Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, 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


February 5

[edit]

03:24, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Bulletbilliam

[edit]

I wanted more detailed feedback for the article, it's difficult to know which section/ sentence is being referenced. I do not understand if it is in review or draft stage now. Bulletbilliam (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a different John Joseph Murphy so I a want it to be a separate page Bulletbilliam (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A WIkipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent published sources have said about the subject, and very little else. Your first two sources appear to be blogs, which are very rarely regarded as reliable. Your third source does not mention Murphy, so it is hard to unhderstand why it is even cited. The last source has a couple of sentences which mention Murphy, but hardly any information about him. The Hindu piece I can't read (it directs me somewhere else - is that because it requires subscription, or is the URL wrong?). If it has significant coverage of Murphy, then that will contribute to establishing notability, but one valid source is not enough. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Motsupport

[edit]

Show me the error Motsupport (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Motsupport: Every last one of your references is, and I quote, "Source for <foo>". You're basically citing nothing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Motsupport. From the way you are citing, it sounds as if you are believing (as many new editors believe) that you first write the article, and then find the sources. This is backwards: it is like first building a house and then going back and trying to build the foundations.
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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 5 February 2025 review of submission by 203.128.10.33

[edit]

this celebrity work on movie and drames 203.128.10.33 (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. Do you have one in mind you'd like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not one single valid source cited (IMDB is user generated, so not regarded as reliable). No sources, no article, ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Sharmajprjpr

[edit]

I want to publish it on wikipedia pls help me Sharmajprjpr (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharmajprjpr: presumably you mean Draft:Dr MohammedAli Kurlageri? This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I suggest you first read a few biographical articles to see what sort of content is appropriate to include in an encyclopaedia. If and when you wish to create an article, you will find pretty much everything you need at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 5 February 2025 review of submission by 137.132.27.160

[edit]

It says that the draft still contains text which reads more like promotion of its subject than like disinterested recording of facts. Is there any part of the article that we should not mention? Any example? 137.132.27.160 (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the entire thing. We don't want to know what it considers to be its aims, or a mere list of its routine activities. A Wikipedia article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
Remember to log in(if you're the account who's been editing the draft). 331dot (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:20, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Jmawilliams

[edit]

Hi - how to I get back to the draft? I click on edit and just get to edit the comment page which isn't helpful.

I want to ensure no copyright infringements in the copy...

Kind regards

Jon Jmawilliams (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmawilliams: not sure what you mean? There is no 'comment page'; there is the draft page, and its corresponding talk page (Draft talk:Michael Haynes (artist)), and they're both editable as per usual.
If you're editing the source, then the AfC templates (declines and comments) do show up on the top, if that's what's putting you off? Just scroll past them, and you get to the actual draft content.
If none of that answers your question, then please provide more details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmawilliams: It looks like the copyright infringements have been removed from the draft and its history, so that should not be a problem now – just make sure not to copy any text verbatim from sources into the draft, so as not to introduce any new copyright violations. It's worth mentioning that close paraphrasing of the source is also something to avoid. --bonadea contributions talk 10:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 5 February 2025 review of submission by 17.79.75.210

[edit]

I would like to improve this article so it's acceptable for publication and I'm seeking more feedback as to why it was originally rejected. I understand there's a desire to prevent the use of Wikipedia for marketing so wonder if perhaps this submission was seen as that. The intention is purely to catalogue the existence of the company and refer to reputable publications covering the history of the company. 17.79.75.210 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that an article may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
It's not easy to find a draft unless you already know about it. What drew you to the draft?(or maybe you just aren't logged in to your account that already edited it)
Wikipedia is not a place to just document the existence of a company and tell of its activities. 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) 13:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my mistake, I wasn't logged in. This is the draft: Credit Kudos. It includes references from a number of external sources including CNBC, Financial Times, Forbes, and so on. I appreciate the guidance on news sources and apprecate some elements of the articles mightb conjecture or opinion, however I believe the articles provide multiple independent sources on the subject matter. FreddyKelly (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, the vast majority of the cites here consist simply of routine coverage of a corporation's normal business activities. Reports of expansions of the business and capital transactions are explicitly WP:CORPTRIV. Basic vanilla reporting discussing "X is now partnered with Y" or "X has raised $Z" don't really amount to WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage about the company. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Memories235

[edit]

My draft got rejected Can someone tell me how to be not promotional? I have used a lot of credible sources but they still rejected me. Memories235 (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Memories235 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended(you had "my draft got rejected" where the full title of your draft should go). Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean that it could not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Are you connected to this company?
Most of your sources just describe the activities of the company, not what makes it a a notable company. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Iamkkronline

[edit]

please permanently publish the page Iamkkronline (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion, and your draft includes two links to spam websites. qcne (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:04, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Edadras

[edit]

whats problem for decline creation new page ? Edadras (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in promoting crypto scams. qcne (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Edadras: This isn't a draft, it's a sales pitch/investment brochure. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:23, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Zhuang zi mao

[edit]

Could you please give me some advice? I want my article to be approved and published, but I don't know how to revise it correctly. Thank you very much. Zhuang zi mao (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown how she meets WP:NARTIST. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary they are likely notable per WP:NARTIST because of having work in multiple museums, including the National Museum of China and WuXi Museum. I would suggest removing anything that isn't sourced for starters. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:55, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Mohamed2235sayed

[edit]

can you please tell me why did you rejected my article ? Mohamed2235sayed (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed2235sayed The reason was left by the reviewer- "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". You have no sources to support the content of the draft. A Wikipedia article about an artist must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the artist, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the lack of sources, the draft itself does not make any claim of notability. It is a text that looks a little like a Linkedin profile or a cover letter for a job application; the subject is a college student who has some qualifications in 3D modelling and programming, but is not (yet) notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:54, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Edvinsstrautmanisart

[edit]

When I created this draft I also created a user, "Edvinsstrautmanisart".

I'm concerned that this choice may appear to create a conflict of interest. Is this an issue and how can I correct it? For clarity, I do not have a connection to the subject. Edvinsstrautmanisart (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edvinsstrautmanisart: See Special:GlobalRenameRequest to change your username, and thank you for quickly noticing your issues with the username. (Though I will note the issue is less conflict-of-interest and more potential impersonation.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 5 February 2025 review of submission by Tt123yv

[edit]

this person is a very notable person in the jewish community. Tt123yv (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tt123yv: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

[edit]

01:31, 6 February 2025 review of submission by 2409:408A:E9F:A27A:0:0:D4CB:9905

[edit]

Please help us make this article submittable 2409:408A:E9F:A27A:0:0:D4CB:9905 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "us"? The draft has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:50, 6 February 2025 review of submission by Hexlexdxb27

[edit]

Hi,

This is my first time creating an article and while it's true that I'm associated with company, my intentions are solely for our brand to a Wikipedia entry. While the contents may sound like an advertisement, it isn't. Kindly let me know how I can possible edit the article so it may be approved. I can remove the citations if needed.

Thanks. Hexlexdxb27 (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexlexdxb27: the first thing you must do, without delay, is to formally disclose your paid editing. This was requested already a month ago, and I've just posted a reminder on your talk page.
Your draft is inherently promotional, because it's you telling the world about your business; that is the definition of promotion (see WP:YESPROMO). We have no interest in what you want to say about your business, we are almost exclusively interested in what reliable and independent secondary sources have, on their own initiative and without being prompted or enticed by you, said about your business and what makes it worthy of note. Your job is then merely to summarise such coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 6 February 2025 review of submission by 2409:408A:E9F:A27A:0:0:D4CB:9905

[edit]

Help us submit it 2409:408A:E9F:A27A:0:0:D4CB:9905 (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "us"? If you have edited the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you may resubmit by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button in the top most decline message. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 6 February 2025 review of submission by Tparashar

[edit]

I recently submitted the article "Yatish Kumar" through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and it was accepted. The message states, "which you submitted to Articles for Creation, has been created," but the article is still not live or publicly accessible.

