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

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 4

[edit]

06:41, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Type1type2

[edit]

Hello. I would like to ask for advice on how to make the following amendments on this page: 1. Comment received: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you." > I have already used footnotes to cite each source. What do you recommend?

2. Comment received: "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." > Each source was verified as valid when I was making the page, but now it is not the case. How can I rectify this?

Thank you for your support in advance. Type1type2 (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kimchi and Chips
@Type1type2: Your draft has several problems as written by the reviewer. Large sections are unreferenced and a couple of the references are not reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not for promoting yourself or any entities that you are associated with, and everything that is written has to be sourced. You have to find additional sources that support the article and add them with inline citations. Also, if you do have a conflict-of-interest, it needs to be disclosed as written here. cyberdog958Talk 06:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you very much for your quick reply and the helpful information. Will get onto it. 220.72.234.218 (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:37, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Wangu Kanja

[edit]

I am nor familiar with the inline citations. Would you help? Wangu Kanja (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can get help by reading WP:REFB, please also remove the weird random bolding of words. Theroadislong (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:39, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Jonas Ruškus

[edit]

Hi, I don't know how to proceed with the draft for creating the page. I would be very happy to get your support. Thank you Jonas Jonas Ruškus (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero independent reliable sources? Theroadislong (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's inadvisable for you to write about yourself, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Andriuspetrulevic

[edit]

Can you explain more detail why my application was rejected? Thanks. Andriuspetrulevic (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andriuspetrulevic: this draft was declined (not 'rejected') for the reason given in the decline notice, namely that it fails to establish notability. The sources cited are user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. We need to see what multiple independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this business and what makes it worthy of note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Anagarcia2000

[edit]

Still, it is in draft and i don't want to move it to main space until and unless i got go ahead from reviewers, Kindly review it on neutral basis, last time it was rejected and deleted due to some sock puppet accounts, if all OK this time i ll move it to main space then, Thanks for considering my request, If there are still loopholes kindly advise me i will rectify draft but it is my humble request to reconsider its review on neutral basis not on past comments. Anagarcia2000 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anagarcia2000 the draft has been rejected and will not be considered - please do not move to mainspace, it will just be put up for deletion again. qcne (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well noted Anagarcia2000 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Nalemayehu

[edit]

Hi, are interviews insufficient as sources? I thought that would be enough, or is the issue that I didn't include enough of them. Nalemayehu (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews do not establish notability, as they are the person speaking about themselves. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about her, not what she says about herself. Notability is established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
Interviews can be in articles, but as a supplement to what others say about her. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Adrifdo.sdl

[edit]


Hi My artcle was rejected and its stated do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Need your support Adrifdo.sdl (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page you say "Hi What about the payments?" Could you explain what you meant by this? Theroadislong (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought i need make some payments to publish it. Adrifdo.sdl (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adrifdo.sdl no this is not a paid advertising website. It is an encyclopedia on notable topics, as defined by our guidelines and policies at WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia does not accept payments to publish anything. There are people who will offer to take your money and write an article, but most of them are scams, and the honest ones will tell you that they cannot guarantee to get an article about you accepted, or that such an article will say what you want it to say.
Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia.
An article about you is possible only if several people, wholly unconnected with you, have chosen to write about you and been published by reliable publishers. Any article should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources say about you (good and bad), not on what you or your associates say or want to say. If suitable sources do not exist, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the support team! 112.134.229.243 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Fardin Sheikh Tiham

[edit]

What are the necessary requirements for this page to get published. Please tell me, I would be grateful. Fardin Sheikh Tiham (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Fardin Sheikh Tiham. As far as I can see, every one of your sources is from the subject or somebody associated with him (festivals he has exhibited at etc), or is from an unreliable source such as imdb. 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.
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) 16:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for enlighting me. Fardin Sheikh Tiham (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Jojo815

[edit]

I would like to better understand the reason my draft was declined for Artist and organization director Salome Asega (Draft:Salome Asega). Safariscribe [the reviewer] discussed notability, but as my citations show, this artist has been profiled by distinguished media sources such as The New York Times, Ebony Magazine, and Guernica Magazine, as well as highly regarded specialized art magazines such as Artforum, Cultured Magazine, Apollo Magazine, and Artnews. She is the director of an important New York cultural institution (New Inc.) that is part of the New Museum of Contemporary Art, a preeminent contemporary arts institution in the United States. Could someone please clarify by what standard this person is not "notable," given that information provided is verifiable by well-regarded sources, and that there is significant coverage of this artist/art director's work? Jojo815 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jojo815. In Draft:Salome Asega (note, you need the "Draft:" in the link), you make some of the classic mistakes of editors who plunge into the challenging task of creating a new article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works.
A source can be as reliable as you like, but if it is not independent of the subject, it has limited value, and does not contribute to establishing notability. The artnews piece, for example, simply quotes Asega's words, and doesn't say anything substantive about her.
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.
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) 16:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jojo815: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Most of what you cite is in some way connected to her. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jéské Couriano,
In response:
"I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/arts/design/new-inc-new-museum-incubator.html"
– here is a gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/arts/design/new-inc-new-museum-incubator.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uk4.4ybt.1jpO9ullLjaB&smid=url-share The New York Times is a global publication and leading source of credible information across the world, and cited widely across Wikipedia, and this article profiles the subject and organization she runs, deeming her notable.
"https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/times-square-new-york-punk-show-new-museums-cultural-incubator-new-inc-1234680698/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). This is about art museums that recently opened and doesn't discuss Asega in any real depth."
—This is not true—as the headline shows, "the New Museum’s Cultural Incubator Shows Off Its Versatility" —the article refers directly to the organization Asega runs and discusses her leadership; "New Museum’s Cultural Incubator" IS New Inc. I think you may have misread the article.
Wikipedia:Notability guidelines does not state that interviews are unreliable. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies. These articles are not produced by the subject or someone affiliated with the subject. An interview with expository text at the beginning published by a legitimate reliable source is none of these categories.
"We can't use https://www.artforum.com/news/new-museum-taps-salome-asega-to-lead-cultural-incubator-new-inc-250207/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're leery of role/absent bylines because of how frequently they're used to launder fake news.)"
Artforum is the preeminent cultural magazine in the United States and Europe — their news section does not include individual bylines as it is published by the News Desk. Jojo815 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 4 February 2025 review of submission by 136.57.86.224

[edit]

We cannot reject this draft! 136.57.86.224 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With not a shred of sourcing we could do nothing but reject the draft. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not predict the future. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Horophile

[edit]

Hi! I am unsure why this draft article doesn't satisfy the "reliability" element. Horophile (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess because of a distinct lack of secondary sources and a proliferation of primary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 4 February 2025 review of submission by Tressbo59

[edit]

Hello, I have reviewed the sources of this article two times and added external and tracable sources for all the information in this small article. I am a bit lost in how to make it better... could you please let me know specifically what is missing ? Thank you very much! Tressbo59 (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources are still not independent of the association. 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) 13:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:30, 4 February 2025 review of submission by 66.64.11.115

[edit]

I would like to edit/modify to ensure it falls within policy guidelines. Our attempt is to document the efforts of Chris Taylor "Top 10" in Worldwide Karaoke Championships, not promotion of a company, individual or otherwise. 66.64.11.115 (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be better off just writing a biography on Taylor wholesale. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

draft:Ramkripalyadavg_(YouTuber) 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]

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]

Request 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]

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]

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]

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]

23:47, 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) 23:47, 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]

February 10, 2025

[edit]

07: 34, February 10, 2025 review of submission by qcne

[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]

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]
@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]