Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 29 << Mar | April | May >> May 1 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


April 30

[edit]

03:01, 30 April 2024 review of submission by 666djbirl

[edit]

leave me allone or i will report u 

666djbirl (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts (both the listed one and a userspace one) courtesy-blanked and tagged G10. We have zero tolerance for using Wikipedia to further your petty schoolground disputes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 03:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:06, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Stevienetto

[edit]

Hi there, am reaching out to understand better why my drafts keep getting declined. It has been really frustrating because the editors/reviewers haven't been helpful to disclose where exactly the issue lies and how it can be remedied. I had the pleasure of communicating with this one person (CanonNi - sorry, don't know how to tag them) to sort out everything, but everyone seems to have their own standards and it feels impossible to get it right.

This is what I replied to the latest person who declined my article: I've disclosed said COI as I'm an employer of the company. Just wish to note how unproductive this nitpicking has been. Firstly, I firmly believe the words used describe the company as a whole, and they are all factual instead of advertorial. There are literally tons of big names/organisations out there with similar tone/language on their published articles. In fact, there are even many that sounds way too promotional and boastful to even be out?

Secondly, I've been in discussion with an editor over the past 24 hours trying to sort out the issue of adding more reliable sources and just earlier the person said everything seems to be in order. At this point, I honestly don't know what else is there to add on to prove? Everything is publicly available on our website and socials, but they're not deemed "independent" and "reliable". Is it expected that every single info has to be reported by the press or be talked about in some case studies?

Thirdly, wouldn't it be more helpful for experienced editors to actually provide direct feedback and suggestions rather than just stating something in general because it seems so difficult for us, contributors, to fulfill every single requirement here - especially when different editor/reviewer has their own interpretations and styles. What's stopping you for approving this and the next person from declining despite me going over and over again on the very same point. And let's not forget the inconsistency on reasonings - one minute it would be regarding COI, then the next one would be about sources (despite edits already been made) Stevienetto (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stevienetto You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
You have done a nice job summarizing the activities and accolades of the company- the thing is, that's not what we are looking for. An article about a company must primarily 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. Some primary sourced information is acceptable(like location, staff, number of employees, etc.) but such sources do not establish notability. Wikipedia is looking for significant coverage- that goes beyond the mere reporting of the activities of the company and goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about the company, not what the company sees as important about itself. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Tony Award or Pritzker Prize).
Your draft just summarizes the routine business activities of the company and its accolades, nothing about how independent sources view this company and what they see as notable about it. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevienetto: this draft is basically the company telling the world about itself, which is the definition of promotion. Such content may be appropriate for the company's website or pitch deck etc., but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent and reliable third parties have said about the company and what makes it worthy of note. We have no interest in a blow-by-blow account of the company's milestones or business awards, etc. Give us something of encyclopaedic value, as defined by someone who isn't connected with the business. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stevienetto In case it helps, there are a few minor issues with the content that would help in getting it accepted. You have an external link within the text - that should be removed for a start. In my opinion, removing the whole "Awards" section would also make it sound less like you are trying to promote the company. The rest of the advice from DoubleGrazing is good. Deb (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:06, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Peanutlover2024

[edit]

He is in the TV Show SHOGUN as a regular role. he was selected No.7 favorite character in the series. Isn't it enough to be acknowledge as a known person? He is also in the Hollywood Film Silent and others. Peanutlover2024 (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peanutlover2024 What is your connection with this actor? You took a very professional looking image of him(as you claim on the image page) and he posed for you.
Please see the messages left by the reviewer. The sources do not seem to support the idea that he meets the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 30 April 2024 review of submission by 190.21.171.147

[edit]

I can't submit the draft, the article is protected and it has everything to be approved 190.21.171.147 (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is as intended- consensus is that a standalone article is not warranted for this topic, and the protection was necessary to prevent further disruptive editing. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Jagriti10