Could you please assist me in understanding the issue and help make the article live? Tparashar (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tparashar: the draft was accepted, but soon after that moved back into drafts, where it remains at Draft:Yatish Kumar. I'm not sure what happened there, so I'm pinging the reviewer @SafariScribe: anything you can share with the author? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tparashar. @SafariScribe accepted the article, but then reverted the accept and moved it back to draft space, and so the draft is back at Draft: Yatish Kumar.
I have added the AfC template to the top of the draft again, but we cannot accept biographic articles without in-line citations. Please see the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. qcne (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 6 February 2025 review of submission by Tahikkaexpo

[edit]

my draft has been rejected Tahikkaexpo (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tahikkaexpo: This is a practically unsourced and hagiographical biography. What is your connexion to Mathew? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 6 February 2025 review of submission by Fstscott

[edit]

Peter Eiseman is an iconic figure in the field of grid generation. His family asked if we could create a wiki page while he is still living and can add some of his perspectives and life history. Peter is currently 82 and full of stories involving the evolution of aerospace in the united states. Fstscott (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fstscott. That may be so, but what you have written is not a viable encyclopedic article which is why it has been rejected and marked for deletion.
I would recommend a blog or other social media instead? qcne (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we?" Wikipedia accounts are for private individuals, not groups or companies. In any case, the sourcing is incredibly sparse, and as qcne has suggested, I think a blog about this subject is far more appropriate. That would be an avenue for him to share his stories involving the evolution of aerospace. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 6 February 2025 review of submission by TusharMakkar

[edit]

How can I get it reviewed well and published. It is not accepting references that I gave as appropriate enough. TusharMakkar (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TusharMakkar: This is very poorly sourced, actually (most of your sources are things he wrote/said, and one is a subReddit), and the draft looks like chatbot output to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @TusharMakkar. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources, wholly unconnected with the subject have written about the subject, and very little else. Sources that say what the subject says are almost useless, as are sources which are not from a reputable publisher.
Also, writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, and almost never succeeds. ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 6 February 2025 review of submission by 151.64.10.103

[edit]

hello please consider to publish my draft....I do not understand why my articles says "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources"....I listed and linked all sources that I could find and quite plausible....please revise it....Thank you, regards Stefan 151.64.10.103 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a list of references, but it's not clear what they are supporting. References need to be in line next to the text they are supporting. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:21, 6 February 2025 review of submission by Uboent

[edit]

I went ahead and fixed the links. I am unsure how to build a sidebar of references for art, media and press accolades and published content Uboent (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought at first you meant an infobox, but that is not a place for !media and press accolades". In fact, nowhere on Wikipedia is a place for "media and press accolades" - that would be promotional, and is not permitted.
In fact, your current text is pretty promotional, and probably needs redoing from the start. 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) 14:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:40, 6 February 2025 review of submission by BlazingBlast

[edit]

I am the author of Draft:Nosferatu_(Bloodbound_album), and I've gotten my submission declined for lack of coverage, yet I have three five independent, secondary sources who have published a review of the album in question. On top of this, I have included statistics that show that the album has over 21 million online streams. What more do I need to provide to prove that the subject is worthy of an article? BlazingBlast (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlazingBlast: when this was reviewed back in November, it had four sources, one of which was the producer commenting on the songs, another was just confirming a guest musician; the other two were reviews, but that's not yet enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM.
Number of streams or downloads is not a notability metric.
And to answer your question "what more [you] need to do", you need to resubmit this for another review, whenever you feel that sufficient evidence of notability has been included. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have indeed added some new sources recently as I've been able to get the help of a Swedish national to find Swedish-language reports on the topic. I will resubmit the draft soon. BlazingBlast (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

[edit]

00:17, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Novalindanger

[edit]

My submission keeps getting rejected. I feel I do meet the requirements but the rejection isn't specific enough. For example, I have cited, 3rd party articles from major outlets such as Polygon and Nintendo Life. I also wrote it as neutral as possible, using only objective facts associated with the business. This has been going on for months, and I've only continued to add more content. I'm at a total loss here. Novalindanger (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just need someone to be specific. For example, if the Owner section is disagreeable for some reason then please just say "remove that"? (Although, I thought it adds more color and is objective...but I'm find to do whatever). For example, if you think I need one more article that is notable then say so and provide some samples of what is and isn't notable. Please... Novalindanger (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fundamental problem here is that the sources aren't really about Retro Game Books, they're generally straight reporting that a product is available or coming soon or that preorders are open. An interview can't really establish notability, nor can a user-generated site like the Mobygames listing. And I say this regretfully; I'm a happy owner of the first volume of SNES maps, as this kind of stuff is like cocaine for an aging Gen X gamer like me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reply. My assumption is that the Polygon article on Rygar is considered the most in depth and noteworthy. I just wish a reviewer would be direct and say something like "share two more things like that and you're good" — otherwise I'm just guessing here.
Also, thanks for you're support :) Novalindanger (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:55, 7 February 2025 review of submission by BuffaloHist

[edit]

This figure holds national level positions and is the highest-ranking elected official in a country larger than 5 U.S. states. What needs to be done to make it meet the requirements? BuffaloHist (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuffaloHist: Properly sourcing it, for a start. Literally every claim that could be challenged by a reasonable person must be referenced to a source that explicitly corroborates it. In addition, offline cites to newspapers/news magazines hard-require page numbers. (I'd recommend using {{cite news}} to help make things easier.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BuffaloHist County level officials(regardless of the size of the county) are not inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN, which means you need to show that they meet the broader notable person definition. Counties have differing powers, or no powers at all, depending on the state; some states have abolished counties as a level of government(Connecticut, most of Mass.), this is why county level officials aren't inherently notable. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Dartslord

[edit]

I've put considerable effort into creating a well-sourced article about an Australian band that I have heard. Despite my diligence, it hasn't been approved, and I'm unsure why. Could you please provide specific feedback on areas needing improvement? I'm committed to meeting Wikipedia's standards and would appreciate guidance on any issues with neutrality, notability, or formatting. I'm eager to refine this article with your input. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dartslord (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dartslord: it was declined for lack of notability per WP:BAND - did you read the decline notices and accompanying comments? They seem pretty clear to me.
Anyway, you have now resubmitted this draft, so you will get feedback when a reviewer gets around to assessing it. If you have specific questions in the meantime, you can of course ask those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You say this is a band that you "have heard", but is there more to it than that? They appear to have posed for a group photo for you by the side of a lake somewhere. I assume that means you're at least on talking terms with them? Please see WP:COI, and make any disclosure necessary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dartslord Fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended; you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:28, 7 February 2025 review of submission by PB Binu

[edit]

Dear Respected Team, We are unable to find where we are gone wrong. Please, can your team help us to identify it so that we can rectify our mistakes and work on it for resubmission. Looking forward to your assistance. Thanks & Regards PB Binu PB Binu (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PB Binu: with respect, I don't think you've put much effort into trying to understand where you went wrong, given that it is quite clearly stated in the decline notice why I declined your draft (lack of evidence of notability and referencing), and that I then also posted a notice on your talk page advising you of our autobiography policy which very strongly discourages users from writing about themselves. Did you happen to read any of that?
If you wish to tell the world about your business exploits etc., you need to find a different platform for that; perhaps try LinkedIn, that's what they're there for? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Ileowoever

[edit]

The subject matter is notable and has been widely covered by notable and reputable media organisations over the years, so I'm wondering why the article is rejected. Ileowoever (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ileowoever: this draft was rejected because after multiple reviews there is insufficient evidence of notability. You saying he is notable does not make it so; presenting evidence of notability is what matters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, as well as what DoubleGrazing says, understanding what Wikipedia means by notability is crucial. ColinFine (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 7 February 2025 review of submission by SuhovaNS

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Review Team,

I am writing to appeal the rejection of the Wikipedia article on Prof. Mikhail Kudryashev, which I believe meets the notability criteria for academics as outlined in Wikipedia’s guidelines. Prof. Kudryashev has received two highly prestigious national and international academic awards, demonstrating significant recognition in his field:

-Sofja Kovalevskaja Award (2015) – Awarded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, one of Germany’s most prestigious research grants. Notably, Prof. Kudryashev’s name is already listed on the Wikipedia page for the Sofja Kovalevskaja Award. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofia_Kovalevskaya_Award - Heisenberg Award (2020) – Granted by the German Research Foundation (DFG), a top-tier distinction for outstanding researchers preparing for permanent academic leadership roles. Additionally, the article is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources that discuss Prof. Kudryashev’s research contributions and impact.

Given Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for academics, which recognize individuals who have received prestigious national or international awards, I respectfully request a reconsideration of this article. If there are specific concerns regarding content, sourcing, or formatting, I would appreciate any guidance on how to improve the article to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your feedback. SuhovaNS (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuhovaNS: I'm not sure if those awards are major enough to establish notability. Our acid test tends to be, does the award have its own Wikipedia article? Of these two, the Kovalevskaya one does, but its own notability is in question, as the article is based mostly on close primary sources. The Heisenberg one does not. So I'd say this leaves the result of the acid test inconclusive.
As for your comment that the "article is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources that discuss Prof. Kudryashev’s research contributions and impact", which sources would these be? The majority of the sources are papers co-authored by the subject, and the others are primary sources, at least some of which are associated with the subject.
My feeling based on a cursory inspection is that this is currently at best borderline, and may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.
BTW, what is your relationship with this subject? I'm asking because I noted earlier that the two earlier authors seem to be closely related to the subject. They appear to have abandoned the draft, and then you came along (with two different accounts?) to pick it up? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Mamani1990

[edit]

Good morning! I don't understand why my article on Vander keeps getting denied, twice now. There are a total of 15 articles I included over the span of 3 decades. Reference #3, #10, and #12 talk about Vander's career and his solo albums of different genres since the disbandment of Les Colocs in 2000 - I would've thought that these 3 references would be good enough to confirm WP:GNG. I understand that all the sources are in French - could this be the issue? Also, I believe that Canadian content is lacking on Wikipedia. Two other past members of Les Colocs have pages about them, Patrick Esposito Di Napoli and Serge Robert. However, I understand that these articles were written many years ago when the standards about article creations were different. I humbly request some help please. Thank you in advance. m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 13:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles you mention probably should be merged into the article about the band, they are poor examples to use(as you seem to know but did anyway). 331dot (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Members of a band only merit articles if they are notable independent of the band; example, Paul McCartney who has a solo career outside of The Beatles. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot, thank you for your comment. This is what I'm trying to say. Vander made 6 different albums with success and media coverage since Les Colocs. Sources #8-12 cover this. Why does he not qualify under [[WP:GNG]]? m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 14:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mamani1990 The relevant criteria is WP:NMUSICIAN. Merely creating albums is insufficient. Most of the coverage cited in the draft is about his work with the band. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Archiduck2018

