Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


November 11

[edit]

01:00, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Sunuraju

[edit]

i would add drafts of paksitan dramas include gentleman and Pagal Khana Sunuraju (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gentleman (Pakistani TV series) (I think)
Did you have a question, @Sunuraju? StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because i thoughts add paksitani dramas for knowelgede and i was unaware there was sockpuppert created drafts, i had grammar issues Sunuraju (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:50, 11 November 2024 review of submission by MikeRaimundo

[edit]

Hello, I recently started editing and creating Wikipedia articles, but I'm having difficulty getting them approved. Despite my efforts to follow the guidelines, my submissions are often flagged for sounding too promotional, even though I’ve focused on presenting factual, sometimes critical, information. My articles cover sustainable fashion brands, as that is my interest. Could you provide guidance on how I might adjust my approach to better align with Wikipedia’s standards? MikeRaimundo (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MikeRaimundo. 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.
To answer you specifically, the steps are:
  1. . Find several sources about a subject, each of which meets the triple criteria in WP:42
  2. . If you can't find at least three such, give up and choose a different subject.
  3. . Forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
ColinFine (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:13, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Vany1953

[edit]

On this date an article on Pach Chhoeun was deleted, maybe Help desk can reply with information. I'm writing to find out why. If it is a G8 reference link that may have been deleted which one? It can be fixed, perhaps a web site changed a link target. ALL information in the article has been carefully verified and referenced.

I'm asking for the the article to be re-posted and un-deleted to improve accuracy of the content. Many hours and months over last year spent to compose this historical document just to have it deleted unexpectedly for an unknown specific reason. Pach Chhoeun's life has historical interest for Cambodian culture and history.

18:38, 9 July 2024 Liz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Pach Chhoeun (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page) (thank) Vany1953 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Vany1953 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vany1953: what seems to have happened is that back in March you resubmitted this draft, and it was looked at by a couple of reviewers but not actually reviewed. Then, in July, another user copypasted its contents into a new article in the main article space, and replaced the draft with a redirect pointing to that version. However, soon after that it was discovered that the user who did this was a suspected sockpuppet of a blocked user, and the published article was therefore deleted under WP:G5. At that point, the redirect from the earlier draft was pointing to a non-existent target (since the article had been deleted), and was in turn deleted under WP:G8.
I don't see any reason why we couldn't now return the draft to you so that you can continue working on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vany1953: okay, I have returned the draft to Draft:Pach Chhoeun, and reverted the last few edits, so things should now be back to how they were. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Chiy828

[edit]

I have already tone down the message on my articles, but still blocked by JJMaster Chiy828 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiy828, a significant part of your draft is not written in English. That is why it was most recently declined. We can only accept drafts in English here, as it is the English Wikipedia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 11 November 2024 review of submission by 2409:40D5:103D:3101:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

I have not submitted this draft/article Anywhere before wikipedia. My Article is being rejected continually for I am not providing the reference of Data. How can i provide reference if I am directly submitting my work on Wikipedia and no where else? 2409:40D5:103D:3101:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to directly submit your work. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about your work, not what you say about it. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about topics that meet our criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not host original research. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Anith Kumar Palisetti

[edit]

what are the issues please show me those Anith Kumar Palisetti (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anith Kumar Palisetti: your sandbox draft at User:Anith Kumar Palisetti/sandbox has been deleted as unambigiously promotional. Wikipedia is not a platform to advertise anything. --bonadea contributions talk 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Chiy828

[edit]

I have updated the tone and shouldn't be block , all the language had been changed into English Chiy828 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:18, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Chiy828

[edit]
see below asilvering (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have updated Chiy828 (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

16:19, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Chiy828

[edit]

Updated to change the header Chiy828 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiy828 Please do not make multiple help desk topics. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. qcne (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Canadaguy22

[edit]

My draft for this article has been declined, citing insufficient links. However, the links provided are from reputable and reliable sources (e.g. the archives of the Toronto Star newspaper here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada). There's nothing about this draft that isn't backed up, so I'm not clear what the issue is, or what I can do to fix it. Please help. Many thanks, Jeff Canadaguy22 (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadaguy22: most of the sources seem to be just photos, and none of the sources are cited inline, as required in articles on living people. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In-line citations are mandatory for biographies; please see the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. qcne (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Chiy828

[edit]

This is totall unacceptable i have done everything to try to meet your requirment Chiy828 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is unacceptable is you flooding this page with threads, instead of you keeping your comments to a single thread. Please stop. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:43, 11 November 2024 review of submission by TheSkipperToo

[edit]

Hello. How can I find out why my draft submission was rejected so that I can improve it? TheSkipperToo (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you see the message left by the reviewer? 331dot (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:25, 11 November 2024 review of submission by Nojyeloot

[edit]

Hi guys, honestly a bit stumped why this wasn't approved. Can someone, in layman's terms, point me to where I need to edit this page I created earlier today? All this information is 100% accurate. Nojyeloot (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nojyeloot. metal-archives is generally regarded as an unreliable source. Do you have alternatives for those two sources? qcne (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 11 November 2024 review of submission by 49.191.173.234

[edit]

Hi guys, Paul W recently reviewed and declined my draft submission - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Judd

I wanted to say thanks so much for reviewing the article and for all the helpful guidance. I thought I had fulfilled much of what was needed, but appreciate I'm inexperienced and so your feedback is great.

I think I need a little more help with inserting new citations for some of the assertions made, as I guess I didn't really think the points raised needed citations. For example, with the first '[citation needed] comment - is this referring to where Michael was born? I wasn't sure what sort of citation would be appropriate here?

Thank you again, Angus 

49.191.173.234 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that 'citation needed' tag is asking what source gives this person's place of birth, or more widely, the information where he was born and raised.
Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements. Pretty much every material statement must be supported (and if it's not a material statement, then arguably it shouldn't even be there), and especially anything potentially contentious, any private personal or family detail, as well as direct quotations. What is 'potentially contentious' is debatable, but I would recommend erring on the side of caution and assuming more or less everything is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

[edit]

03:49, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Elliot Duff

[edit]

Hi. I would like some help on creating this Biography.

Whilst I believe that I have addressed the issue of unsourced sections (I have added over a dozen new inline citations) I am not sure what I can do about the formatted to follow the manual of style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

The Manual of Style is a rather long document. Can anyone provide an examples of where I could make an improvement.

Thanks. 