[edit]

let me know the reason of rejection Jagriti10 (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jagriti10: this draft was declined (not 'rejected') for the reason given in the decline notice, namely that there is no evidence that the subject is notable. (Additionally, it is insufficiently referenced, but that's not why it was declined on this occasion.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out on the guidelines and you can check as well that i've done the film "KAASHI in search of ganga" by visiting their wikipedia. or refer below Kaashi in Search of Ganga Jagriti10 (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jagriti10 I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). What help is it that you are seeking? 331dot (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not create a new section for every post, please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jagriti10: You have one source, and it's one we can't use (unknown provenance). Even if it were a good source, one source by itself cannot support an article on any topic on Wikipedia, and articles/content about living people have stricter sourcing requirements than most any other topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 17:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi

[edit]

Hello, I still do not understand your comments. I am looking at other artists and cannot see any differences of what I wrote. Please tell me where I did wrong. Where something is not right according to you that other artists are OK like this. Thank you for a more detailed help or comments Jpgroppi (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and we simply haven't addressed them yet. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on others that themselves may be inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles and have been vetted by the community. If you want to help us identify and address other inappropriate articles, please identify the ones you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help.
Please note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Student7y335

[edit]

Hello, I have attempted to respond to the feedback provided with over 20 independent, primary sources, exactly as indicated by this user. This one of the world's most prominent investment firms. Why was this draft rejected without explanation? Student7y335 (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student7y335 A reason was left, "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". It just describes the routine business activities of the company and tells about the founder. These things do not establish that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. That would require significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the company or its personnel and goes into detail about what independent sources see as important/significant/influential about this company. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to provide that - if I add those details can I submit? This is one of the fastest growing venture capital firms in history, with over $2 billion in assets. It is more noteworthy than 80% of the existing VC firms on Wikipedia. This rejection seems extremely biased and selective. Student7y335 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Student7y335: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Discounting the two paywalled sources, you have nothing for Bedrock and a couple of sources for Lewis. Assuming he doesn't already have an article, you'd be better off pivoting to writing an article on Lewis. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 04:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking so much time to respond, it is very helpful.
I am even more confused because tt seems there is a catch-22: higher-quality journalism sites (Bloomberg, NY Times), which are providing the kind of in-depth coverage you require, are paywalled-- which is logical, because charging for access to their work product allows them to sufficiently compensate their reporters and invest in a rigorous investigation process. However, it seems Wikipedia editors reject anything with a paywall because of the lack of access.
Of the non-paywalled outlets, you reject most of them for quality standards.
Thus, if Wikipedia editors reject anything *with* a paywall, and anything *without* a paywall because it is below your quality standards, what is a viable path forward? Is there another method to reference high-quality sources behind paywalls?
Alternately, can you provide examples of non-paywalled business reporting outlets that Wikipedia accepts? Student7y335 (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Student7y335: "I can't assess this source" means exactly that - I can't actually read the source and tell you if it is good or bad. Someone with a subscription to Bloomberg or the NYT that can read those sources should be the ones to assess them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources in biography of an artist\band

[edit]

Hi beautiful people, my question is, what can be considered as a 'Reliable Sources' in case I’m writing an article about am emerging artist\band? Max Elliott1 (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Elliott1 Your use of the term "emerging artist/band" strongly suggest that this artist or band is not yet notable. A band/artist (I assume "artist" in this context is a musician) must have already arrived and been noticed by independent reliable sources in order to merit an article, as sources must show that the band/artist meets the definition of a notable band/musician. Another way to put it is that Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 331dot, thanks for that. Out of the definition of a notable band/musician I have a paragraph 5 that complies with that rules: 'has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)'
Can I somehow confirm this in the article? Should I provide links to releases? Max Elliott1 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Max Elliott1 If the band meets criterion #5, that means that they would merit an article- then you just need to gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage that discuss the band(i.e. not interviews, not just announcements of their performances/release of albums). You can link to something showing that they released the albums(but not something offering it for sale or a music video). 331dot (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'(but not something offering it for sale or a music video)' - Would an interview or a review of one of her latest releases work? Max Elliott1 (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for example,
https://www.esccovers.com/karry-g-releases-hot-new-shadow-ep/
or https://stylefocus.eu/2023/10/27/karry-g-dj-from-ukraine-presents-a-trilogy-of-tracks/ Max Elliott1 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interview might be okay just to show that an album was released, but a review by a music critic/professional reviewer would be better. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think inline citation of the interview inside the article would be sufficient? Max Elliott1 (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while I don't myself write articles about musicians, that should be the way to go. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, it will work out. Thanks very much for helping! Max Elliott1 (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Iyoung24