[edit]

Hello, my draft article has been in limbo for over two months now. I would like to know if it will be accepted now. Thank you very much! Archiduck2018 (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,250 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 7 February 2025 review of submission by TulipHysteriaCoordinating

[edit]

Hello. My draft was rejected and I'm not sure why. There is already a French Wikipedia page for this person, who was Marcel Duchamp's biological daughter. I will update my draft to reflect this. My sources are: An authoritative biography of Marcel Duchamp (by Calvin Tomkins); two scholarly articles by Francois Grundbacher (one published in 2003 and the other in 2020); Yo Savy/Yo Sermayer's obituary in Le Monde; and a webpage from the Musee de Arts Decoratifs in Paris. Are these not qualifying sources? TulipHysteriaCoordinating (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TulipHysteriaCoordinating It's only been declined. Please read the message in the big, pink decline box and return here if you have questions. The French language Wikipedia is independent and has different inclusion criteria. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 7 February 2025 review of submission by IMacattack

[edit]

Hello, this is my first time ever doing this. I got a rejections due to "reliable" sources. This is confusing as these are reliable resources. I'm not understanding what my article should look like to fit the requirement. IMacattack (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMacattack You have two sources; an article should summarize multiple independent reliable sources. One of your two sources seems to be a user-generated content website(I could be wrong) which would mean it isn't a reliable source.
Your sources need to be in line next to the text they are supporting, see Referencing for beginners.
You have already resubmitted it for review; the reviewer will leave you additional feedback. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @IMacattack. 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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I revised the article and it now includes five sources to support the content. I also ensured proper inline citations according to Wikipedia’s guidelines.
However, I noticed the feedback I get does not specify which parts of the article still fall short in meeting Wikipedia’s standards. Would it be more proactive to receive more specific feedback, such as markup comments pointing out the exact areas that need improvement? That would help make more targeted revisions instead of making broad guesses.
I genuinely appreciate your time with helping me improve this submission. IMacattack (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:42, 7 February 2025 review of submission by Cavaliere ospitaliero

[edit]

I tried to be as objective as possible and reporting objective facts. What to improve? 

Cavaliere ospitaliero (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cavaliere ospitaliero Your referencing is odd. there is a group of misplaced references at the foot. This means that facts are not correctly verified.
The draft is written, broadly, as a bullet pointed list whereas we require fair continuous prose wherever possible.
The term 'jurist' can be interpreted in various ways. Is there a more targeted word yiu can use?
Most important, what is it that makes him notable? It is not his close relatives. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

[edit]

12:06, 8 February 2025 review of submission by JoeBlogsDord

[edit]

Manshuud has an article in the Russian (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Эмегеев,_Маншуд) and Buryat (https://bxr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Эмегеев_Маншуд) pages; is there a way to indicate this in the draft? Thanks. JoeBlogsDord (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeBlogsDord: there is no particular way to indicate that, but there is also no need. If the draft is accepted, it will then be linked to any articles existing in the other language versions. But I can post a comment on the draft with this info, there's no harm in doing so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! JoeBlogsDord (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 8 February 2025 review of submission by Carlo404

[edit]

Hi I’m unsure what to add to make the film notable. I’ve added variety and midlands award. What else is needed ? Carlo404 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlo404: you need to provide reliable sources showing that this film meets either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM notability standard, neither of which it currently does. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Carlo404, your draft describes the Midlands Movie Awards as "prestigious". If that was the case, why is there no Wikipedia article about the awards, and why are the awards only mentioned twice on Wikipedia? One of those mentions is in James Jaysen Bryhan, an article heavily edited by you. Which reliable independent source calls these awards "prestigious" and what is your connection with this film and this actor? Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 8 February 2025 review of submission by 83.142.111.89

[edit]

I wasn't ready for such a denial reason as "broken english" and I don't see any wikipedia guideline to resolve it. Can you please suggest what can I do that way or just help me make it not broken there? 83.142.111.89 (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. I'm afraid the reviewer is right: your draft is very difficult to understand. You need to carefully rewrite it so that it follows proper English grammar and sentence structure. qcne (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you. Can you suggest any online resources helping me do it? 83.142.111.89 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps run it through one of those online grammar checkers? qcne (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! :) 83.142.111.89 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:24, 8 February 2025 review of submission by PhotographyEdits

[edit]

Hi. My draft was rejected but the reasoning is very high-level and does not address any particular reference in detail. I have ensured that the references meet the requirements, but it keeps getting rejected. PhotographyEdits (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @PhotographyEdits. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject, and very little else. Several of your sources are either from the consortium or its members, or are about the specification, not the consortium. Where have people wholly unconnected with the consortium chosen to write at length about the consortium? ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The specifications are the main part of what the consortium is actually making, so I am not sure why that would disqualify them. To give two examples: the first source is by Konstantinos Markantonakis, an independent academic. The 6th one by Harald Welte who is an independent expert talks about it in-depth. The WP:GNG requires only two sources at the very least, and there are a dozen more. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PhotographyEdits: if you disagree with the review, you're welcome to move this into the main space yourself, you have more than sufficient credentials to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, GlobalPlatform states that it has to go through WP:AfC. I am not an administrator. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PhotographyEdits, use of Articles for Creation is entirely optional for editors with your level of experience. If the reliable sources that you have cited devote significant coverage to the protocols as opposed to the consortium, then the conclusion is obvious. The article ought to be about the protocols not the consortium. Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page GlobalPlatform requires administrator access for creation, as @Star Mississippi stated in the earlier page deletion note. Although I believe there is indeed more coverage of the specifications than the organization, I think both would meet the WP:GNG but I think that a specification section in an article about the organization is the best article structure. The alternatives being an article about the specification with a section on the organization looks a bit weird to me and I don't think it's the only option. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @PhotographyEdits @DoubleGrazing and apologies for the delay as I was offline. I have dropped it to ECP. We do have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GlobalPlatform (2nd nomination) but reading my 2022 mind, the protection was probably about the rapid, repeated recreation vs. the AfDs. Feel free to move it yourself, or ping an AfC reviewer if you'd prefer further eyes. At this time I am not able to review the draft myself. DG, @Cullen328 and any other admin AfC reviewers, always feel free to drop "my" protections if they're no longer needed or there's an established editor with a draft. Star Mississippi 02:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the SALTing discussion: User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_7#h-Suggest_salting_GlobalPlatform Saffron no longer is active, but pinging @FormalDude @Robert McClenon if they have any thoughts Star Mississippi 02:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Star Mississippi - Thank you for lowering the protection level to ECP. I think ECP protection is often more appropriate than full protection if a title has been repeatedly created either by spammers or by ultras but has potential for an article by a good-faith experienced editor. User:PhotographyEdits, User:Star Mississippi - In view of the history, I think that a review of the draft should include a detailed source assessment, such as is often done in an AFD. I will do a source assessment within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated! PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:PhotographyEdits, User:Star Mississippi - I have completed the source assessment. The sources are mostly technical publications, and are all reliable, but reliability was never the issue; significant coverage was the issue. Several of the references satisfy organizational notability. I have put my source assessment on the draft talk page, and will be accepting the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! And I agree about wat the issue was, indeed. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Robert McClenon! I SALT far less these days as well for similar reasons. I think the source assessment is very helpful and personally also think it settles the sourcing issue in the mind of potential nominator. I think we're all set here but please ping me @PhotographyEdits if you need anything further. Star Mississippi 14:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have rated the article only at Start-Class, but that is sufficient. I have tagged it as needing the categories improved, because I have not tried to categorize it, because I know that there are gnomes who assign categories to articles that are tagged for category improvement, and they can do a better job of categorizing articles than I can. In view of the history, someone may nominate it for deletion, but I think that the source assessment should address that. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

[edit]

00:36, 9 February 2025 review of submission by Philiptheawesomest

[edit]

Can I have some help adding some substance to this article and finding some more independent sources? Philiptheawesomest (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you can find some more notability here Some video cut provided here does not looks like independent, but video it cutted from by History channel probably is. post of Embassy of the United States, Tashkent also looks independent. What I can't find - any non-trivial (significant) description of that person in such sources (Iowa University or his own pages are not reliable). If you have some of mentioned - just provide it in the draft as corresponding references. 83.142.111.89 (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 9 February 2025 review of submission by Terrance19888

[edit]

Why is my recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted? Why is this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia?. Terrance19888 (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Terrance19888: You have a malformed infobox and the subject's name, and your sources are unlikely to be helpful for notability as we define it. Please see WP:Autobiography. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:10, 9 February 2025 review of submission by Andoria225

[edit]

@Jéské Couriano Hi, I would like to ask if anyone would like to review my article Draft:Raid on Barcelona because it has been a long time since it was published and it has not been reviewed yet, Thanks. Andoria225 (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andoria225: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. Besides which, you submitted this draft barely a week ago. As you may have seen, on top of the draft it says Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,228 pending submissions waiting for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please post your request into a new section rather than replying to an unrelated section by a different user. (That is, when posting a new request. If posting updates to your already existing request, then post to the existing section.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:24, 9 February 2025 review of submission by 103.127.7.211

[edit]

Please published my article on wikipedia 103.127.7.211 (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further, let alone published. It presents zero evidence of notability, and is purely self-promotional. Please read WP:AUTOBIO. ( Courtesy ping: Shafiqulislam007) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:46, 9 February 2025 review of submission by Kim Connolly

[edit]

Hello, I am an assistant to Martin Garbus and often update his Bio page. I submitted a page a Bibliography of Martin Garbus page that was meant to be linked to his bio page which included notable reviews and praise. It was rejected bc it apparently read like an advertisement. I am wondering if the piece is worth salvaging or this kind of piece will not pass Wiki guidelines. -Thank you! This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. 