Elliot Duff (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliot Duff: I find only a few minor formatting etc. issues which wouldn't be a reason to decline this, but since you ask, here they are:
  • Section headings should be in Sentence case, not Initial Caps.
  • The first use of the title term should be bolded, ie. the person's name at the start of the lead section.
  • Infobox: while 'Professor' may be an honorary title, this is unlikely, in which case please remove it from the prefix param.
  • Infobox: per WP:INFONAT, nationality should not be used; citizenship can be shown, but only if it is reliably sourced and when it would be otherwise unclear.
  • Wikilinks are used normally only once for each term; now eg. University of Cambridge is linked several times.
Perhaps others spot something I've missed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have made the corrections. Elliot Duff (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Ptfestlover

[edit]

Hello, my recent biography draft page was rejected and the reason is cited as lacking enough references. Most of the references I cited were in non-english language news articles, in the local language of the biography's subject. Natsagdorj "George" Tserendorj is a Mongolian person and most of his supporting articles are in Mongolian and I am wondering whether the person who reviewed my page tried to even google translate the articles I cited, because they are clearly addressing the subject. The scarcity of english news articles and references shouldn't be a reason for rejection correct? Ptfestlover (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptfestlover: presumably you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Natsagdorj "George" Tserendorj? This draft was only declined, meaning it can be resubmitted once the decline reasons have been addressed. That reason being, lack of evidence that the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word.
Reviewers routinely assess non-English sources using the various translation tools available, and there is no reason to assume this wasn't done here. And no, citing non-English sources is not a reason to decline; they are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet our requirements for reliability, independence, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Hello124Hell0

[edit]

I would like to create this page and someone else has already created a draft for it. This draft looks good to me but it shows that it was declined. The reason for being declined listed says that the sources need to be: in- depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the subject. However, upon checking all the sources, it seems to me that they do meet these qualifications. Could you let me know what I can do to make this draft publishable? Hello124Hell0 (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hello124Hell0: taking each of the sources in the order they appear:
  1. Primary source, does not contribute towards notability per WP:NCORP
  2. No mention of Hawkeye
  3. No mention of Hawkeye; also, press release = not independent
  4. No mention of Hawkeye
  5. No mention of Hawkeye
  6. No mention of Hawkeye; also, primary source
  7. No mention of Hawkeye
  8. Only passing mention of Hawkeye
In other words, not one of the sources meets the NCORP standard. Or am I missing something here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And of the next seven sources, only the Yahoo one isn't simply a brief mention, and even that isn't really about Hawkeye Pictures, but routine business reporting. The other six are definitely just brief mentions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Wikimostcar

[edit]

Indian Youtuber Wikimostcar (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikimostcar, I have rejected the draft as there is no indication the person is WP:NOTABLE. qcne (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have not edited the draft sir Wikimostcar (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did, so not sure why you are saying you didn't. qcne (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 12 November 2024 review of submission by LIUCstefano03

[edit]

I tried to add some parameters in the infobox but are not displayed probably because are unknown. How can I make them known? 

LIUCstefano03 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LIUCstefano03: you're using the plain infobox template, which isn't actually a template, it's a base for creating more specific infobox templates from. You should instead use one of those specific ones, such as {{Infobox company}}. Also, note that not all params are available in all infobox templates, you need to check the guidance on the template page.
That said, an infobox isn't going to make any difference to whether this draft will be accepted; it's what you might call a 'nice-to-have', an optional extra. Focus rather on demonstrating notability per WP:NCORP, and writing in a purely neutral and factual, non-promotional manner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 12 November 2024 review of submission by 365scarlet

[edit]

I am very surprised that it was flagged for not worthy of a Wikipedia article when it's a very high profile case in Australia. My links prove that it was covered extensively in the Melbourne News. So I'm very surprised that was flagged. And considering I just reported on the murder of a teenage girl 30 years ago, I am surprised that it could be flagged as not neutral. A website that has long articles about silly memes for this to be flagged as not credible enough seems very surprising and hurtful. And I think I deserve a second chance before I change it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prue_Bird_Disappearance 365scarlet (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @365scarlet.
Sorry you feel hurt by the decline - it's not a rejection which means it can still be submitted after improving. Do not take it personally.
The biggest issue I have with the draft is that it is written in an unencyclopedic way- in fact I wonder if you used AI to generate parts of the text? It has the hallmarks of being AI-written, with overly flowerly prose. I think it would need re-writing from scratch in order to be written in an acceptable way. Please carefully study Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
As for the notability: the criteria is at Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal acts. I think there is probably enough sources to make this notable, just about, so your only real issue is the tone.
Let me know if you have any questions. qcne (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I have edited the article to make it sound as neutral as possible. 365scarlet (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed, check the draft for more info. qcne (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Morekiranwiki

[edit]

I'm a beginner in creating Wikipedia pages, and I’m finding it challenging to navigate the many guidelines. I’m currently working on a draft and have been struggling to get it approved. Despite my best efforts, I’ve resubmitted the article multiple times, but it still hasn’t passed due to the following issues:

1. Reliable sources 2. Secondary sources that are independent of the subject

I’m having difficulty identifying which references specifically don’t meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. Would anyone be able to help by reviewing my references and pointing out the ones that are problematic? Direct feedback or examples of which links to remove would be incredibly helpful so I can fix these issues before my next submission.

Thank you in advance for your guidance and support!

Best regards, Morekiranwiki (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Morekiranwiki Let me give you some generic help. There are no media outlets that are of themselves red flags. What you need to look for, and this takes a bit if a nice to sniff the out are words, even in relabel media, "Announces" or "Invests" and the present tense. This is good indication of PR and Press releases. Also, the same of a similar article in different outlets is likely to be churnalism.
Examine each of your current reference es and delete the questinable ones. If you can't replace them delete the facts they purport to verify.
Read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB. They are a direct help in this area.
That's a lot to do. So remember, if you can't find useful references you won't get the draft accepted. Don;t justresubit and hope. You need to work hard first. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Surya9634

[edit]

I want to know why this article declined? Surya9634 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Surya9634 The answer is on your user talk page. Please read it and come back here to ask, this time politely, if you do not understand what has been said there. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if i said something wrong well here's the error
I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted Surya9634 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 12 November 2024 review of submission by Mahmoudali123

[edit]

Hello,

I received feedback that my Wikipedia draft was declined due to inadequate references. Could you please guide me on how to include in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent sources? Any specific advice would be appreciated.

