Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LythPython (talk | contribs) at 08:14, 1 July 2021 (→02:22:18, 1 July 2021 review of submission by LythPython). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Jun 2025
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


June 25

04:44:49, 25 June 2021 review of submission by Bigdudesue

Bigdudesue (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bigdudesue, you didn't ask a question. The draft has been queued for deletion as a blatant hoax. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:20, 25 June 2021 review of submission by Ncferavi.somani

Ncferavi.somani (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Madam / Sir,

I am an employee of the National Centre for Financial Education (NCFE). As of now, NCFE is not appearing on Wikipedia, As you may already be aware that NCFE is engaged in a very novel cause of providing financial education to every set of the population at zero cost.

So my humble request to you kindly allow us to creates a page in the name of NCFE. Any question and explanation needed then you can call / email/ text. My contact details are also listed on the official website (www.ncfe.org.in) of NCFE.

Wikipedia is not made to promote your noble cause. If you are an employee of NCFE, please read over WP:COI and WP:PAID, as there is a disclosure to make. Note that in My personal experience 99% of texts not written speficially for Wikipedia's purpose are also unsiutable for Wikipedia for various reasons, even if we could get the copyright stuff resolved. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:46:41, 25 June 2021 review of submission by Sanjeevkrish12

Be Well Hospitals Be Well Hospitals Private Limited is a network of multispecialty hospitals based in Tamilnadu and headquartered at Tnagar, Chennai. It was founded by C.J Vetrievel an Ex CEO of projects division of Apollo Hospitals on 2011. It is currently available at T Nagar, Kilpauk, Poonamallee, Ambattur and Annanagar in Chennai and Pondicherry, Pudukottai, Tuticorn, Erode and Nagerkoil. NABH National Accreditation Board for Hospitals & Healthcare accredited branches of Be well Hospitals are Kilpauk and Pudukottai in Chennai.

History It was founded by C. J Vetrievel in 2011 and the first branch started at Pondicherry and inaugurated by him .

References 1.https://www.bewellhospitals.in/management.php

2. NABH

External Links Official Website

Kindly help me what guidelines and give me some good examples of any profile.

Sanjeevkrish12 (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanjeevkrish12: Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" (thats a social media term, but Wikipedia is not social media), Wikipedia has articles about entities, persons or things that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case a noteable organistion. If you are affilated with Be Well Hospitals, read over WP:COI and WP:PAID as there is a disclosure to make. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:30:58, 25 June 2021 review of draft by 117.204.240.79


117.204.240.79 (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unsourced. no sources, no article, no debate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:35:36, 25 June 2021 review of submission by 117.204.240.79

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kanwar Pal Mahour

117.204.240.79 (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unsourced. no sources, no article, no debate. Curbon7 (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:20:40, 25 June 2021 review of submission by Himanshuyo

Himanshuyo (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - UPE FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:18:01, 25 June 2021 review of draft by OskarJacobsen


I am told that the article needs more verifiable sources. All the sources cited in the article are well known Nigerian and international newspapers. As far as I understand, BBC, Premium Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Reuters have nothing to do with the subject of the article. Please help review.

OskarJacobsen (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OskarJacobsen The issue is not the publications that you are citing, but the articles themselves. These seem to be press release-type articles or announcements of routine business activities, which do not establish notability. Wikipedia is interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about this company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. I would suggest pretty much starting over and just take the three independent reliable sources that have the most in depth, significant coverage of this company(that they have decided themselves to write, not being prompted by the company or something it did) and summarize those three sources to get started. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I will do a rewrite when I have the time. Now I have actual work to do.
@331dot, this is confusing for me. @OskarJacobsen, I believe you have asked this question to me here and was replied here, and in here you said would submit it for AFC. Why then have you copy-pasted the message here? Furthermore there is this which you have denied and we have taken your word for it so what then is the haste about this article? Celestina007 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@celestina007, no haste on my part. I had a number of messages from various people yesterday, and I made every effort to respond to each one of them. I apologies if it comes across as too much.