Kim Connolly (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kim Connolly: This would be unlikely to pass muster; see WP:COATRACK for a good explanation as to why. Most of these would be better served in Reception sections for articles on each individual work, and not necessarily on the article of the author. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Do you mean separate articles for each book with reception section? Kim Connolly (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kim Connolly: That is indeed what I mean. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I divide the page up for each book is it likely to pass? I am afraid to invest more time into it to be honest and appreciate your guidance. Kim Connolly (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kim Connolly: No. The only way this is going to work is if there are articles on each individual book, and the content of this article is put into the Reception sections (with citations) of those articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but currently all of the reception and reviews do have links to those articles. would that be enough? 2603:7000:9D00:777:EAF:275:19C6:2E45 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kim Connolly: You may want to log back in. And no, that wouldn't work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not work as in it needs the citations? -thanks for your patience Kim Connolly (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kim Connolly: Correct. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:05, 9 February 2025 review of submission by Brucegayne

[edit]

Why is he not notable enough ? I've citied sources and infact his younger brother who has a lesser following on instagram and youtube both is on wikipedia and apparently "notable".

He's been citied by multiple sources as NDTV, ABP news and India Today Brucegayne (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea I am not a fan of WP:ADVOCACY, but after deeper view to write the author where's he wrong and advice him to read comments precisely I realized he don't. At least not at the level of rejecting the draft based on notability absense. Doesn't the fact article subject received Indian National Creators Award ([1], [2]), despite having weird eligibility criteria, but still being India national (even awarded by PM personally), make him following WP:GNG?
Case is starting from that discussion and until dec, 2023 when drafts were multiply deleted, there was no such fact as national award (as it was received at mar, 2024), which info about was added to the article just hours before you rejected it and that's why you probably missed when evaluating notability last probably basing it just on much older comments. Do you? Probably you meant to just decline it again but not reject? Please advice. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 9 February 2025 review of submission by Beka7800

[edit]

I want to emphasize editors to edit by themselves without extracting any line. and publish it for free. do it to me for a favor. Beka7800 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beka7800: You cannot just slap a bunch of references on the end of the article. You need to properly cite them in-line at the spot of the claim they explicitly support. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 9 February 2025 review of submission by Gbrehle

[edit]

Dear Experts, my submission to the scientist August Fenk was rejected for lack of reliable sources. August Fenk asked me to submit his site. There are several references to important publications and some external links. I checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources.

May I ask if the number of references is too small, or too old or if a certain type of reference is missing? Sorry for causing any inconveniences. Kind regards, Gabriele Gbrehle (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbrehle: You have too few references. Every claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that explicitly corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is a hard requirement and is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 9 February 2025 review of submission by GetitDunne

[edit]

Hello,

I created this article as it was available on the Irish language Wikipedia version. I believed that given the author’s significance in the Irish language book industry, I would attempt to submit the an English language article. My article has been rejected four times all for the same reason: notability.

As much as I stressed this to RangersRus (an editor who rejected the article three of the four times) Ó Ceilleachair has an article on the Irish language version of Wikipedia. This author also has wrote novels a stable for new Irish learners both in the classroom and as a form of entertainment.

This is my final plead for this article and I hope it is considered.

The Article’s Creator. GetitDunne (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GetitDunne: The Irish-language Wikipedia is a completely separate project from the English-language Wikipedia, with its own standards, policies, and practices; an article on there has zero impact on the existence of an article here. The draft has to meet the (stricter) requirements of the English-language Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again I’d like to appeal the decision to prevent my article from being resubmitted. I would like to do this as I feel that if it has a few more edits in the next month then it could be ready for Wikipedia. GetitDunne (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer. Failing that, you may come here and explain what gross violation of policy the reviewer made. As this process is usually voluntary, you are also free to disregard the advice of more experienced reviewers and move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, at the risk of it being nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @SafariScribe qcne (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GetitDunne: I've done a bit of copyediting and added a source but not sure there is quite enough to pass an WP:AFD? Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GetitDunne, thank you for trying or perhaps improving Wikipedia. I have (un) rejected the draft as you pleaded above. AFC isn't a work for AI or a bots, the declines and accepts are done by humans like you, so, please wait before resubmitting. I mean, show the reviewer that you are already improving the draft either from their own given message or the one in the pink decline box. Ask questions too especially at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Cheers and safe editing! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:02, 9 February 2025 review of submission by Norayr Azaryan

[edit]

I want to change the draft's title name Norayr Azaryan (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. It is placed at the proper title when accepted- which is academic as your draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:35, 9 February 2025 review of submission by Beomgyuluvr

[edit]

I don't understand how the sources aren't good enough when they mention him and they are reliable Beomgyuluvr My draft does show Beomgyu’s achievements beyond the group (producing and composing credits) and his solo variety show. I have also used reliable sources Beomgyuluvr (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to focus on comment provided there which leads you to WP:NBANDMEMBER, especially "...unless they have demonstrated individual notability" as all references you provided as one as disco/filmography sections are noting him with/connected to TXT and no any out of it.
As addition you have to follow WP:BLP as i.e. "Early Life", "Personal life", partly career and artistry sections are unsourced now, but have to be for sure or be deleted.
Until then you can only request/create redirect and fill with all you have the Tomorrow X Together as "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article". 83.142.111.118 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:43, 9 February 2025 review of submission by MehrnazKamaie

[edit]

I didn't understand the reason why my article was rejected and I don't know what to do to fix it and publish it. Please guide me. This is my first article on Wikipedia. MehrnazKamaie (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-AFC Comment) Hi @MehrnazKamaie, the reviewer has left you a reason "Audio repositories are not reliable sources". None of your sources explain why he is notable (See Notability (people) and Notability (music)). I would also suggest you read Your first article and Introduction to referencing. Goodluck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

[edit]

06:28, 10 February 2025 review of submission by Awikieditorin

[edit]

I have reassessed the whole article, it doesn't contains peacock terms and it is written in a neutral point of view. If a town was known for the product, since pre-independence; late 1940s. It is supposed to be there in Wikipedia. The banner is to highlight the article's title. The contexts of the article is meant to give proper knowledge, and I can assure it doesn't contains any GPT generated context. I insist to the reviewer to kindly recheck the whole article once, and keep this message in their mind, before checking. Awikieditorin (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awikieditorin, leaving aside the promotional tone and the poor quality of the writing, this is an unnecessary content fork of Sainthia. There ought to be an informative, well-referenced "Economy" section in that article about a small city of about 44,000. Only when such a section grows to become too unwieldy should a separate article be created. That seems unlikely for a city of this size. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only about Sainthia, The company was present across Birbhum district and West Bengal, and had a good supply chain across the nation till the operation seized. The mentioned context in the article is solely meant, how industry prowess in Sainthia, despite having limited resources.
And, the current article context is true, and it is supporting the facts and status of current railway, logistics infrastructure and how current businesses are operating in Sainthia. One can't criticize the tone, it is definitely not promotional. It is solely meant to highlight the significant contribution people knows from Sainthia, Birbhum, West Bengal; I hope this helps to clarity the points stated. Awikieditorin (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:38, 10 February 2025 review of submission by SenWariata

[edit]

I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. Can someone please take a look and give advice? SenWariata (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SenWariata: the first thing that jumps at me is the reason why this draft was declined, namely lack of inline citations. You have one, so you know how to do it technically, but it is placed at the very end where it supports nothing. The rest of your sources are just listed without citing. In articles on living people, pretty much every statement you make must be clearly supported by an inline citation right next to it, so that it's clear where each piece of information comes from. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing in general, and if needed WP:ILC on use of inline citations specifically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, although I must say it still remains a confusing issue.
Do you mean I should move citations from the bottom of the article and place them in the body of the article? SenWariata (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SenWariata: yes, citations should be placed next to (ie., more or less immediately after) the statement they support. In the case of short paragraphs, where the same source supports the entire para, it may be enough to cite once at the end of the para. In longer paras, and when making potentially contentious or extraordinary statements, as well as when quoting a source directly, the citation must come immediately following the statement.
Anyway, you clearly figured this out already, since your article now has multiple citations.
And as you hopefully have realised, the article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Miłosz-Piekarska. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 10 February 2025 review of submission by Chance997

