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 23

[edit]

01:23, 23 September 2024 review of submission by DeCraziest Music Empire

[edit]

Please what will be the title of my draft for submission? DeCraziest Music Empire (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCraziest Music Empire, I don't understand your question. But if it helps, your draft is here: Draft:GentleStar DC. -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:50, 23 September 2024 review of submission by G11slm

[edit]

Hi, I have created this article, but I get warning that, there are some promotional items in it. I do not promote anything in it. So, If there are any promotional items, can you help to remove them? G11slm (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire draft was promotional, and has now been deleted. If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest and paid editing(note that "paid editing" includes employment in any capacity).
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does- instead, you should 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) 08:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 23 September 2024 review of submission by Dharam iibs

[edit]

Could you please me to get the article approved. We are the established business school in bangalore having the approved by the various govt. authority. Dharam iibs (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharam iibs: you need to show that the school meets our notability guideline for businesses and organisations, WP:ORG. The sources currently cited don't come even close.
First, though, you must disclose your conflict of interest, by placing the {{paid}} template on your user page User:Dharam iibs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please don't create multiple drafts on the same subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 23 September 2024 review of submission by Yamb0x eth

[edit]

Hello,

I recently submitted my draft article on Yam Ben Adiva (Draft:Yam Ben Adiva), but it was declined. I believe the subject meets notability criteria due to coverage in reliable sources like Haaretz, Maxon, and Visual Atelier 8. Could you please clarify the specific reasons for the decline? Was it due to notability, tone, lack of citations, or another issue? Any guidance on improving the draft for approval would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! Yamb0x eth (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamb0x eth: Read WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The cited sources do not provide significant coverage of the subject, only passing mentions or quotes. Interviews or statements by the subject are WP:PRIMARY sources, which cannot establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 11:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yamb0x eth I fixed your links, they need "Draft:" at the beginning. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 23 September 2024 review of submission by Johnwin30

[edit]

Need to know why it is rejected and can not be submitted for review again. Johnwin30 (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is clearly stated: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Are you a professional content editor as well? Any particular reason you created your account six days after another account was blocked? 331dot (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, i am not editor or anything. just scene this article that why i ask this question. Lookalike i am related to this but just learning what not to do in Wikipedia. Johnwin30 (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your relationship with this topic? 331dot (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnwin30, the draft is overtly promotional and utterly unacceptable for Wikipedia. You are editing Wikipedia and therefore you are a Wikipedia editor and need to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines just like all other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 23 September 2024 review of submission by VvS77qq

[edit]

Sorry to bother the community again. But copy-paste-answers like "at least a dozen paragraphs" just do not help me in improving the article. Why not giving at least one example where a reference is missing. Obviously not every sentence can or must be referenced. I double-checked the article and could not find any shortcomings in comparison with other articles and their references. So, I would be very thankful if anyone could give me some practical support on this issue. VvS77qq (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VvS77qq I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. Please see Other Stuff Exists; it could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and just not addressed yet by volunteers. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community.
The awards section should just be removed, as awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The rest of the draft just summarizes the offerings of the company and its routine activities. An 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. This may be different from the German Wikipedia, a separate project with its own editors and policies. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also ask you if you work for this company. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the "History" section has no citations. The first citation, even if it were about a notable award, is a non-independent source recording an award to the people, not the company, and is therefore triply useless for establishing that the company is notable. The second and third citations are not about the company, and so are useless for establishing that the company is notable. The fourth citation might be useful, but it is not clear whether it is independent or based on press release. In any case, it has only a couple of paragraphs about the company. The fifth and sixth citations do not even mention Bokela, and so are not just useless for establishing notability, but serve absolutely no purpose in this article.
I didn't go any further. ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 23 September 2024 review of submission by 39.58.235.138

[edit]

Yrf film 39.58.235.138 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your question is, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. See WP:NFF, unreleased films rarely merit articles, and certainly not if principal photography has not commenced, or mere speculation of a possible film. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An unreferenced one sentence draft will never be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 23 September 2024 review of submission by Librariesforall

[edit]

Hi there! I'm new here and just submitted this draft for review. I think that's what I need to do as a new user for the article to be published? Or am I off base. Many thanks! Librariesforall (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have successfully submitted your draft to the pile for review. At some point (could be minutes, could be months) a reviewer will pick it up and review it, and do one of three things:
  • accept it and move it to mainspace,
  • decline it, and give you reasons why it is not acceptable in its current form
  • reject it, if they think that it cannot be made into an acceptable article (usually because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but sometimes for other reasons, eg it is purely promotional).
ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a *quick* look at it. It will entirely depend if she is Notable, and I don't really have a feeling for that type of notability. The wikicode is done pretty well.Naraht (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declined due to WP:RS concerns. I don't think using Medium was allowed in that case. Correct me if I'm wrong here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Librariesforall, most of your references are to articles authored by Dawn and are therefore useless for establishing her notability. Completely independent sources are required. Medium (website) contains user generated content and is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. She seems to be a mid-level civil servant and mid-level academic. Neither is a plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

[edit]

05:21, 24 September 2024 review of submission by Pypopus

[edit]

I'd like to get help with the issue of my article being declined by one of the wiki people who reviewed it. She mentioned that it wasn't cited independently. I would like to clarify the matter since the sources I provided were independent.