11:59:49, 25 June 2021 review of submission by 2603:6081:8303:6BB8:E8FC:4648:59C1:63C1

2603:6081:8303:6BB8:E8FC:4648:59C1:63C1 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected because it clearly did not meet our notability standards. Since the draft was correctly rejected, it won't be considered further; Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about yourself. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rejection accepted. I am not writing about myself however. I think it is important that I state that.

12:14:03, 25 June 2021 review of draft by Eincrat


I am trying to figure out how best to cite Theta.tv's licensing agreement with Lionsgate. I know you don't want me to use theta resources if I can help it (and I am really trying hard to do that) but I can't seem to find an outside resource for this even though it is quite clear to me that the agreement exists... I have seen a showing of the Wickerman that was announced by Theta.tv and I seriously doubt Theta.tv would do anything to harm copyrights considering it just applied for a patent to use NFTs to protect copyrights. It has an upcoming showing at 4pm PDT (pacific time zone) https://community.theta.tv/2021/02/26/watch-lionsgate-movies-for-free-on-theta-tv/ that will be shown here https://www.theta.tv/lionsgate. This is live streaming so it can't be seen outside of the designated time slot. Any advice/help you can give would be most appreciated.

Eincrat (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in streaming- or TV-centric news sources that discuss this? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can cite the website as I have done, but I wasn't certain that was going to be sufficient as it is affiliated with Theta. I also have a screen capture but it is on my computer and that could get into copyright issues. Eincrat (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:16, 25 June 2021 review of draft by Its393939

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi. I am trying to create the article for "Charmed Playhouses". It was declined because I was told it already exists. I accidentally had duplicated the page. But now the duplicate is also deleted because it references the original article. They are now both deleted and reference the other deleted article as the reason - in an endless loop. I just attempted to resubmit the draft. Is that what I am supposed to do? Thank you.

Its393939 (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Its393939: Yes, you're doing it correctly now. Since there's now only one page left (the draft), resubmitting it was the right move. I see it's since been declined, so feel free to keep working on improve the issues identified by the reviewer before resubmitting again. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:27, 25 June 2021 review of submission by KPMahour

I want published my article in public. KPMahour (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KPMahour I want a Ferrari FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot afford a Ferrari and your draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Looks like we are both disappointed.
Wikipedia is not a web host. If you want to see yourself online please get a web site FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KPMahour (ec) Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please review the autobiography policy. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media or a personal website. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what they want to say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:KPMahour - This is a content forum, and your autobiography has been nominated for deletion. Some of the reviewers here may invite you to contribute to Wikipedia in areas where you do not have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

06:15:49, 26 June 2021 review of submission by Joshua Gooden

Tanner Rozankovic has recently hit big in the media again within the past 4 weeks having over 6 million views together in videos about him and his projects, I believe Tanner is well suitable for a biography page here on Wikipedia and would like to request a re-review of this page.

Joshua Gooden (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Gooden, That draft is one big soapbox. The sources are unreliable, there are so many neutrality issues, and nothing suggests that the subject is notable, per both our notability criteria for biographies and our general notability criteria. To be frank, the draft seems like one big advertisement, which is probably why it was rejected in the first place. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:16:43, 26 June 2021 review of submission by Abhayesports