[edit]

I didn't understand. I had written an article about the fan film which is the continuation of the Spider-Man trilogy (2002-2007) and I have submitted it, but my article was somehow rejected. Is there anything that I can do to fix it? Chance997 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Spider-Man 4: Fan Film
Your draft was declined, not rejected. It was declined because it didn't demonstrate notability.
You have since resubmitted it, and will get another assessment once a reviewer gets around to it.
Please do not remove the AfC templates, they must remain there until the draft is accepted. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Chance997 (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chance997, your draft includes no evidence that this topic is notable and ought to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:00, 10 February 2025 review of submission by Mecaravan

[edit]

how can i get my article approved on Wikipedia Mecaravan (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mecaravan: you cannot. This isn't an article, it's an advert, and I will shortly delete it, followed by blocking you. If you wish to promote your business, you need to find a different platform for it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:12, 10 February 2025 review of submission by Rachael Adrino

[edit]

I have received notification said "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." This means several references that I've added for the draft weren't reliable yet. Any suggestions for me to find the reliable references for this article draft? Rachael Adrino (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you should focus not on sources, but on WP:NPOV and WP:V meant @WP:BLP especially on WP:BLPSTYLE. I.e. you are writing "he was included in Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia" but avoiding the fact they were self-nominated or at least self-described (The company says it generates 70% of its...) by Forbes contributor with a forbes note "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own", that does not look independent of article subject, but still officially award acceptable, which negates whole the award, then you say "honored with the prestigious EY... award" avoiding the fact that EY is no more then a Indonesia PR team so you'd better reveal that fact i.e. writing "...on opinion of EY" added instead of complimentary "prestigious" (why?) "their remarkable " (wdym?), "leading.. company" (who said that?), "award highlighted their success", "significant changes" , "younger generations", "youngest recipient in the history" (which ones?/wP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). That's only about award section. But idea what have you avoid of is clear. Try to follow tbe BLP writing tone, neutrality and strict compliance between what you write and what you define as WP:RS to approve it without any WP:OR or article subject exceptional comlimentarity even if it have place at the source or provide it exactly as someone's citation and not as a fact. Try to start with it rewriting the article. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: it looks like there's one more same topic discussion exists. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 10 February 2025 review of submission by Quality-Bargains

[edit]

The article was declined almost instantly, so I believe there must be something seriously wrong with the article but I can not see what that might if you could help please. Quality-Bargains (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quality-Bargains: there are so many problems here, I barely know where to begin...
Firstly, your username is very promotional, and needs to be changed. Moreover, the name should refer to a specific individual, not be a generic or functional name like that.
Secondly, you clearly have a conflict of interest in this matter, which needs to be disclosed. Please see WP:PAID for how to do that. (That's assuming you get around to disclosing before you get blocked.)
As for your draft, this is pure promotion, because it is clearly you telling the world whatever it is you want to tell about your business; see WP:YESPROMO. Promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.
And in any case, Wikipedia articles mostly summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. We require sufficient sources meeting the WP:GNG standard, to establish that the subject is notable enough to justify an article at all. Your draft was declined because it does not do that.
I must say I was tempted to just go and block you and delete your draft, but then thought I ought to answer your question, even if meanwhile another administrator does block you; that way you at least know why you got blocked and/or your draft was deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:52, 10 February 2025 review of submission by Eckohaus

[edit]

Hello,

Recently I began editing a Wikipedia page, acting as a self-employed person, working within "media & the arts". Whom has registered historical "Works" at

https://www.copyright.gov/

In order to compile a {Thesis/Essay}, of the current "company", much like WPP. Simply a publicly accessible database, which is referenceable.

Although the Sandbox/entry for the company has been rejected, I must note that the sandbox entry was "Work in progress". But was submitted for verification in order to move from sandbox entry to "what would be the actual page submission". But in particular to double-check the compendium of {Thesis/Essay} {Wikipedia} - Reference links

The page was rejected and can't be re-submitted. I wasn't aware of this.

Can you advise Best Regards corvin dhali (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DoubleGrazing qcne (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok I see. Yes , this would be helpful.
I think personal opinions aside, but at least for comparative purposes. Even "Nike", began with a simple $30 a logo. If the company never got off the ground , would that be more helpful to society - Plimsols ??? Maybe ???
If the submission can be revereted and instead merely be declined. Meaning that I can resubmit it later.
I would be more than hapy to hold discussion , as the page develops within it's iterations.
Best Regards corvin dhali (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Wikipedia only hosts topics about subjects that meet our strict notability criteria. You haven't demonstrated that your company meets that criteria. Perhaps you would be better off on a website that doesn't have criteria for inclusion, like LinkedIn? qcne (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned the draft is not complete. But also in the modulus of COI I think at this vertical of technologyy and dissemination. An online encyclopedia also needs to adjust to the landscape.
A reference of corporate activity which is publicy accessible and cross-referenced by publicly administered database administrators is a good thing. Therefore there are many companies listed on wikipedia, the size of that entity is non-relational.
In the short excerpt that I included the reference sources were from a goverment agency, and there is logical reasoning for their inclusion. The only commercial attribute is that someone took the time out to read the article in question.
We must be able to distinuguish against those attributes, for encyclopedic purposes. corvin dhali (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A reference of corporate activity which is publicy accessible and cross-referenced by publicly administered database administrators is a good thing" that may be so, but that is not the type of content that Wikipedia hosts.
As I said, we only host content that meets our criteria for inclusion, which is strict. qcne (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eckohaus: when you submit a draft, that's you effectively saying "this is ready to be published in the encyclopaedia". If you're not yet ready, then don't submit it for review.
I'm happy to revert my review and instead merely decline this draft (meaning that you can resubmit it later), if you can provide any indication that the subject is notable. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of things that merely exist, or a "publicly accessible database"; there must be something about the subject which makes it worthy of note, to justify its inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. I have serious doubts that a company employing one person and turning over c USD 3,500 p.a. would merit an article. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but until then my rejection stands.
Even then, there needs to be some actual content in the draft, not just an infobox and a few sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I must say your signature is quite confusing; your username is 'Eckohaus', but your signature shows it as 'corvin dhali'. I suggest you make it clearer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Eckohaus is the pseudonym of Corvin dhali. Hope that helps corvin dhali (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eckohaus isn't a pseudonym, it is the name of a company. Which puts you into conflict-of-interest territory. I've posted a message on your talk page about this, please read and action it.
Also, after it was explained to you in some detail why this draft wasn't suitable for publication, you then went and recreated it in the main article space at Eckohaus Limited. Please don't do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 10 February 2025 review of submission by GooseRevisions

[edit]

I need some help finding good reliable sources about Lucy the Lobster based on the article I have made today. I am sorry if it is a bother, but I spent a rather long time planning this article, and I need help desperately to make this article. GooseRevisions (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GooseRevisions What is the source of your desperation? Wikipedia has no deadlines.
Most of your sources seem to just document the findings of the lobster, and are not significant coverage about it as a cultural happening. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be more about the book than the lobster itself; maybe you should refocus it to be about the book, if you have professional reviews of the book. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. yes. I thought the draft would be deleted after some time. I just need to know what sources I can find to make this article improve. GooseRevisions (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be deleted after six months of no activity, but you can recover it if so via WP:REFUND, @GooseRevisions. qcne (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:10, 10 February 2025 review of submission by Macbook01

[edit]