Thank you, Mahmoudali123 (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahmoudali123: this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. It cites only one source, a website close to the subject. No subject can establish its own notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahmoudali123 No-one is that keen on editors using copyright violating pictures, either. But that is being handled elsewhere 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mahmoudali123, we had a long discussion on the Live Chat Help channel about these two drafts - I did tell you not to re-submit for review as I didn't think Luca or his podcast are notable. qcne (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined with advice not to resubmit unless and until the subject is verified to be notable 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

[edit]

00:29, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Uzbek1992

[edit]

No Uzbek1992 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uzbek1992: Stop submitting blank drafts and wasting people's time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:34, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Purplewhalethunder

[edit]

It's been quiet long, is there another way to speed the review? Purplewhalethunder (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplewhalethunder: it has been three weeks, and as you can see on top of the draft it says we have over 1,000 pending drafts and wait times can be up to six weeks. There is no way to expedite this. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Purplewhalethunder (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:50, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Wikimostcar

[edit]

what is the problem coming up Wikimostcar (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimostcar: no problem. This draft has been rejected for lack of evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 13 November 2024 review of submission by 139.228.5.8

[edit]

i wanna write about dandys world beacuse it doesnt exist yet :[ 139.228.5.8 (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry IP editor, Wikipedia only hosts articles about things that exist and are notable. qcne (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:27, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Toblerone101

[edit]

I need help editing this as I cannot do it all myself TobyB (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toblerone101: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, the onus is very much on you to produce an acceptable draft. You can ask specific questions here, of course. That said, I don't see much chance for this draft, as there isn't the slightest indication of notability, and it is quite promotional in tone and content. My advice would be to drop this, and come back once the subject has been covered extensively in secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,thanks TobyB (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 13 November 2024 review of submission by LooteraGamer01

[edit]

gamer life LooteraGamer01 (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LooteraGamer01: that's not a question, and your draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Marzada

[edit]

I am trying to understand the reason for the rejection since the article is a translation of an already existing article on the Norwegian Wikipedia pages. Therefore I struggle to understand why the article was approved for the Norwegian Wikipedia Pages and rejected here?

Here is the link to the Norwegian entry: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dankert_Thuland

Also, the rejection states that I should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Well, the article does list a total of 14 published sources.

Finally the rejection states that peacock terms that promote the subject should be avoided. Can someone please tell me where such terms were used in the article? Marzada (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marzada: I haven't looked at the sources yet, but just to say that each language version of Wikipedia is a totally separate project with their own rules and requirements; what is acceptable on the Norwegian version may not be acceptable here, and v.v. The English-language version has the strictest requirements for referencing and notability, that I'm aware of at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the draft is unreferenced, and we don't therefore know where this information comes from. So when it says "he had good German skills", or that he "was central to the mapping of national traitors", whose opinions are those?
Also, some of the sources don't support the information: ref #1 just points to the home page of the archives; #3 is a grave database; and #6 doesn't seem to mention Thuland at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Ok that explains at least this part why there might be different standards. Can someone please be more specific about what exactly needs to be changed?

Well, Marzada, for example, most of the first paragraph, about his earlier life, and the next ("Espionage activities") appears to be unreferenced. Why should a reader believe it? --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Holala13

[edit]

we want phigros to have visibility ;-; Holala13 (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should use social media, not Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 13 November 2024 review of submission by ফয়সাল ফাহিদ

[edit]

Request for Page Publication Dear Wikipedia Editors, I have created a draft article on Mizanur Rahman Azhari, a prominent Islamic scholar and speaker from Bangladesh. The article provides a comprehensive overview of his life, contributions, and public recognition based on reliable and independent sources. The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, including verifiable information from credible references. The language used is neutral, and I have ensured that the content follows Wikipedia's verifiability, neutrality, and reliability standards. I kindly request your review of this draft and consideration for its publication on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards, [Foysal Fahid] ফয়সাল ফাহিদ (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ফয়সাল ফাহিদ: you don't ask a question, but just to say that this draft has been rejected for lack of evidence of notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Vijaysharma1231

[edit]

can you please guide me what all materials I can use to make it notable ? the person has been on multiple media channels and print media and has a google panel also when we him on search on google Vijaysharma1231 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vijaysharma1231: given how many times it has been tried, and failed, to create an article on this subject, under various titles, my advice would be to drop the stick and find another subject to edit about.
I posted earlier a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, but I noticed that you haven't responded to it. Could you do that now, please? Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 13 November 2024 review of submission by ফয়সাল ফাহিদ

[edit]

Everything is fine here, and this person also has a Bengali page ফয়সাল ফাহিদ (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. If this person meets the requirements of the Bengali Wikipedia, you should focus your efforts there. I'm not entirely clear on why the draft was rejected as I don't speak Bengali, but please ask the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:50, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Bwagner1230

[edit]

What sources should I add to get this approved? I'm creating this article as a request from my internship director and I'm confused on what else I need to add. I cited the only direct quote used in it, please let me know. Thanks. Bwagner1230 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just primary sourced advertising NOT an encyclopaedia article? WE need significant coverage in independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bwagner1230 You will need to make the Terms of Use-required paid editing disclosure if you are editing as part of an internship(even if you do not receive money; the work experience is the "compensation"). 331dot (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that you read WP:BOSS and have your director read it too. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bwagner1230: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 13 November 2024 review of submission by ServeAduke

[edit]

I'm hoping to get more feedback about my draft, which was declined a few minutes after I posted it. The explanation provided was that the "submission appears to read more like an advertisement" and "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources." Having reviewed editorial guidelines before I started drafting, I was careful to write in what I felt was neutral, encyclopedic style and to only cite reputable sources (e.g., TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Bloomberg, The Verge, and Quartz) that cover the subject in detail. The fast rejection took me by surprise and I want to make sure I'm fixing the right things before trying again.

I'm hoping an editor here can help me understand (a) whether Serve is notable and (b) whether the draft could be updated in some way to make it acceptable. I don't want to keep hitting a brick wall and wasting editors' time. As I'm an employee of Serve, I get that editors have to be careful that the draft isn't promotional or biased, and I'm open to feedback just struggling with how to apply the initial notes I've received.