I really appreciate any help you can provide. Pypopus (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pypopus, your draft cannot possibly be accepted until you provide multiple references to indisputably reliable sources completely independent of Akilkhanov that devote significant coverage to Akilkhanov. That is mandatory. Also, why are you using the same photo twice? Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, none of your sources are independent of Akilkhanov because they all parrot his words. One actually says "About me". Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pypopus. One thing to remember is 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. The majority of sources must be indepedent in this way. ColinFine (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:45, 24 September 2024 review of submission by 103.166.59.62

[edit]

All information in this article is taken from IMDb. All the information is correct and there is no error. I don't know why it is not accepted. 103.166.59.62 (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because IMDb has no functional editorial oversight and is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So where does Wikipedia get its acceptable sources from? 103.166.59.62 (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RS to learn more about what is considered a reliable source, but in short, sources that have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control/oversight are generally considered to be reliable. IMDB is user-editable and has no editors that review and fact check content before it is posted for accuracy. 331dot (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once you sign up, gain some experience, and have edited 500 times, a good place to start would be WP:Library--especially once you get well acquainted with this project's subset of the ProQuest database. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 24 September 2024 review of submission by Matt.ruhstaller

[edit]

Can you help me understand more clearly how I am not meeting the bar, but a person who shares the same name as the person I am adding has far fewer notable achievements? John D. Shearer

The person I am adding took the poster photo for the largest grossing artist ever, on their largest grossing tour, among other newsworthy photos.

Many thanks M (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt.ruhstaller I fixed your link, the whole url is unnecessary. As the reviewer said, "None of the refs listed establish any notability and does not source any of the claims in the article. None of them are reliable sources and many of them are just links to the photos the subject took and have no substance related to the subject."
It's not enough to just say "he took a widely distributed photo" or "he took a photo of Taylor Swift"(something which thousands of people have done). We need independent sources with significant coverage of him that describe what makes him notable- if he's notable for his photography, you need sources that discuss and analyze his work and his particular influence. If he's important because he took Swift's photo and it was used as a poster for her tour, you need sources that discuss his selection and the reasons for it- was it selected due to his artistry? Because Swift/her managers noticed his work elsewhere? Stuff like that. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, characterizing the photo he took for the cover of her movie is nothing like claiming "he took a photo of Taylor Swift"(something which thousands of people have done). M (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get that he didn't just snap a photo, but my point was that the draft said little more than that at the time of my comment. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The John D. Shearer article is frankly similar to if not worse than your draft, and I will be tagging it as such. That article was created in 2006, long before current standards. Please see other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful feedback, thank you. In response, I have added several additional citations to address the question of notability, is this sufficient? Happy to publish again, but I would like to minimize the back and forth and understand if I am getting closer to what you're looking for. M (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt.ruhstaller, I haven't looked at the references in-depth so I can't say for certain, but this looks much closer. -- asilvering (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to hear, thanks for the feedback. First time, learning a lot. M (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the names of minor children should not be in the draft unless the children merit articles themselves. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added them only with permission, and they are also listed on his wife's page with this citation: https://www.romper.com/entertainment/clea-shearer-husband-kids#:~:text=Her%20husband%20John%20is%20a%20famous%20photographer.&text=His%20business%20is%20called%20John,Miranda%20Lambert%2C%20and%20many%20others M (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether permission is granted or not is not relevant, that's general practice(WP:NONAME). 331dot (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Are you for them to be removed? M (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"asking" somehow disappeared there, apologies. Take 2: Are you asking for them to be removed? M (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be, yes. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. M (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:06, 24 September 2024 review of submission by TheJubileeKaman

[edit]

Can Wikipedia sites be used for Referencing TheJubileeKaman (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, see Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussion here is academic, as the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can a Wikipedia page be used as a reference TheJubileeKaman (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No per WP:CIRCULAR, and neither can a Wordpress blog. Your draft has been rejected and thus is the end of the line, TheJubileeKaman. Cullen328 (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheJubileeKaman Please do not create a new thread with every post, just edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 24 September 2024 review of submission by Mnorouzian

[edit]

This is her first-ever page on the Wiki, and there's a shortage of references for her biography. I collected the info of Mahsan Khodakarmi by contacting her and my search. Except for some links to Wiki and some Iranian pages, there's not any complete data on the net. The One (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Mnorouzian, but if there are no published sources there can be no article. Qcne (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an IMDB in the field; I hope it helps The One (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, @Mnorouzian, Imdb cannot be used as a source. See WP:IMDB. Qcne (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 24 September 2024 review of submission by Lego10318

[edit]

Hi, I would like to better understand what changes I can make to the page to make it fit for publication. Could you please suggest some improvements and tips for this?