[edit]

The organisation I work for has changed its name - I am trying to get this clarified on Wikipedia, either by renaming the page (Big Society Capital) or creating a new page (Better Society Capital) and redirecting from the old page (Better Society Capital). I have not written any new content myself so cannot be accused of lack of neutrality! Iyoung24 (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyoung24 A title change is accomplished with a page move; that may be requested at Requested Moves- though be advised that we don't necessarily go by official or legal names, but what the most commonly used name is(it certainly could be your orgnaization's new name, just saying). 331dot (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft names are also provisional at best. If the subject is better known by a different name or the name is typo'd, then that will be taken into account by the reviewer who accepts the draft as they move it into mainspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Solaristhemainvocal

[edit]

What needs to be corrected? Solaristhemainvocal (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Solaristhemainvocal: You have one source. That is not enough to support an article on any topic on Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 30 April 2024 review of submission by 155.186.0.51

[edit]

i want the text to speech to pronounce the word 155.186.0.51 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has no references, and has such been declined. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 30 April 2024 review of submission by XSSDestroy3R

[edit]

How can I edit my article so it will be accepted?

Hello! I recently made my first wikipedia article about a website, called pwn.guide (Draft:Pwn.guide). It got rejected because "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.". Do you have any idea, what exactly to edit, so it gets approved? Thanks! XSSDestroy3R (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XSSDestroy3R I fixed your post, you had a question where the link to your draft should go, The whole url is not needed, either. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have no sources in your draft other than the website itself. A Wikipedia article about a website must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the website, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable website. We don't want to know what it says about itself, we want to know what others choose to say about it. Please see Your First Article. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; I might also suggest using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia, and perhaps spending time editing existing articles, to get a feel for what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XSSDestroy3R: All of your references are to Pwn guide itself. We require in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss Pwn guide at length, are written by identifiable authors, and have been subjected to rigourous editorial processes, including fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Hamid barani

[edit]

Hello dear, is this article well written? Hamid barani (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanid barani Hello. What is your connection with this person? You claim to have taken a very professional looking image of this man, and he posed for you.
The reviewer will provide you with feedback. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Jemecee02

[edit]

What do I need to do? Jemecee02 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ths reviewer left you a message as to what needs to be done. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jemecee02: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
The sourcing isn't all that great, but you do have some usable sources. The draft's composition also needs work; it reads like an advertizement for the book rather than a neutral summary of it and its reviews (contrast Drama dari Krakatau or La Peau de chagrin). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted
Thank you Jemecee02 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Desearcher

[edit]

I don't quiet understand why I can't use descriptive method to describe what the company does. Also why is it considered spam if the company is real? Please help me navigate to publish info about my company Desearcher (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Desearcher: DISCLOSE. This draft reads like an investment brochure aimed at businesspeople, not an encyclopaedia article aimed at Mark from Miami. You're conflating "spam" with "scam". Your sourcing is also incredibly poor; anything the company puts out is useless for notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Desearcher as you say you own the company, it is mandatory that you make a paid editing disclosure by following the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so is a breach of the Wikimedia Terms and Conditions and will lead to your account being blocked.
Please note that only companies who are notable by our standards merit a Wikipedia article. Qcne (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 30 April 2024 review of submission by LukeHahnsol0

[edit]

I have included a source link for every piece of information referenced in the article. The individual has achieved hall of fame status in numerous organizations, thus demonstrating notoriety, so I am unclear on why the subject is deemed unacceptable for an entry. There are very similar entries for other individuals/athletes with less accomplishments and less sources cited, which have been approved. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. LukeHahnsol0 (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LukeHahnsol0 What is your connection with him? You claim to have taken the image of him.
Your sources document everything you state, but do not provide significant coverage of him, and largely are not independent of him. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the response! I am familiar with the subject through the water polo community, so obtained the photo directly. Are you able to clarify if the independence of the links relate to the hall of fame induction references, the coaching references, or the author references? I understand the references for the books are direct links to purchase them, but am unclear on how to better provide independent resources for a book available for purchase to substantiate that the subject is the author. Thanks! LukeHahnsol0 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Luke. 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.
So you need to find places where people who have no connection whatever with Hafferkamp have chosen to write in some depth about thim. Not one of your sources appears on the surface to meet this description. ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Articles for Creation (AfC) Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request expedited publication of the draft article titled "Blue Dream Group" that is currently pending review. The article highlights the significant achievements of Blue Dream Group as Bangladesh's top wholesale clothing company and its distinction as the first ISO-certified wholesale clothing company in the country. Given its relevance and importance to the industry, I believe this article will be valuable to Wikipedia readers.