Thank you for your time! I hope I don't come across as defensive here. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia in the past few weeks and I'm genuinely curious about how editorial decisions like this are made. ServeAduke (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ServeAduke I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. You have made a very common mistake that paid editors make, in that you have summarized the routine business activities and offerings of the company; that does not establish that the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company is met. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the topic(a company, in this case). We aren't interested in what the company says about itself, only in what others wholly unconnected with the topic say about it. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Please see WP:BOSS, and if you were asked to be here, have your superiors read it too. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in this draft process, "rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, 331dot. The linked notability page states that "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The sources I cite throughout the draft check those boxes. Articles like this one in VentureBeat, this one in Bloomberg, and this one in Quartz all provide detailed profiles of Serve and explain exactly why the company is notable. VentureBeat and Bloomberg are included on Wikipedia's list of Reliable and Perennial sources and are specifically identified as being reliable. Quartz is widely cited across Wikipedia and was also identified as being reliable here. I tried to do my Wikipedia homework before putting this draft together. Again, this is significant reporting by staff writers at multiple prominent outlets, not just passing mentions or routine coverage and I aimed to write up my draft based on what was in those pieces. Is there an example you can point me to that would help me see what a great new page looks like? Or can you provide more specific feedback about how this draft could be improved? I do appreciate the engagement here. ServeAduke (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ServeAduke The best articles to use as examples or models are those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting- unlike any random article which could itself be inappropriate and has just not been dealt with yet.
I've used the term "article" deliberately- it's better to think of the encyclopedia content as articles and not the broader "pages"; an article is a page but not every page is an article. This may affect your mindset somewhat.
The sources you list here are:
  • an announcement of a product, not significant coverage of the company as it is a routine business activity(to release a product)
  • an announcement that the company was spun off of Uber, another routine business activity(acquisitions/sales/spinoffs of companies or parts of companies)
  • a description that the company was taken public, another routine business activity(going on/off the stock market is common)
None of these establish notability. That isn't because of the provenance of the sources themselves, but their content.
I get that you think that what your company does is important- but we need others to say that- and not just for its routine activities. Ford Motor Company doesn't merit an article because it manufactures and sells vehicles, it does because many independent sources have written about the company and what they see as its influence on various sectors(economy, history, manfacturing), not what it sees as its own importance. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGDEPTH may help you. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 13 November 2024 review of submission by SanjanaSinghRajput

[edit]

My submission was unreasonably rejected, and the reason given was absolutely false and incorrect, as the sources cited were totally independent and well-known sources. I added a total of 37 references, and they were all genuine and reliable. Additionally, the topic (person) has also been adequately recognised both offline and online, as evident from a simple Google search with the keywords "Shivanshu K. Shivanshu" or "Who is Shivanshu K. Srivastava?" and a plethora of print articles and coverage of the writer. The online sources are so many and also the print records are much more than what is available online. Thus, the decision of Charlie who deleted this must be reviewed. Therefore, I request an appeal to a higher moderator / editor / team of Wikipedia. SanjanaSinghRajput (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "higher moderator". You actually have too many references. Fewer high quality references are preferred to a large number of low quality ones. Most of your sources are things he wrote, which are not independent sources. It's not clear to me how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person. We don't just want documentation of his work, we need sources with in depth discussion on why he is important/significant/influential. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SanjanaSinghRajput I have left what I hope oyu will find a helpful comment on the draft in order to help you sort out your referencing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 13 November 2024 review of submission by Alwasil2021

[edit]

First, thank you for taking my question I am the Permanent Representative (ambassador) to the United Nations. I would like to post my wikipedia page about me that was drafted usings the proper sources. Alwasil2021 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is only sourced to the UN website. Any article about you needs to primarily summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you. While not absolutely forbidden, I would caution you about writing about yourself at all, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alwasil2021 Forgive me, but "Do you know who I am?" fails on so many levels. The primary failure is that this is the internet and we have therefore no idea who you are. While there is no reason disbelieve you (though why would a Permanent Representative (ambassador) to the United Nations be creating their autobiography here?), there is also no reason to believe you. I'm sure you can see the point.
An article about Abdulaziz Alwasil must still pass WP:BIO whoever writes it. Looking at the draft dispassionately, this draft does not verify that. It has to. Otherwise it will not be accepted. So please go to work with a will and create a draft which passes the acceptance criteria. I am sure you would not wish to be treated any differently from any other editor.
We require significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources which are about Abdulaziz Alwasil before a draft on the gentleman can be accepted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

November 14

[edit]

01:59, 14 November 2024 review of submission by 2806:2A0:C0C:84F5:FCA5:EAD9:F745:E1AD

[edit]

Good Day,

I put together everything found about an artist online who I think deserves a wikipedia, but not sure what i'm doing wrong.

Best, Daniel Betancourt 2806:2A0:C0C:84F5:FCA5:EAD9:F745:E1AD (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing wrong is that you're not telling us where this information came from; the draft is entirely unreferenced. Please cite your sources, see WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably also making the common beginner mistake of writing what you know. Wikipedia doesn't care what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows). Every single piece of information in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source, or it doesn't go into the article. Moreover, the great majority of information should come from sources wholly unconnected with the subject - not her, not her agents, not her producers, and not based on interviews or press releases. Unless you can find several sources each of which meets all three of the criteria in WP:42, give up, and work on a different subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Larkmean

[edit]

How do we cite reputable sources for players appearing on many reputable records and in many reputable tours, when these details are only published in 1) social media posts, 2) the venue's website (but taken down once the date has passed), 3) local news, 4) album credit websites (which can be edited by anyone), and 5) album credits (on streaming services, which don't have webpages to cite)?

I'm finding I want to document players whose careers and contributions are notable. Do I need to find press about them, or is the prolific contributions on records enough if I cite correctly?

Any advice is appreciated! Larkmean (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Larkmean: on what basis are you asserting notability, if there are no reliable and independent sources to support this? Merely appearing on records or tours is unlikely to make someone notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow the same happened to me 41.173.247.14 (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to realise, @Larkmean, is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. If such sources do not exist, then there is literally nothing which can be put in the article. ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:23, 14 November 2024 review of submission by 41.173.247.14

[edit]

I'm new at writing articles 41.173.247.14 (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question; did you have one in mind?
Your draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. There is nothing to indicate that the subject is at all notable, and the draft is also not written in an appropriate manner for an encyclopaedia. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, you may wish to try LinkedIn or similar platforms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Thaokin98

[edit]

Can you tell me where my article violates so I can edit it? Thaokin98 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thaokin98: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you give me the instructions about posting in wiki? Thaokin98 (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thaokin98: the process you followed was technically correct, but please note that Wikipedia cannot be used to promote anything. See WP:GOLDENRULE for advice on creating appropriate content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Chefofchef

[edit]

hello, I just submitted this for an up-and-coming chef and am unsure why it was rejected thank you. Chefofchef (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is thoroughly promotional and completely unsourced. "Up and coming" people almost never merit articles- a person must have "already arrived" and be noticed in order to merit an article. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that are notable as Wikipedia defines the word. See Referencing for beginners for help with writing citations.
Please disclose your connection with him, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You took a picture of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:53, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Bhaskarsah123

[edit]

hey i am a beginner who want to create my first article. i dont know why it is rejected please help me 

Bhaskarsah123 (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhaskarsah123: this is a completely unreferenced draft, which presents no evidence or even suggestion that the subject is notable. Also, it isn't written as a viable encyclopaedia article draft, but rather a CV/resume. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bhaskarsah123. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Postcinematicbodies

[edit]

Draft article declined - received feedback that "Sources should be reliable and may include newspapers and magazines (notable national and international), peer reviewed journals"

I fixed a broken link to a peer review journal that covers the organization in a paragraph and a footnote and added a link to an award I found. I'm curious if this would help with the notability issues and I should resubmit or if I should continue collecting references?