Not sure how it's not notable enough.... it's all across American news and Chicago news. very well known in the Chicagoland community... Macbook01 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you should not just block my article I have spent a lot of time trying to write my first article and it is notable organization everyone that it associates with and who associated with them all have pages as well I provided sufficient evidence and you just come in and bully people. not nice. Macbook01 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to ask for help and am all for it. but you just don't like Christianity or something. please give advice instead of ruining all my work I've been doing for a month. Macbook01 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted my rejection of the draft, I will leave it for other reviewers to comment, but you seriously wasting everyone's time here. Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are wasting my time. it is notable per wiki guidelines by every measure.
you just don't like Christianity or something. I keep rewriting and rewriting and you just make fun of. that is not write. Macbook01 (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are targeting me by following any edit I do. that's called cyber-bullying and against wiki guidelines. I am not doing anything horrendous, just contributing like everyone else.
I appreciate your feedback a lot am thankful for it, but please give insight instead of acting like you are almighty wiki editor. Macbook01 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Macbook01 Please do not impugn the motivation of other editors("you just don't like Christianity"; "you are just bullying anything that is spiritual") unless you have hard, direct evidence. Unsupported accusations like that are personal attacks. Honest criticism of a draft does not indicate a personal dislike or bias against the subject. I understand that it can be frustrating when others are critical of something that you invested time in, but that doesn't mean what they say is invalid.
Your strong personal investment in this topic leads me to wonder if you are connected to this church in some way beyond perhaps being a parishioner.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word- like a notable organization. I'm glad that the church does good work, but Wikipedia is not for telling of good works. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Macbook01. Lets try and make this simple: give us three sources (and only three, no more and no less) that are each:
- independent of the church and not based on any interviews with church members or staff, nor are from publications with close links to the church.
- devote significant coverage to the church with some sort of analysis, discussion, commentary, debate, etc. We need more than just a single line.
- are from reliable places: mainstream news organisations and magazines for example. qcne (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one writes about analyzing a church for one. It's always about what the church is up to. Look at any wikipedia article on other churches, the coverage doesn't come in one biographical detail, this church has had significant impact and coverage throughout Chicago and in AP news for pictures, etc. hence I thought to write a Wiki article about them. The work of an organization is what any article is about so here are three random sources that talk about them the most as to what you want. There is a lot of news, tv, and radio coverage out there and what they've done - nothing strictly biographical. If this isn't sufficient for you, I understand. Just was shocked that this church didn't have a page after seeing it repeatedly in papers.
1. https://www.journal-topics.com/articles/with-open-arms-local-church-welcomes-residents-displaced-by-fire/
2.https://www.journal-topics.com/articles/lakewood-chapel-distributes-masks-to-community/
3.http://web.archive.org/web/20221108215227/https://www.univision.com/local/chicago-wgbo/comunidad-se-une-para-ayudar-a-los-damnificados-de-voraz-incendio-en-un-complejo-de-apartamentos
also another recent article just written I came across from something from the weekend:
https://www.dailyherald.com/20250207/news/arlington-heights-church-provides-temporary-shelter-to-victims-of-apartment-fire/
If this isn't good enough for Wiki, I get that. just crazy how much they're in the news about their outreaches. thanks for reaching out and explaining. Macbook01 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Macbook01. The issue with the first two sources is that they are derived mostly from interviews with the pastor / his family. The first source has a little more analysis, but really not enough to meet the "independent" criteria we're looking for.
The third source unfortunately isn't available for me in the UK.
The fourth source is okay for referencing the fire and their response to it.
Got three more sources that really meet the independent, significant coverage, and reliable critiera? qcne (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and for the record, the roadislong called me ridiculous and said I'm wasting everyone's time. that was being a jerk and I won't tolerate people trying to overpower woman like myself, it was a personal attack on me. hence I combatted.
anyways, no hate, all love. all is good from me. Macbook01 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Macbook1 It's not enough to just tell us what the church does. There needs to be discussion about what outside sources see as its overall impact- and not just the immediate impact on those the church helps. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and for the record when I said "this is getting ridiculous" I meant the repeated re-submission of a draft with no improvement, I did not call YOU ridiculous which would have been very impolite! Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the draft each time. there was improvement. look at the records... but all is good friend. Macbook01 (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
understood. I don't have time to comb through more articles about them so all is fine. their overall impact I think is very evident in the numerous different occasions about each time throughout the years but whatever. I don't have time to argue about it. Macbook01 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the overall record speaks volume and you put the collective of it all together and it's way better than a single piece. plus that's how churches get in the news.
anyways chow! Macbook01 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My genuine offer is still there, to go through three sources that meet our criteria, to see if we can prove it meets our notability criteria. Just let me know. qcne (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
will do. I'll do some further research in a few days when I have time. Macbook01 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to reach out on my user talk page, as this thread will be archived in a few days. qcne (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 10 February 2025 review of submission by 2600:4040:9984:700:F543:7094:119B:F21A

[edit]

I need help 2600:4040:9984:700:F543:7094:119B:F21A (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what help you are seeking, but you have essentially posted this man's resume, not a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:51, 10 February 2025 review of submission by Logicmaker10

[edit]

My submission was declined because of citations. I made the changes I believe are correction for citations. Can you please let me know if the citations issue has been corrected or if there is more work to do? Logicmaker10 (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it, the reviewer will answer this concern. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

[edit]

02:29, 11 February 2025 review of submission by BADAM SIVA REDDY

[edit]

what i want to do for creation of new article, can you give some suggestions. BADAM SIVA REDDY (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BADAM SIVA REDDY: None of your sources are acceptable. We don't cite LinkedIn (no editorial oversight), Facebook (same), or Wikipedia (circular reference). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:32, 11 February 2025 (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.
Unless you can find several places where people wholly unconnected with you have written about you in reliably published places, you are wasting your time. See WP:42.
Furthermore, writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so difficult and so rarely successful, that you are very strongly advised not to try. ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:06, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Afsal8943

[edit]

give advise Afsal8943 (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afsal8943: What's your connexion to the company? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:08, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Brashloki

[edit]

I updated all my information on this page, citing everything. I was wondering what I need to show proof of notability, and if there is any other information I need to consider. Brashloki (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brashloki: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
It's difficult to say what you would need in order to demonstrate notability as the possibilities are numerous, but in the context of academia, you would need to be a senior professor or perhaps the president of Florida State, as opposed to a 2nd year undergrad. That sort of things. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:53, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Ahmad A.Bajwa

[edit]

whats wrong with it? Ahmad A.Bajwa (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmad A.Bajwa: once more, in case you missed it: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Although I might also add that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get it know, no need to become Roald Dahl on Wikipedia but on Wikitionary I can. Right? 119.156.126.149 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:03, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Dira deli

[edit]

If I want to create an article about the Digital Sovereignty Stack, what should and should not be included? Can I use only news media or do I need to use journals related to this information? Dira deli (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dira deli: you should primarily summarise (in your own words, no copypasting) what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this subject, citing each source against the information it has provided. You may then supplement this with limited amount of straightforward and non-contentious factual information from primary sources, including ones close to the subject, but this must not form the bulk of the content: we have very little interest in what the subject, or sources closely associated with it, have to say about itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:13, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Simona Uzunova

[edit]

Hello, I keep getting rejected for this article. The latest update was that the topic (business) is not notable. Any advice on how to make this more relevant? I included some notable sources but it seems that it misses the point with your guidelines. Simona Uzunova (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simona Uzunova: there is no such thing as "notable sources". There are sources that can help establish the notability of a subject, but your draft cites none; they are all churnalism pieces published to promote your brand. (As is this draft, arguably.)
If you could find multiple independent and reliable secondary sources that have, entirely on their own initiative without any prompting or enticement by your company, decided to write at significant extent and depth about your business and what makes it stand out from among its peers as particularly worthy of note, then and only then you may be able to compose a draft that could be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you declare a source independent and reliable? Is there a rulebook that you follow? What is the criteria? Simona Uzunova (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:IS and WP:RS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is exactly wrong about the sources from our references, such as Forbes, The Times, Flaunt? Simona Uzunova (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simona Uzunova: even reliable sources (and for the sake of the argument, let's be generous and include Forbes in that) carry churnalism, advertorial, etc. content. Case in point: your Times article explicitly says "SPONSORED CONTENT" on top of it. It's blatantly obvious that these articles were written to promote products. Besides which, pieces like "10 Of The Best Gemstone Engagement Rings" are about your product (among many others), not about your company, and do not contribute towards your company's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article [3] merely includes a link to purchase a ring. We require sources with significant coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Irishaltoid

[edit]

I want to upload the corporation's logo and a screenshot of a KQED video that was produced about the organization's service. From my reading I understand these are non-free content and can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia, but when I try I get the message that I'm not authorized to do so. So I guess I need an editor to do it for me. I can provide the information for the description pages for both images. This last task will finish the draft so I can then submit it for review. Irishaltoid (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Irishaltoid: Images, while nice to have, are not crucial and whether there is a logo or not will not be a factor in whether there can be an article about the organisation. I'm fairly certain non-free images may not be added to drafts, but can't find the policy at the moment. In any case, I'm afraid the draft would not be accepted, with or without a logo, at the moment, since it does not show how the choir is notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. Please follow that link to see what is required. --bonadea contributions talk 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, per WP:NFCCP #9 non-free content is restricted to the main article space only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Don't the external links (which is only a partial list) point to the notability of the subject? I created the article because I kept encountering references to the organization in the media and found no information about it on Wikipedia. Irishaltoid (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Irishaltoid: if you want to rely on the sources listed in the 'External links' section for notability, you need to cite them as references. Reviewers may not necessarily even look at optional appendices like 'External links', 'Further reading', etc., since they by definition aren't what the draft content is based on.
On a more positive note, those sources at least are third parties, which is largely what we do want to see. Currently most of the citations are to the choir's own website. We don't really care what the subject wants to say about itself, but we very much do want (need) to see what others have said about it, especially in secondary sources. In that sense, the listed sources could help establish notability better than the currently-cited ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Prince md.ruhaanazam

[edit]

Advice How many references do I need for my Wikipedia article Prince md.ruhaanazam (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince md.ruhaanazam I placed a link to your draft where one is intended; you had the word "advice" there instead. This question is academic since your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further- but there isn't a specific number of references required. To pass this process, though, most reviewers look for at least three. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that this article does have WP:COATRACK concerns, given the only sections of any substance involve controversies the company was involved in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add from 6 sources provided 1-2 does not meet Wikipedia:ORGTRIV and 3-6 both WP:HEADLINES and WP:NOTNEWS as only passing by event described. There's many more in-sources notability exists but exclusively trivial (reg/closure info). That way no notability exists according to WP:ORG. If there'd be a news about they built something like a temple/castle/supermarket/etc., huge one or multiple times I'd doubt. Until then - I don't. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 11 February 2025 review of submission by EgmarIrausquin