How is this topic not notable? As per my understanding of wikipedia’s policies i see this very easily passes GNG and has strong RS. This was last time deleted due to storm of comments by sockpuppete. I’d like to know the reason of declining of this submission with respect to Wikipedia’s policies. What policy does it fail? I have checked, it meets WP:GNG, WP:Basic very easily. Also I’m being labelled as if I’ve taken money for this but my sole reason is to add this article to Wikipedia because I believe this would be a good addition. I have came across way too many articles who don’t have enough reliable sources, but they still stand here. Why is that? Does wikipedia have diff policies for diff people? Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 06:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhayesports Please read other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. Each draft or article is judged on its own merits. 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 would like to pitch in and help, you are welcome to help identify other inappropriate articles for possible action.
Your draft was declined because it just told about the person and what they do. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It's not enough to just tell us what the person has done, it must summarize what others say about why the subject is significant.
For a more specific answer, please ask the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, Thank you for the clarification, the tone might not be good yet but how does that make the subject non-notable? As per my understanding and research on wikipedia, the notability is defined by multiple Reliable sources and as per 3 best sources rule, Zeyan Shafiq clearly meets them, last time there was an AfD for it and it was stormed by fake people trying to get the article down, i'm up for a discussion on which policy has the reviewer(Hatchens )followed while declining it? There must be something that this subject fails, otherwise the only reason which i can think off is the reviewer has declined it because i have a COI with this subject since he is my employer, but i tried to make it very neutral just because i think it definitely deserves an Wikipedia article just like other CEO's in the space, i tried to trim the promotional content as much as i could and i feel it is a good fit for the encyclopaedia at this version and maybe if some more volunteers would help in they could trim it further and make it much more neutral.Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 17:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:17, 26 June 2021 review of submission by 2A02:A465:C8D5:1:B80A:5789:DBD7:E263


The draft article "Henk Jan de Jonge" has been moved to the start-class. I have looked at the suggestions for improvement of drafts in this class. However, in my view, all the references are to reliable, verifiable, impartial sources or to objective, peer reviewed scholarly publications. The content of the draft seems reasonably complete. If there are other imperfections (grammar, style?), could you please point these out to me?

2A02:A465:C8D5:1:B80A:5789:DBD7:E263 (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:A465:C8D5:1:B80A:5789:DBD7:E263, Bumped it to C-class. Curbon7 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:36:00, 26 June 2021 review of draft by Annaoue


I want to know how I can submit my draft for review. It’s called Draft:& (Loona EP).

Annaoue (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annaoue, I've done this for you, but in the future you can do it by typing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft. Spicy (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That album has not yet been released. The draft is too soon until 28 June. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:34:12, 26 June 2021 review of submission by TheProBodyCoach

TheProBodyCoach (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheProBodyCoach You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject, not what it wants to say about itself. Please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:24:55, 26 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Mannitish


My draft article about Kanchan Adhikari rejected and reason given that there is lack of notability about the person. I don't understand how can article reviewer can comment this. Kanchan Adhikari has done tremendous job in the marathi film industry, she is an old, popular and respected name in the industry. Her films are among best feature films in the marathi film industry. all these have been shared in reference URLs.

Mannitish (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mannitish Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. The draft is not rejected. It has been pushed back to youi for further work. Instead of telling us here what she has done, make the draft show us. The reviewer has told you how. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:24, 26 June 2021 review of submission by Dick Weissmann

The submission was rejected so soon, it cannot be assumed that any proper consideration was given to the content. This is disappointing and unacceptable. Even if this article is rejected at this time, it will be approved within months. The Dick F. Weissmann meme is the subject of considerable investigation, for which considerable research will be published in the coming months. The memes, which existed tacitly within certain environments, are being collated and published. There are plans in the pipeline to depict derivations of the Dick F. Weissmann meme in other mediums. This will eventually turn out to be the "Murphy" or "Karen" of a particular setting. Therefore, even if the content does not seem important to the bot making the decisions, it soon will be undeniable, and this submission may just as well be accepted at this point in time. Dick Weissmann (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing unacceptable here is this draft, considering it is some combination of a poorly-sourced autobiography, a poor attempt at humor, blatant self-promotion, and a copyright violation; the latter two reasons are why it has now been deleted. --Kinu t/c 15:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bot didn't make the decision; articles are reviewed by human volunteers since there's too much nuance involved in reviewing article drafts for a bot to be anything but a hindrance. You also have it completely backwards; the sources need to exist first and then the article can be written. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:03, 26 June 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:5C01:B06C:38A4:8654:8DFD:9133