In terms of in depth coverage - there's one peer reviewed journal, a leading digital arts magazine and a leading European fashion magazine in addition to a government award. Postcinematicbodies (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Postcinematicbodies More is not necessarily better. Check what you have and be critical. Make sure each passes WP:42. I am not saying that any miss the mark, I have only skimmed them. In general fewer submissions and better work between them wins the acceptance race. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Jedav21

[edit]

Jedav21 submission 2nd November Hello,

First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and leaving feedback.

I fully understand your comment on the writing style and I will endeavour to rewrite the draft in a more encyclopedia appropriate style before resubmitting. But your other comment (relating references), I may need a little more help with if that's okay. I was hoping that you could expand on what specifically you want me to do to make the draft acceptable in relation to the point raised as I do not quite understand. I believe this topic refers to an important societal inequality that deserves a wikipedia article so any help you can offer me in getting this published would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you Jedav21 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoconutOctopus Jedav21 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jedav21 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. You seem to be addressing the reviewer specifically, you should do that on their user talk page, User talk:CoconutOctopus. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you Jedav21 (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 14 November 2024 review of submission by 142.167.9.219

[edit]

The draft article is about a lady that holds a world record. Why is it being rejected? There are no promotional intensions in there. 142.167.9.219 (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer noted, the sources are not significant coverage of the subject. Guinness World Records are subjective and in and of themselves do not establish notability. We're not talking about athletic achievements like the fastest 100m run that are easily measured and receive much coverage. There needs to be significant coverage of this person and how their seeking/holding the "world record" makes the person important/significant/influential. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 14 November 2024 review of submission by Ermwhatthesigma0

[edit]

I'm not completely sure why I was rejected, I'm just wondering why. Ermwhatthesigma0 (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ermwhatthesigma0, Wikipedia only hosts articles about topics we deem "notable"- we're not a repository for your own personal worldbuilding projects. qcne (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like something you made up? Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 14 November 2024 review of submission by TurtlesLiveLong

[edit]

Hello, I spent hours working on a contribution that fits the criteria of "notable" and it was immediately rejected. There has been coverage of this organization in the NY Times, Cheddar News, and the Washington Post among other smaller publications like the Harvard Law School's Cyber Clinic Review. The organization's report was utilized by the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, and Labor, and Pensions. Senators Mazie Hirono, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Adam Schiff signed a letter to the FTC asking it to investigate Meta based on the center's investigation of their advertising practices. This is my first article so maybe I didn't format something properly? I have more sources than I put in the article but I thought those were notable organizations. I cannot understand why it was rejected. Can someone please help me understand? Did I not format it properly? Thank you. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I spent hours working on a new article on the Center for Intimacy Justice that fits the criteria of "notable" and it was immediately rejected. There has been coverage of this organization in the NY Times, Cheddar News, and the Washington Post among other smaller publications like the Harvard Law School's Cyber Clinic Review. The organization's report was utilized by the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, and Labor, and Pensions. Senators Mazie Hirono, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Adam Schiff signed a letter to the FTC asking it to investigate Meta based on the center's investigation of their advertising practices. This is my first article so maybe I didn't format something properly? I have more sources than I put in the article but I thought those were notable organizations. I cannot understand why it was rejected. Can someone please help me understand? Did I not format it properly?