[edit]

Hi guys, Is it possible to give examples of what is not sufficient with the article? I have tried to gather as many published sources and still get rejection. At the same time, I am getting email on another account of a branding company that can help with this submission. Is this Wikipedia a commercial page? I want to know this, as I have been donating all this time. I will stop this. EgmarIrausquin (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not respond to the email or give anyone money- that is an attempt to scam you. See WP:SCAM. If you still have the email, please forward it as described there.
The issue is that you have not demonstrated that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. This is why the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further.
I see that you claim you personally created the logo of the company and personally hold the copyright to it- is that the case? If you work for the company, the Terms of Use require you to make a paid editing disclosure. Please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a company, it is a non-profit foundation. (has a notary paper this) I am a designer(i have a degree),so I designed the logo. Where do I send these proofs? EgmarIrausquin (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you did design the logo, that's fine. No proof is needed beyond your already existing statement with the image. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EgmarIrausquin: I'll start with your later points. If someone has contacted you to ask for money in exchange for getting an article published, it's almost certainly a scam, see WP:SCAM. My advice would be not to touch it with a barge pole.
I don't know what exactly you mean by "commercial page", but there is nothing to pay at any stage of reading or editing Wikipedia. The WikiMedia Foundation, which develops the software and keeps the servers running, and a few other things besides, is known to raise funds from users by various means, but it has no direct link to Wikipedia editing or editors, and none of us ever see any of it as we're all volunteers here. Whether or not you choose to donate to the Foundation is your business, and has no bearing on anything here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems 'odd' to say the least, that the same moment my page is rejected, that another email account linked to the page of the foundation is used to offer me help with submission of that same page that just got rejected. The email does not state that it wants money, but the text.. if this is something you's like to explore, please let me know. coming from a company name (ltd) gives me the impression that a price is coming once I say let's explore this option. EgmarIrausquin (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scammers monitor this page to find people to offer their "services" to. While there are above-board companies offering Wikipedia editing services, most people who contact those trying to get a draft accepted just want your money. No one can make any guarantees to you(such as guaranteeing their work will not be deleted). 331dot (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
got it. thanks EgmarIrausquin (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is "odd", but unfortunately not at all unusual. The WP:SCAM advice is there, and many of involved in reviewing drafts highlight it on our user pages, for a good reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are everywhere. thanks EgmarIrausquin (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Fruitsnackglasses

[edit]

This article was rejected on review based on the sources I used, and I wanted to get some clarification on which sources are appropriate.

I understand that citing CoinDesk and Decrypt may not rise to the level of reliability we are looking for. The rest are Forbes/Bloomberg/Wall Street Journal articles -- the specific feedback I received was not to source articles that are rewritten press releases and I now recognize this. Though a few of the others are longer pieces written in trusted publications (Forbes/Bloomberg/Wall Street Journal), and so these are fine, correct?

I plan on editing and trying again, but with number of sources I need to remove, does this topic no longer rise to a level of notability to be posted in the first place?

Also, smaller question -- is there a source of info I clearly neglected to go to that you would have used instead?

Thanks for your help! Fruitsnackglasses Fruitsnackglasses (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If all you have is the reporting of the routine business activities of this exchange, I would say that it is not notable at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to look at WP:CORPTRIV which details many of the things that are considered trivial coverage rather than significant coverage in the context of sourcing information about a corporation. For example, simple reporting of a capital transaction falls into this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Abidrahman10

[edit]

Dear [Wikipedia Team],

I hope this message finds you well. My recent submission for a Wikipedia profile was declined, citing that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. I fully understand Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and would greatly appreciate your advice on how to better meet these criteria.

Here is a brief summary of my background: • I am a 16-year-old entrepreneur and the founder of multiple ventures, including Artisto Designs, where I provided employment opportunities to two people. • I currently serve as a resource person at Talrop, a master tutor at Steyp, and a creator master trainer at Whoyer. • My entrepreneurial journey and activities in EdTech, digital marketing, and youth mentorship have received significant attention within my community.

Could you please advise how I can strengthen my profile’s notability? Specifically: • What kind of coverage or third-party sources would help establish notability? • Are there particular accomplishments or milestones I should focus on to improve eligibility?

Thank you for your time and guidance. I look forward to your feedback.

Best regards, Mukhthar N. Abidrahman10 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not host "profiles", it is not social media. If you want to write a profile of yourself, please use actual social media to do that. Writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is strongly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. A Wikipedia article is also not necessarily something to desire. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about topics that meet our criteria, called "notability", like a notable person. You sound like a bright young man and I wish you well on your future, but you should proceed with your life as if you had never heard of Wikipedia- if you truly merit an article, someone will eventually write it. Trying to force the issue is not likely to work. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:23, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Apilger2

[edit]

Good morning! I am looking for a more detailed reason as to why this draft was rejected. In the rejection list, the editor listed a lack of secondary/independent sources. However, nearly half of my sources are independent research studies. What can I do to improve this article? Apilger2 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Apilger2! Do telling 'nearly half of my sources' you mean you are the article author, who disclosed his WP:COI? If yes, you still be wisd to read how to deal with it, 'cause now it looks like you violated it some way (i.e. "When large amounts of text are added to an article on behalf of the article subject..."). If not - not half, but all links you added looks really dependant of subject or, at least, non-objective, i.e.:
  • lww: no word about company or it's product, as one as: "Patients/Participants: Twenty-nine pediatric patients who sustained a diaphyseal femoral shaft fracture were included in the study... Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV."
  • jbjs:"Conflicts of Interest form, which is provided with the online version of the article, the author checked “yes” to indicate that the author had other relationships or activities that could be perceived to influence, or have the potential to influence, what was written in this work"
  • award 1: trivial news. Expo is just a paid event who can be joined by anyone, which means if they were only ones who participated, it's obvious they are winners. Expo itselc was one managed by TRIDEC where competed only ones from 108.96 sq mi area, which does not look much great.
  • award 2 have also not much selective criteria: "Eligibility
The competition is open to any patent owners, patent applicants, or patent licensees. Applicants may team together to submit a single joint application as long as at least one applicant meets the eligibility criteria.", which means any patent holder can take a part. Same - if they were only who submitted application, describing how they good, that it's not a wonder they won a prize "for distributing low-cost fracture implants to speed healing in developing world hospitals." (Who competed them? What does that award means except they patented something and sold it?).
As of doi.org links provided initially:
  • doi 1: does not describe company itself, but their product use, as one as "Limitations None of the studies described herein are randomised control trials, rather they are highly heterogeneous and many only consider one of the therapeutic methods under discussion..."
  • doi 2: same not about company, but it's product, as one aS:"The limitation of the study however was the lack of comparative group and lack of adequate follow-up in 29% of the study population.7 Caalim & Reyes conducted a local prospective clinical series in 30 patients"
As a suggestion of improvement - make company and it's president names cite less then over 70 and about 30 times through whole the article, make history (it's nos about president and products (that makes think article is about patented technology and not about company) and services (which looks like WP:PROMO) and other not clearly related to company itself much lEss or just change the subje t of what article is about (i.e. invention itself, which article is mostly followed now) - otherwise it looks like WP:COATRACK.
What I see now about company itself is only: "It was created by president who was inspired by his own experience at Vietnam War to distribute cheap and alternate care site useful internal fixation implants he patended, that still however need additional effectiveness approvement that's why mostly (exclusively?) being distributed outside U.S. where exactly such local studies last." however I don't see here much WP:ORG enough. So please suggest any if you have supporting it with WP:RS.
All other looks for me as WP:PROMO of company products and services, that is WP:NOT. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what the IP says above; they pretty much nailed it on the head. This is more an investment brochure and not a neutrally-written encyclopaedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Oktawiusz

[edit]

I would like to publish "Renée Théobald". What must I do ? Oktawiusz (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oktawiusz, click the big blue Submit draft for review! button. qcne (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, it has no sources at the moment and would not be accepted. Please add sources and follow the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. qcne (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:08, 11 February 2025 review of submission by Gzbpu72

[edit]

It seems strange that articles on the NYT and many other major media outlets are not "sufficient coverage" (see list in the article). Be aware that this is a prominent public official who has been charged by the secret services, hence the evaluation may suffer from political bias. Gzbpu72 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gzbpu72, I haven't evaluated the draft but the glaring omission is that many parts have no in-line citations to sources. In a biography, it is mandatory that every piece of information must be accompanied with an in-line citation to a reliable source. I would have declined it on that basis.
Could you fix that, ensuring that every piece of information is cited, and then we can take another look? qcne (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gzbpu72, you mention the NYT right off the bat as if we are going to be impressed by coverage in the New York Times . I happen to be a subscriber to the New York Times and this is what the cited article says about Lo Voi: Ms. Meloni said Rome’s chief prosecutor, Francesco Lo Voi, was also investigating Italy’s justice minister, Carlo Nordio; Italy’s interior minister, Matteo Piantedosi; and the interior under secretary, Alfredo Mantovano and later Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini pointed out in a post on X that Mr. Lo Voi was the same prosecutor who had taken him to court in Palermo, Sicily, on charges that Mr. Salvini had illegally refused to allow a boat carrying migrants to dock in Italy five years ago. That is two passing mentions and neither provides any detail about Lo Voi, but rather just repeat criticisms leveled by his opponents. That is not significant coverage. You cite The Daily Guardian and Zeit Online, neither of which mentions Lo Voi and Al Jazeera which mentions him only fleetingly. On the other hand, the Il Sole 24 Ore source actually provides significant coverage of Lo Voi. So, I recommend that you get rid of the poor quality references and emphasize the higher quality ones. Quality is vastly more important than quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 11 February 2025 review of submission by 2001:569:BDF7:8500:E448:E06B:D2A6:E1B7

[edit]

Im having trouble knowing where I make improvements to our submission.

