseudo-intellectual treatise trying to push a neologism and a product at the same time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:06, 1 October 2024 review of submission by Santak1ng

[edit]

I'm new as a contributor at Wikipedia so I don't know all the ins and outs but I'm a bit confused about why my page about Hemnet wasn't accepted. Reading through the reasons given (see below), I don't really understand, maybe someone can clarify?

in-depth – Hemnet is one of the biggest web pages in Sweden, the company is listed at Nasdaq and a Wikipedia page about Hemnet already exists in Swedish. So I wanted to create a stub so I can translate the Swedish page to English. Should I have done anything else for my article to be considered a stub?

relilable – all the information in the article is clearly linked to reliable pages

secondary and independent – I've stated that I have a COI, as I am an employee of the company. But that shouldn't matter since all the things in the article are documented facts. Why have a COI label if COI content is automatically dismissed? Santak1ng (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hej @Santak1ng:, welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for disclosing your connection to Hemnet. The problem with the sourcing is that only Hemnet itself is used as a source. If you follow the links to read about secondary and independent sources, you'll see that it's got nothing to do with your own COI but with the fact that Wikipedia is almost entirely uninterested in what a company publishes about itself. I would be very surprised if there were not sufficiently many secondary and independent sources talking about Hemnet in some detail (I mean, here's a scholarly article about it!) but at the moment, the draft does not include any of them. (The tone of the draft is also not quite what is required from an encyclopedia article, but that's a different issue). Start by finding secondary and independent sourcing, and then build a draft from what those sources say, rather than on your own knowledge. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 1 October 2024 review of submission by 103.166.59.60

[edit]

It is a Documentary Films. This should be published on Wikipedia. I have shared external links. If you need more proof tell me and I will provide proof.

Please tell me what information is required. 103.166.59.60 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to promote (i.e. tell the world about) anything: please use social media or promotion sites for that.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: it summarises what has already been published about a subject.
If the film has been written about in some depth by people wholly unconnected with the film, published in reliable places, then it is possible an article could be written about it; but that article would be based upon what those independent people had chosen to publish, not about what the makers or promoters of the film want to say.
Please see your first article and WP:NFILM. ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 1 October 2024 review of submission by AlyannadV

[edit]

Need help in redrafting to be more neutral AlyannadV (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlyannadV Let me take an example of the current phraseology: "New Lab, situated in the historic Brooklyn Navy Yard, is a co-working space for tech entrepreneurs and fabricators, with a focus in fields ranging from artificial intelligence to interactive architecture." is straight from a brochure selling that space. What value does it add to an encyclopaedia article to have 'selling words' within it?
There are other examples, not hard to find.
My advice to you is to cut, cut and cut again until you have crafted 'dull-but-worthy' prose in all the sentences which remain after your cutting has had its first pass. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. AlyannadV (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1248890142"