Thank you Lego10318 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lego10318, please see WP:NCORP for information about writing articles on companies. This is a pretty tough one I'm afraid, requiring really strong, in-depth sources. -- asilvering (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:38, 24 September 2024 review of submission by 178.114.134.52

[edit]

This is getting really tiresome, although it stands without question that this person exists and is already mentioned on other pages here, my draft always gets rejected because of a "lack of reliable sources" but no one cares to mention what a single reliable source would be and for which facts exactly. Just saying no and walking away is the easiest thing.I am just trying to contribute and help a friend. pls show some support, thank you. 178.114.134.52 (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that disciss him at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to fact-checking and other forms of editorial oversight. Merely existing is not enough to justify an article. On that note, let's look at your sources (refer to the "critiques" link in my signature):
None of the sources you have are any good. Do you have any reviews of his music? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 24 September 2024 review of submission by Rishi Gandhi 7

[edit]

What should I do? Rishi Gandhi 7 (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, @Rishi Gandhi 7, the draft was rejected and then deleted. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:38, 24 September 2024 review of submission by Suriend

[edit]

what should i do to make it approved Suriend (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Suriend. Wikipedia is not for things that you have made up. Maybe try one of the alternative history wikis? Qcne (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 24 September 2024 review of submission by AlexCollins4u

[edit]

I have been told to ask for advice by Safari Scribe. I created a page for an individual I felt should have a Wikipedia page based on the climate change-focused works he has done over the years considering the extreme climate effects that Nigeria is currently experiencing. The subject was a speaker at the recently concluded Energy Symposium in Abuja. He is a Dean who is currently being considered for a leadership position. He spoke on renewable energy, CO2 emissions and link to biotechnology. The draft was rejected despite being more informative with secondary sources than similar Wikipedia pages created for some Deans in Nigeria. Kindly reconsider and unreject it. I'm willing to revise the page further if required. Thanks. Best regards Alex AlexCollins4u (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that more should be created. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content past us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles for possible action. That other articles exist does not mean they meet standards, unless they are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:42, 24 September 2024 review of submission by TruthToPower2022

[edit]

I just want to ask what's wrong specifically or what can be done to improve this article? If some part needs to be removed, like the part where her companies are featured or the hyperlink to the website, please let me know as well. Just want specific feedback, so I can improve the article. TruthToPower2022 (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TruthToPower2022 A rejection usually means the draft cannot be re-submitted. You may ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider if you have fundamentally changed the draft since rejection. Pinging in the rejecting reviewer, @Velella. However, I agree with their assessment there isn't an indication that Micha passes our notability criteria for people. Qcne (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got this. I will read the notability criteria again first and change the draft to meet these criteria, if possible, before asking the reviewer to re-consider. Thank you for your response. TruthToPower2022 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TruthToPower2022, you might find it helpful to read No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 24 September 2024 review of submission by Jooliah

[edit]

What can I do to get this page approved? Jooliah (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can, however, disclose your connection to him, since you took his picture and he posed for you, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have connection with no one, like verdis and liberland, this territory is claimed by no one, and I have proofs being there and on no ones land I proclaimed micronation, i think its legal same as verdis and others. 2A06:5B02:200:2700:41DC:4E8F:60:19D7 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, wrong article i see 2A06:5B02:200:2700:41DC:4E8F:60:19D7 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:24, 24 September 2024 review of submission by 2A06:5B02:200:2700:41DC:4E8F:60:19D7

[edit]

Hello, can I get some advice how my aticle can get place on wiki, should i add more photos and proofs or? 2A06:5B02:200:2700:41DC:4E8F:60:19D7 (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With zero independent reliable sources discussing the topic, there is zero chance of it being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this isn't the place to tell the world about your micronation. When others tell about it, like news reports, let us know. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither existence nor legality is relevant: Wikipedia has articles about real and imaginary things, and about legal and illegal things. What is needed is independent writing about the subject, reliably published. If there isn't any, then there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:37, 24 September 2024 review of submission by Morieux Th

[edit]

What should i change exactly in my page in order for you to accept it ? Because all the info i added come from a single website and also collected by asking people who work in there. Thank you in advance for your help. Morieux Th (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should almost certainly throw away what you have written, and start again. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 24 September 2024 review of submission by AWGENIZATION

[edit]

What could I add to make this ok for Wikipedia? AWGENIZATION (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AWGENIZATION You would need to show that the company meets WP:GNG--that is, that the company (not its artists, nor their releases) has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AWGENIZATION, additional information can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1248482837"