I am still trying to figure out wikipedia and very confused on how to even submit this question. I couldn't submit it without tying it to a current article... apologies for confusion about the page title for the FTC. Thank you. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TurtlesLiveLong Please don't start a new thread for every post you make, just edit this existing section. (it should say "edit" in the section header) 331dot (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TurtlesLiveLone Note that the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Please see the message I left at the top of your draft(under the decline message). 331dot (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for some clarification. I saw your comment about the article describing its actions vs the center itself. Should I draft the article to be about the report instead, since that is largely where the coverage is? I went back and added in three additional citations for CNN, NY Times, and Adweek. There are many others I can reference but those seem to me to be news sites that Wikipedia accepts as reputable. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TurtlesLiveLong It sounds to me you want to write more about the topic of equity in people's intimate lives more so than this organization itself. That's fine- I would just refocus the draft to be about the subject as a whole and not the organization. I might do some searches to see if there aren't already existing Wikipedia articles that such information could go on(it seems like there could be, but there might not be too) before undertaking the work on your draft. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot. I guess if you put it that way, the topic is about algorithms that meta has in their advertising policies that reject ads with certain words related to female anatomy and not male anatomy. I was surprised there was nothing on Wikipedia about this so thought I'd try to contribute. I am really confused on what gets on Wikipedia to be honest. I am trying to assume positive intent here from your comments but not sure of your intent. There's a lot of crap on here. This article was well thought out. Why bother contributing hours of your life to this website if this is the kind of gatekeeping weirdness there is? Not wasting any more time on this site. Consider this moot. Moving on with my life to more productive contributions to humanity. My eyes are wide-open to the truth behind Wikipedia. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TurtlesLiveLong: The drafting process as it exists today wasn't made mandatory until 2018, and didn't exist full-stop before 2011. There's a very good chance a lot of the articles you're complaining about were first started either in the pre-2011 "publish and be damned" days or were created in mainspace directly between 2011 and the consensus for WP:ACPERM in 2018. Our standards, and enforcement of those standards, has only gotten stricter over time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That may be the case however as a writer and avid reader I thought maybe I could contribute to this communal human knowledge project known as wikipedia. I am finding it completely tedious unfortunately. There is little nuance on this platform when it comes to the rejections and declines. I have been reading the "talk" pages and clearly this is a massive issue here. I worked to outline an article that follows the "rules" and read many of the arcane pages about this. I wasted tons of time trying to navigate this platform. I heard Wikipedia needs more folks to help out. I can see why. It's a massive mess and when you put hours into something to have it rejected in seconds and then be told later that it's because the Center I wrote about wasn't notable, yet their findings they produced from their report IS notable... I don't know what else to do. I am sure there are good people on this platform. I can see that. I also see there's a lot of petty folks holding power. Thoughtful folks who have good intent like me can easily and quickly get worn out. It makes me sad to know that and see the insides of this platform. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being told I'm petty. I'm trying to help you. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TurtlesLiveLong you do not have to use the WP:AFC process you are free to publish the article directly to main space, but beware it could be sent to WP:AFD if you do. AFC is intended to sift out the articles that are likely to survive a deletion process there is useful info here Wikipedia:AFCPURPOSE. Theroadislong (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not calling you petty. There seems to be a lot of pettiness on this site on the Talk pages is what I am referring to. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also just navigating this platform seems to take hours to learn. What gives? It is designed to eliminate instead of include. When the platform is so challenging to navigate it makes engaging with folks confusing and contributing futile. It also means that only certain subset of humans who have the time and/or skillset to navigate a platform like this end up contributing, thereby limiting the number of voices that can contribute. I am a newbie just processing the hard reality of what seems to be the gem I thought was wikipedia. Consider me disillusioned. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TurtlesLiveLong As Theroadislong said, you are free to place the draft in the encyclopedia yourself, but you would be rolling the dice that it wouldn't be nominated for deletion. Part of the reason for the existence of this process is for the opportunity for experienced users to see the draft before it is actually an article, and to reduce the number of articles brought up for deletion.
There is such a thing as it being too easy to contribute to something. There is a learning curve, a steep one, and that's not entirely unintentional. Part of the reason you previously saw Wikipedia as a "gem" is precisely because of standards and policies that have developed over the years, resulting in one of the top viewed websites on this planet. I see that you made a few edits before writing your draft; we usually recommend that newer/inexperienced editors spend much time making many edits before diving in to the very difficult process of creating a new article. This allows for the editor to learn Wikipedia policies as to sourcing, content, and style. Would you prefer that we tell you what you want to hear, or to help you actually learn how we do things here?
I'm happy to provide you with further guidance if you're still interested. I provided you with one possible pathway forward already(refocus the article to be about the topic broadly and not just the organization); alternatively you can find sources that discuss the importance of the organization itself. I'm sorry you haven't had a good experience. Best wishes 331dot (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have found this interface really cold to navigate as a newbie, and honestly really isolating. There's a lot to read and navigate in a less than intuitive platform. I understand the need for gatekeeping, and verification, etc. I think what is challenging me is the amount of time needed to navigate the platform itself, not even the rules. Figuring out how to do anything around here is... confusing. Then you finally get to post something and within seconds get "declined". It's really deflating, and when people have lives to live and jobs to do and children to raise and aging parents to take care of... well that means there's just a small section of the world who gets to contribute. I will see if I have any energy to re-do this. I tried to read and figure things out, but did not clearly understand it - and I am an extremely capable person who conquers quite a bit. Wikipedia seems very bent to one type of mind unfortunately. So be it. Let history be written by the few as it always has been. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TurtlesLiveLong First I have not read the draft you had declined. This is a general answer, not aimed at you, albeit it is a question.
Would you prefer any old thing to be accepted, whatever state it is in, or would you prefer a system of (optional) gatekeepers keeping the poor material out? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gatekeepers are needed - however what I am stating here as a "gatekeeper" is the interface more than anything. It is cold, confusing to navigate at times, and so it requires a lot of time and experience to successfully contribute in a thoughtful manner. I have no doubt there are a lot of spammers and opportunist that need to be weeded out. What I am saying, is that in the process of continually challenge, it also weeds out the earnest who likely have less free time and other obligations in their life. Where one might want to make progress in a few hours a week, it is definitively slow to see a payoff for that free labor. Volunteering in other spaces that provide kinder interactions seems to be a better use of my limited free time and energy to make a contribution to the world than spending countless hours just to navigate this platform. TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteer here about 9-12 hours per day, if you have limited time to edit then maybe creating new articles (the most difficult time consuming task here) is not for you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, @TurtlesLiveLong, Wikipedia *is* hard to navigate and can be really confusing for new editors. We recommend a new editor spend several weeks to months improving new articles so that they can get used to all the policies and guidelines. qcne (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info, and for proving my point. Elimination of inclusion is a part of the process. This breeds uniformity, which may be needed here to execute such a large organization. However, how do you have 9 to 12 hours a day to dedicate to this as a volunteer is beyond me? Are you getting paid in some form? How do you have income? TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of us dedicate 9 to 12 hours a day, and no volunteer editor should be being paid.
Speaking for myself, I dedicate an hour or so a day in my down-time in the evenings. qcne (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok sorry, you had written 9 to 12 hours per a day, did you mean per a week? TurtlesLiveLong (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am 70 years old, long retired, with plenty of free time and passion for the project and often spend 9 to 12 hours a day editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong made that comment, not me. qcne (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza genocide

[edit]

There have been many accusations of genocide against Israel, not one of which has been confirmed by an official international body. This title is therefore extremely biased and should read 'Gaza genocide accusation(s). 2A01:CB08:58:A800:9579:84D:7CB3:D2C7 (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right page to discuss articles. If you feel strongly about the article title, you should start a discussion at Talk:Gaza genocide. But please review prior discussions on the page first, it is very likely that this has come up before and has already been discussed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, unregistered users are not permitted to edit about the Israeli-Arab conflict(including the Gaza war) as it is a formally designated contentious topic with its own special rules(you must have an account that is 30 days old with at least 500 substantive edits to edit about it). 331dot (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

[edit]

04:22, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Mindfield1979

[edit]

There is no reliable source for the age listed. Born: 1979 (age 45 years). It is an error. Please delete. Mindfield1979 (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mindfield1979: you are perfectly capable of editing that article yourself, as indeed you have done. Besides, this is not an AfC matter, since the article was published well over a year ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The innacurate information about the age still display after edits. Can you delete? " Adeola Akinremi is a Nigerian-American journalist, entrepreneur, columnist, policy advisor and International development professional who currently serves as a consultant for the World Bank Group. He served as a U.S correspondent, editor and columnist at This Day newspaper. Wikipedia
Born: 1979 (age 45 years)" Mindfield1979 (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Changling Xu (SLU)

[edit]

I created a sandbox about fibreboard recycling, which was declined after about 30 minutes I submitted it for review. I appreciated the fast response, but I cannot see the reply why it is decline. Changling Xu (SLU) (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's my fault. I found the reasons. Changling Xu (SLU) (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Riche Richard

[edit]

how can i improve? Riche Richard (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riche Richard: there is no evidence that this person is notable. You need to provide evidence that they meet either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACTOR notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 15 November 2024 review of submission by 2601:201:8300:8E30:B44C:DCB4:8164:B7AA

[edit]

I want to know what can I remove or improve of this draft article. I do feel like this subject has notability for Wikipedia article. And have add WP:Three on draft talk page if anyone wants to check on their own time. 2601:201:8300:8E30:B44C:DCB4:8164:B7AA (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has not yet been submitted for a review, you need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top; if you submit it, a reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks! i will. 2601:201:8300:8E30:B44C:DCB4:8164:B7AA (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:25, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Gerald Bergstein

[edit]