Please tell me how i can publish this article. Imposior is an author and my dear friend. He has website at which he posts his stories. Please tell me how i can publish this article. 2405:201:5C01:B06C:38A4:8654:8DFD:9133 (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this draft is not notable. --Kinu t/c 15:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:25:55, 26 June 2021 review of submission by Sanarkroid

I need help to publish my draft at Draft:My Beautiful Laundrette (EP), but I can't cause when I submitted it for article creation, a reviewer said me that my draft "do not appear to indicate which of the musical notability criteria is satisfied" and that "it reads like an advertisement", so help please

Sanarkroid (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanarkroid I've fixed your link to be a proper internal link; the whole web address is not necessary. Your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that the topic does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of the notability of music. No amount of editing can change that, so you will have to let the matter rest until the notability can be later demonstrated. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Release section is a blurb to sell the CD. That is advertising. McClenon mobile (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:27, 26 June 2021 review of draft by Loyalkent

I created my first article draft. It is an article about a corporation, Island Creek Oysters. In the article, I have defined the business, identified the founder, chronologically detailed its history, and provided a contextual basis for the business. I am in no way affiliated with the business in question or persons involved in the business. It has been rejected because it reads like an advertisement. How can I appear any less biased? Loyalkent (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalkent A Wikipedia article must do more than tell about a company and what it does. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Most of the sources you offered are press release type stories or announcements of routine business activities, which do not establish notability. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot :meters Thank you, that was helpful. I just created a page Duxbury Yacht Club -- is it up to snuff with respect to notability and reference variety?--Loyalkent (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)loyalkent[reply]

June 27

Request on 05:15:19, 27 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Pradeeprwt


Pradeeprwt (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't interested in your boast-rapping. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:41, 27 June 2021 review of submission by 76.240.112.154

please help, I do not understand why declined when notable actor

76.240.112.154 (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources demonstrate her notability, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Rose Wiesel came to the same conclusion in April. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:04:28, 27 June 2021 review of submission by Sanarkroid

I'm just publishing the latest Pet Shop Boys EP "without any advertising intention" in my draft Draft:My Beautiful Laundrette (EP), I don't try to violate any term or condition, I heard some to say my draft is and advertising blurb to sell the CD, I gave reliable sources, ok, tell me which reasons have to say that my draft is an advertising blurb, without going further, the Agenda EP is "exactly written in the same way" as mine and I don't see where the blurb is, if so, why don't you delete it?

Sanarkroid (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It's an advertising blurb" is an indictment of the actual writing in the article, and not of its sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And "What about this only tangentially-related-article that quite possibly has no circumstances in common with mine?" is not a valid argument. If there's a turd in a punchbowl, do you throw the punch out or use the bowl as a latrine? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:16:53, 27 June 2021 review of draft by Sanarkroid


I need help to get secondary sources for my draft Draft:My Beautiful Laundrette (EP), I've provided it with three reliable sources and modified it, to not make it read as advertising

Sanarkroid (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:00:39, 27 June 2021 review of submission by AFRICAN001

The article was declined for not quoting reliable sources, as well as damaged references which I've repaired. However, save the amazon reference which I removed, every other reference for this author is reliable. I'd be grateful if you can tell me why the rest are not considered reliable, when similar pages have been accepted. Many thanks for your assistance

AFRICAN001 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFRICAN001 Please see other stuff exists. That other similar articles exist does not automatically mean yours can too. 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. That they exist does not mean that they have been vetted or approved by the community. We can only address what we know about. If you want to pitch in and help, you are welcome to help us identify inappropriate articles for possible action. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:25:07, 27 June 2021 review of draft by S Tallim


On June 22nd reviewer Jupitus Smart declined the submission partly because the subject failed to meet the ‘notability’ criteria.