Thanks, Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem please do not write motivational messages using ChatGPT, it doesn't work on us. Your article was declined for not showing any evidence this company meets our special definition of a notable company.
What is your connection to Blue Dream Group? Are you an employee? Qcne (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir, I am an employee of Blue Dream. Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem: in that case, you must disclose your paid-editing status on your user page (and/or the talk page of every draft and article to which it pertains). I have posted advice on your talk page. Please read and action it promptly. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem: Tagged draft for speedy deletion as blatant advertizing. We don't accept promotional content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sir, I understand my mistake. Can I remove and re-upload promotional content? Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional content is not permitted here. You must make the paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
If you wish to pursue this, then once you have made the mandatory disclosure, you will need to .
  1. Find several places where people wholly unconnected with Blue Dream have chosen, off their own bat, to write about it in some depth.
  2. If you can find these, then forget everything you know about Blue Dream and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say.
ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was blanked for the second time today (actually, third, if you count my self-reverted unblanking!) and subsequently G7 speedied. The user has admitted paid editing and promised to make a proper disclosure, but we're still waiting for that to materialise. They've also registered a second account to edit the same, but I advised them to abandon that, which they at least said they would. It's probably now past office hours in their time zone, but I'm hoping they'll rectify all these issues promptly whenever they return to editing, otherwise it may be time to elevate this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Asa "ClarkShark"

[edit]

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia. Asa "ClarkShark" (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asa "ClarkShark": that's great, welcome! Do you have a question you would like to ask? The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 30 April 2024 review of submission by EagleSleuth

[edit]

"I am the author of this draft and am requesting its speedy deletion as I no longer wish for it to be published on Wikipedia. I have decided to withdraw the article and would like it to be removed promptly. Thank you for your attention to this matter. EagleSleuth (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as requested. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Harwant Singh Arora

[edit]

I need help in submitting my draft. Harwant Singh Arora (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harwant Singh Arora: you have successfully submitted your draft last week. It was reviewed, and declined. If you wish to resubmit it, you just click on the blue 'resubmit' button, but first you need to address the decline reasons, as well as taking note of the additional comments provided by the reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me to work on the declined reasons and resubmit? Harwant Singh Arora (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harwant Singh Arora: in a word, no. We don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. Also, I've no knowledge of or interest in this subject, you've not provided any evidence of notability, and the draft isn't written as a viable encyclopaedia article.
I will give you this advice, though: articles should be composed by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources meeting the WP:GNG standard have said about a subject. Find 3-5 such sources, summarise their coverage, and cite each source against the information it has provided. That will give you the appropriate content, necessary referencing, and proof of notability all in one go. Any other approach is pretty much destined to fail. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind and knowledgeable information. Harwant Singh Arora (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Harwant Singh Arora. The help I will give you is the advice I always give to new editors: don't even think about creating a new article until you have spent a few months learning about how Wikipedia works by making edits to existing articles. Once you have learnt about such fundamental concepts as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, it will be obvious to you why what you have written is nothing like a Wikipedia article, and cannot readily be turned into one, since you are working BACKWARDS.
At the moment you are in the position of somebody who has just started learning a musical instrument, and tries to give a public recital; or somebody who has just started studying engineering and has decided to build a car. You don't (yet) know enough about doing this even to understand the feedback you are receiving. ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thank you for your kind feedback. Do you know any reliable source who may publish my article on my behalf?
Thank you. Harwant Singh Arora (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harwant Singh Arora: this draft was declined for lack of evidence that the subject is even remotely notable. That is the issue you need to address. It's highly unlikely that anyone else here will do that for you, and no one else can publish this "on your behalf" either, before notability has been established, and that requires much better sourcing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_30&oldid=1222544441"