There are no references, because this person is anonymous, it does not promote anything. Other than just speaking fondly of the persons Forex trading capability. Gerald Bergstein (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Bergstein It's total spam and will soon be deleted. qcne (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not even biased, I do not understand this judgement. He is simply apart of the LGBTQ community and is clearing facing critism for this. I cannot comprehend how in 2024 people are still facing critism for life choices, please leave discrimination to yourself not to others. Gerald Bergstein (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Bergstein I am literally a gay man. qcne (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well if that is the case could I know how I could improve the bilbiography of this person, in order to publish this, also additional question how do I add images to an article. Gerald Bergstein (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been deleted as spam, @Gerald Bergstein. If you wanted to start again with the draft you need to very carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (people) - Wikipedia only hosts articles about topics that pass our notability criteria. If there are no reliable, published, secondary sources about this person then he does not pass the notability criteria, and there can not be an article. qcne (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this isn't the place to speak fondly of anything, that's what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a distinct hoaxy whiff about this, if you ask me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Aleksboch

[edit]

Which sections need citation to satisfy that this information about the Hall is accurate and truthful? Aleksboch (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aleksboch, we generally require at least three independent sources that discuss the Hall in depth and in detail, in order to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. qcne (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Aleksboch. The problem is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Writing an article starts by finding several sources, each of which is reliably published, isindependent of the subject, and contains significant coverage of the subject. If you an't find several such sources, the subject is almost certainly not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article is possbile. See WP:42 ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Nickpetersen2023

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to ask for help publishing my article about "Register.BG". The company is popular in Bulgaria and it is the top level domain registry in the country. The company has its roots from the late 1980s and it has a rich history in contribution of the development the internet society. I added all possible references that I found online, however the page publication was denied. Can you please give me an advice what else i can do to have this page accepted.

Kind Regards! Nick Nickpetersen2023 (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nickpetersen2023, we require independent sources (generally at least three) that discuss the company in significant detail. Wikipedia isn't interested in sources that just state the company exists without any analysis/discussion. It looks like most of your sources are just about the TLD process without any that discuss the company itself?
If those are the only sources that exist, then I am afraid an article wouldn't be possible at this time. If it helps, sources can also be offline (i.e. books or newspapers), as long as they have been published. qcne (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
Some of the sources are very credible including the ones from IANA (www.iana.org) and ICANN (www.icann.org). ICANN is a well known non-profit organization selected by the US government to manage and develop the internet zone. IANA is a US government agency to manage the internet root zone.
In all these references there is an information that the company Register.BG is assigned to be a public top level domain registry for the country of Bulgaria.
Having in mind the credibility of the sources what else we can do to publish the page.
Kind Regards! Nickpetersen2023 (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nickpetersen2023, I don't disagree the sources you have used aren't credible. They are. That's not the issue here. The issue is the sources don't devote significant coverage to the company. qcne (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have just updated the page by adding additional references. Can you please take a look at the most recent edit and give us your opinion if the page now can be approved? Your help is greatly appreciated!!
Thanks,
Nick Nickpetersen2023 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three new sources you added are just database listings, and don't provide that significant coverage of the company. qcne (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References 1,5 and 8 are not a database listings.
Regards,
Nick Nickpetersen2023 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - was looking at the previous version.
  1. 1: icannwiki.org: Can't be used, a user generated Wiki.
  2. 5: ruskov-law.eu: Mentions the company once, briefly. Not significant coverage.
  3. 8 register.bg: The companies website, not independent.
qcne (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickpetersen2023, you might find WP:42 helpful - it lays out what you need in your sources. All three criteria must be met for a source to be useful to you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:27, 15 November 2024 review of submission by EarthDude

[edit]


Hello! The given draft's application was rejected for not being notable enough, so I have added a lot more information alongside reliable, secondary citations, independent of the subject. Reading the entire article, I am pretty sure the notability is getting across EarthDude (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for a review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Photoplayweb

[edit]

why was this draft rejected Photoplayweb (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an advert, @Photoplayweb. Wikipedia does not host adverts. qcne (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 15 November 2024 review of submission by 193.74.242.230

[edit]

Please do not touch this page and do not remove! 193.74.242.230 (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, its prohibited to delete the page as well, the page is imaginary draft not for speedy deletion 193.74.242.230 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to dictate terms, especially if the draft would violate our policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Mahmoudali123

[edit]

Hi Bonadea,

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I see that the topic was not considered notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Could you provide more details on what aspects can be improved to make the topic eligible for inclusion?

I appreciate your help and guidance.

Thank you very much, Mahmoudali123 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mahmoudali123. If those are the only sources that you have about Luca then there is nothing more you can do: we cannot create notability out of nowhere. qcne (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

[edit]

05:09, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Clarkien03

[edit]

World needs this article. Clarkien03 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox deleted and OP indef'ed NOTHERE. Meters (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:29, 16 November 2024 review of submission by 103.92.154.152

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hakikur_Rahman

Appreciate assistance in improving the draft as per Wiki guideline.

Thanks and regards, 

103.92.154.152 (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be more specific, what assistance are you requesting? This draft was declined for lack of notability, so that is what you need to focus on trying to demonstrate (either by WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However, we have provided several external and independent references. How do we focus on notability aspect? Hakiks070 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hakiks070: the sources you're citing are a mix of primary sources, passing mentions, and the subject commenting on something; these do not establish notability per WP:GNG. There is also nothing in the draft that would suggest NACADEMIC notability.
Note, too, that articles on living people have particularly strict referencing requirements, whereas much of the information in this draft is unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Mahmoudali123

[edit]

More resources added Mahmoudali123 (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review it again? Mahmoudali123 (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahmoudali123: this draft has been rejected, which means it won't be reviewed again. If new sources have become available which clearly demonstrate notability, you may appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this, but only do that if you have a reasonably strong case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you have added are clearly not reliable independent sources [1] , [2], [3] and [4] Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the required sources? I have added 12 sources. Mahmoudali123 (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahmoudali123: But there are still no sources that show notability. 12 poor sources are no better than no source at all, and are in fact often worse than no sources. All decline notices on your user talk page have explained what kind of sources are required, in the grey boxes of text starting with "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". --bonadea contributions talk 13:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Henrilebec

[edit]

In the normal world, the publication of research papers (by professional and academic institutions) indicates a very high level of notability and respect by independent scientific boards. This is how notability was established in the scientific world in the 1940s. The discovery and proof of tantalum's suitability for orthopaedic and dental surgery was a phenomenal scientific achievement, widely verified and acknowledged by medical science over 80 years ago. The listed journals are evidence of the required notability. Henrilebec (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrilebec: merely publishing papers etc. confers no automatic notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. You need to demonstrate, with evidence, that this person satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACADEMIC notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia writing is different than scholarly and academic publishing. You've mostly cited work that this man wrote- that does not establish notability. If that work makes him notable(see the notability guideline for academics) we need independent reliable sources that state that- like published papers by others that cite his work as an influence on them. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Henrilebec Please read WP:ACADEME which explains the difference between academe and Wikipedia, and a lot else besides. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 16 November 2024 review of submission by 2A02:AA11:327F:3180:A81C:B7D2:A724:FA84