I would appreciate any help that you could provide.

(One of the past reviewers suggested that our article was created using AI. I can assure you that this article has been the work of 2 separate authors adding and editing and correcting each others contributions.) 2001:569:BDF7:8500:E448:E06B:D2A6:E1B7 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The first two sentences of the draft state "The Oaklands neighbourhood is one of 12 neighbourhoods in the City of Victoria [1], British Columbia [2], on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. The Oaklands is approximately 173 hectares in area and is centrally located along Victoria's northern border with the District of Saanich [3]." What are [1], [2], and [3] meant to represent? GoingBatty (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:16, 11 February 2025 review of submission by MD RADUAN ABDULLAH ISHRAK

[edit]

i wanna create a person profile for wiki. what should i do MD RADUAN ABDULLAH ISHRAK (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use social media; Wikipedia does not host "profiles". Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. It looks like you are trying to write about yourself, this js highly discouraged. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MD RADUAN ABDULLAH ISHRAK: An infobox-only "article" is never going to be accepted. Nor is an article on a living person that is completely unsourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 12

[edit]

04:51, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Stimma

[edit]

Please kindly tell me the particular season, that you declined the submission of this article. I doubt if you have ability to read Chinese original scholar works or new. Stimma (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think most problem is references 1&3 does not work telling "Link has expired" and 2nd is 2020 Jin Yan's Book Review by "Life Advice for Urban Youth" column (press release? Promo?). But WP:NOTPROMO. taking in view this only reference being opened is subject-dependant it's not qualitative enough. Therefore when no qualitative refs it's WP:V violation you have not do ever according to WP:BLP. Please provide qualitative sources approving her WP:NOTEabilify. That's for beginning. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stimma, the references in your draft consist of two dead links and one possibly reliable source that provides significant coverage of Jin Yan. That's not enough. Either correct the dead links or remove them. More references to reliable, independent sources are needed. Setting aside the issue of the poor quality of your references, the text of your draft fails to make a convincing case that Jin Yan meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Not every professor is notable. She may be notable, but you have not yet established it. As for your comment I doubt if you have ability to read Chinese original scholar works or new, please be aware that Google Translate is a perfectly adequate tool for helping to evaluate your English Wikipedia draft. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 12 February 2025 review of submission by FluraFlu

[edit]

Hi, does Johan Gaume not fulfil the 7. criterion (substantial impact outside academia) with the Dyatlov Pass investigation? FluraFlu (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FluraFlu: based on what you've said about it in the Draft:Johan_Gaume#Explanation_for_the_accident_on_the_Dyatlov_Pass section, I wouldn't think so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if I add the explanation for the accident there? I didn't do this because the ‘Dyatlov Pass incident’ has its own article. FluraFlu (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FluraFlu: I'm saying that co-authoring a paper positing a theory on one incident doesn't IMO amount to "substantial impact". Happy to hear others' views on this, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @FluraFlu. No, it won't help any way, as this will be just a WP:COATRACK that doesn't affect notability of article subject. This fact is just tells he coauthored some theory (and not i.e. approved it, revealing the event secret having place for decades - that would be really notable) and no more, that doesn't look notable - i.e. Flat Earth is also just a ghosting theory but it's ancient author hardly notable (I mean he would if would be ever written about/known, but (s)he's just unknown, that's why not notable), it's modern revealer is really notable, but mostly because he have a numerous followers of his theory until now - when centuries passed - and even wrote a quite convincing [for time when noone saw earth from space] book, that they I bet read as bible - when Johan Gaume's theory will be same widely worldwide and in time believed (that can be counted as 'almost approved' or 'mostly believed as true' even if not in fact) - then - yep - he probably can be notable because of it - but not now, when that's just a theory he with coauthor only believe in. Still try to read WP:BIO to know what you really need for him to be notable enough. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:03, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Internationaltraderesearch

[edit]

How is the article suppose to be written Internationaltraderesearch (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Internationaltraderesearch: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. This is essentially just a CV/resume, and quite promotional at that. You can post such content on LinkedIn and the like. Here we're almost exclusively interested in what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this person and what makes him worthy of note. This draft cites no such source.
What is your relationship with the subject? A conflict of interest query has been posted on your talk page, but you don't seem to have responded to it. Please do so now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Anne Bachmann

[edit]

Hi, I've had several several drafts about philanthropy and social science accepted but this one got rejected and the feedback seems a bit generic. I wonder what I should do since the person already has a book talk about them, various TV and tier 1 media appearances etc. Any help appreciated. Anne Bachmann (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Bachmann: the feedback is generic, because it's based on a template (so that we don't have to write the same stuff over and over thousands of times). This decline was for lack of notability. If you're asserting notability as an author, the relevant guideline is WP:AUTHOR, which basically requires significant career achievements in writing. The alternative is general notability per WP:GNG, which needs significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent. Note that this person's media appearances may not be what we're looking for, because that would typically mean him being interviewed or otherwise commenting on things; only coverage which is about him counts towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Enriccb2004

[edit]

My article was rejected, due to lack of reliable sources? I added a lot of sources, which ones are not reliable? Also it said that my article was awkwardly structured and with unnecessary lists (btw I found this comment offensive not sure what are Wikipedia guidelines but I never talk to anyone like this) it did not provide additional information on why so I am note sure what should I do differently Enriccb2004 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We write using prose not endless lists of information your draft is also blatant advertising, is there a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "blatant" advertising, explain a product and cite what third party sources say about it? why conflict of interest? Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says it is rejected because lack of reliable sources, but I have 18 sources in the article.
- Some of them are websites of global well known entities like WWF, ASEAN, Agoda or Booking Holdings. those should be reliable.
- Some of them are well known publications in the travel industry like Skif, WiT, TTR Weekly. In the travel industry are very well respected.
- Others like The Business Times are well known media publications in Asia that should not raise any doubt about the reliability of their content.
- It cannot be that there are not reliable sources: there are plenty and with solid credentials. Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of your sources are press releases which are NOT reliable indpendent sources and will need removing/replacing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if for example there is 1 or 2 that are considered not reliable, then the whole article is rejected? Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please use reply link after a message to reply and not creating new request form. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your very next edit on Wikipedia needs to disclose your paid editing status on your user page as requested. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Me? What article are you talking about? 83.142.111.118 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enriccb2004 has a VERY clear conflict of interest editing using his own name, he is required to disclose this on his user page as part of the terms and conditions. Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is this line referred to? Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it coincidence that all of references are about Agoda?
Isn't whole article about agoda planning to donate 1-1,5M$ to WWF and nothing more? article looks like clear promotion of Agoda. But WP:NOTPROMO. At current level of notability (that is none now out of agoda) you can just add one phrase about 1M donation and it's naming (Eco Deals) to Agoda - no need to create separate article. Also you can just create a redirect there with current name and done. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not about Agoda planning to Donate to WWF. It is a product launched in partnership with WWF Enriccb2004 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By whom? 83.142.111.118 (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it seems you guys cannot understand it from what is written, I will go and get some help to write it again Enriccb2004 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please disclose your conflict of interest first. Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You already have a suggestion below how to make article following WP:NPOV you can use or not. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how hotels and south asia categories connected to worldwide programme for saving wildlife? If only it's still about Singapurian hotel company exactly? Suggestion: clear any info abourlt agoda and focus on programme itself - imo only after it anyone will review it in detail. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 12 February 2025 review of submission by Marinheiro

[edit]

General help with declined biography? I've had my first attempt at a biography - Draft:Sajida Haider Vandal - declined by User:greenman. While I am grateful for the very speedy response, I see User:greenman has a lot on his plate and am wondering if anyone else could talk me through the submission process for biographies? (the decline was for 'insufficient sourcing' unsurprisingly, with specific reference to the birth date, but I have specific questions related to this: firstly for Infobox:person, how can I remove the month and day of birth (which I cannot source without referring to Facebook or other non-acceptable sources) and leave the year of birth (which I can source)? Second, the review says 'statements need to be sourced or removed'. I don't know from this which statements the reviewer considers need to be sourced, or maybe better sourced? If several statements come from the same source, do I need to put a footnote to that same source for each of them? Is the subject's own CV a valid source, if it is held publicly on a UNESCO web site? Thanks for any advice about any of these questions! Marinheiro (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your header to provide the link to your draft as intended(and remove a link to "general help"). 331dot (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on comment below denial box - and try to understand it. There's everything clearly described. 83.142.111.118 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:20, 12 February 2025 review of submission by 212.171.213.221

[edit]