[edit]

Why did you reject my article? It actually is a myth from my town, im from Chur a small city in Switzerland and im trying to make those myths more famous. I do not appreciate the rejection. 2A02:AA11:327F:3180:A81C:B7D2:A724:FA84 (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the myth is not notable already then we cannot have an article about it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm trying to make those myths more famous" is another way of saying "I'm trying to promote those myths". Promotion is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
Another way of looking at it is that a Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable published sources say about a subject. That's all. ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Trex32

[edit]

Thanks for the editorial feedback. There are a number of new third party sources that mention the subject. When I compare to other wikipedia articles these are more robust third party sources. Please advise. This article has evolved a fair bit with all the editorial feedback. Would apppreciate more advice to get this approved. Trex32 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Trex32. Do they "mention" the subject, or do they have significant coverage of him? If they only mention him, they contribute nothing.
Don't compare with other Wikipedia articles, unless they are good articles or featured articles: we have tens of thousands of seriously substandard articles which, if they were submitted today, would certainly not be accepted (but we don't have tens of thousands of editors who are willing to spend much time going through these improving or deleting them). We evaluate each submitted article on its own merits. See other stuff exists.
I haven't looked at your sources, or really read your draft. But I notice that many statements have two or three citations. If I were a reviewer (I'm not) that would be a red flag. Unless a sentence has more than one claim, which happen to be verifiable from different sources, there is no point in attaching more than one citation to a sentence - and doing so suggests either that the writer does not understand the purpose of a citation (which is, telling the reader where they can find verification of information in the preceding text - nothing else), or that they realise that their sources are weak, and hope that by providing multiple weak sources, this somehow adds up to a satisfactory source (it doesn't). ColinFine (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully half of these are things written by Reddi, so those are not independent. Most of the rest of the sources are simply quotes from Reddi. Only a handful of these sources have any information about Reddi and the ones that aren't passing mentions of Reddi's job title are either WP:PRIMARY or things connected to Reddi, such as bio listing on an advertised panel. Even if these were independent and reliable, the sourcing is a mess, with sources frequently not backing up the specific fact they're cited to and many not even mentioning Reddi.
If you're serious about making the best case for an article on this subject, start with only sources that are independent, reliable, and specifically about Reddi. Then write from those sources and only those sources. Three good sources are superior to 30 passing mentions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, very grateful@CoffeeCrumbs@ColinFine. Will start rewriting. Really appreciate the feedback Trex32 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you good fortune! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Artistguides

[edit]

The comment is that my article is non notable? However, there are many news articles about Hendog and their art and what they have done in their community. I cannot understand how this is non notable? Can anyone help out?? Artistguides (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artistguides: it seems that the majority, if not all, of the sources are either about individual works, rather than about the artist, and/or they are the artist commenting on their work. Can you point out the three strongest ones in terms of meeting the WP:GNG standard, namely secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent (of the subject, and of each other), and have provided significant coverage of the subject? (I'm focusing on the GNG, because I don't see how this would meet the special WP:ARTIST guideline.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Theriazz123

[edit]

How can I improve this article? Theriazz123 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that no improvement is possible, at least not before the release of the film. See WP:NFF. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Beezy Gh

[edit]

I will need an assistance with the referencing for this article with detailed and simple explanation of what needs to be done. Beezy Gh (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beezy Gh You've created a promotional draft with the help of an AI chatbot. It's entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Hassan Sirhandi

[edit]

Ill donate 50 dollars if you guys allow to publish my page. Hassan Sirhandi (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassan Sirhandi Donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation who run the servers Wikipedia is hosted on. Volunteer editors do not see any of that money. The Foundation does not need your donations. Donations have no impact on if an article will get reviewed or accepted.
As you have offered money on this public forum, you will very likely be contacted by scammers who say they can publish/edit/accept an article in exchange for money. This is an ongoing scam. qcne (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

[edit]

00:22, 17 November 2024 review of submission by 2409:40D1:2010:B0C9:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

i don't know why my page rejected 2409:40D1:2010:B0C9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected because "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia".
Please read the definition of notability that we use. ColinFine (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Tumbleweed game

[edit]

Hi. My article on the abstract game Tumbleweed was rejected. I don't think it is a question of notability, as much lesser known abstract games have their own page. In terms of references, I linked the Abstract Games magazine, which is the most authoritative magazine on the topic, and an article on a Canadian newspaper. I can link to BGG and BGA if needed. 122.11.212.181 (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be about Draft:Tumbleweed (game) although this IP address has not edited that draft. The SaskToday coverage is an opinion piece that relies overwhelmingly on direct quotations from Michal Zapala, the creator of the game. The AbstractGames.org piece was co-authored by Zapala. Neither of these references are independent of the game and its creator. What is required are multiple references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the game and its creator, that also devote significant coverage to the game. You mention that much lesser known abstract games have their own page. Please list them here. Maybe some or all of those articles should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:36, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Johncino

[edit]

Hi. So my last edit got rejected, but I would like to try again. I made a new edit on it, so can you check it again, thanks. Johncino (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that an article will not be considered further. Your draft is completely unsourced. Any article about this channel must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it and what makes it notable web content as Wikipedia defines it. If you need help writing citations, see Referencing for Beginners.
If you are associated with this channel(some language is very promotional) that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:38, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

When creating a new entry, do you need to write the entry in a complete manner? Rosebabysu (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A draft does not need to be 100% complete to pass this process; the usual standard reviewers look for is that a draft would survive an Articles for deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 17 November 2024 review of submission by 82.55.176.158

[edit]

buongiorno chiedo aiuto per la mia bozza Gaetano Minale che viene respinta perchè ritenuta più volte , non valida , nonostante aggiornamenti documentai. Possa avere per favore il vostro sostegno . Grazie Gaetano Minale 82.55.176.158 (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Automated translation of the above: "good morning I ask for help for my Gaetano Minale draft that is rejected because it was considered invalid several times, despite document updates. May I please have your support. Thank you") —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:07:05, 17 November 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Kplsharmadhk

[edit]



Kplsharmadhk (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kplsharmadhk: you don't ask a question, but this draft was deleted c. 1.5 years ago, as it hadn't been edited for six months. You may request for it to be returned to you by clicking on the red link and following the instructions there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1258011685"