On same day I responded, as follows:

Under Wikipedia guidelines [heading: Under Additional Criteria (Any Biography)] notable includes "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Mahal is a recipient of Queen Elizbeth ll Golden Jubilee award by the Canadian government under their criteria "The Medal was awarded to Canadians who have made outstanding and exemplary contributions to their communities or to Canada as a whole." Even Wikipedia affirms "In Canada, the medal was administered by the Chancellery of Honours at Rideau Hall and was awarded to Canadians who made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens, their community, or to Canada over the previous fifty years." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II_Golden_Jubilee_Medal).

On June 25th the reviewer replied:

My dear paid writer, the condition that you quote is for exclusive awards. An award given to 46000 people in a year in a country of ~3,14, 00, 000 people does not meet our metrics. Please ping me in case you want me to notice any further replies. Regards. Jupitus Smart 04:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


On same day I requested clarification

Kindly clarify what you mean by referring to me as "paid writer". S TallimS Tallim (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Reviewer has not answered my query.

I believe a reviewer should be open minded, just, fair and without bias. Reviewer has failed on two fronts. Firstly, I find his innuendo of my being a “paid writer” offensive and uncalled for. Secondly, he appears to belittle the significance of an award given to people for “outstanding and exemplary contributions to their communities” in Canada.

I believe reviewer Jupitus Smart has not been neutral in his assessment of the draft.

S TallimS Tallim (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S Tallim, I don't disagree with Jupitus Smart (talk · contribs · logs) assessment of the draft. Many of your sources are flawed and unreliable, including but not limited to: Amazon, Google Scholar, and primary sources. Regarding Jupitus' comment of undisclosed paid editing, I'm sure there was a good and glaring reason for him to not assume good faith. Curbon7 (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no quarrel with reviewer's assessment of the draft. Your remarks, however, indicate circling of the wagons.

FYI I was upfront with the declaration of conflict of interest. To avoid even the slightest perception of conflict of interest I declared my association with Mahal, in following words:

I was a founding member of a Sikh discussion group on Yahoo-Groups, now shut down. I was approached by Mahal in 2012 to help publish his book - about a Sikh emperor - as it could then be disseminated widely among the 1200 Sikh members of the group. No fees were asked nor paid. My son and I helped Mahal on the publication on Kindle Direct Publishing. I do not have friendly relationship with Mahal. As our members bought his book and wrote favorably about it, and as I came across his recently published book "Origin of Jat Race", I was impressed with his works and decided to explore his life and activities. As I delved into his life I got persuaded to write his bio. To write the bio I contacted Mahal.

My drafting the article was entirely altruistic. I have not asked for, nor paid, any payment for my work on the draft. That’s why I find the innuendo of “paid writer” insulting and uncalled for.

You are calling following sources (Norman Barrier, UoMissouri; Dr. V. L. Sharma Prof. Emeritus, WMU; Shinder Thandi, Lecturer at UC Santa Barbara; Dr. Hardev Singh Virk, Prof. UoPunjab) + Dr. Pashaura Singh UC Riverside who is on Wikipedia, as unreliable and flawed. So be it.

You did not provide feedback on the Queen Elizbeth ll Golden Jubilee award.

Well, if the draft is not approved, so be it. S TallimS Tallim (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:02, 27 June 2021 review of submission by 1samirpatel1000


1samirpatel1000 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC) can you delete all my pages[reply]

16:55:36, 27 June 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:182F:C6EC:0:19:651A:7E01

2402:3A80:182F:C6EC:0:19:651A:7E01 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:03, 27 June 2021 review of submission by 2402:E280:3D7A:1C2:2862:7D63:B62B:2A4A

Why was my article declined? I am an indian actress and all my works are being incorrectly directed to an actor Aisha Uqbah Malik,which is not me, please verify my existence in the below link. I have also worked in Indian television series called Behenein, Haar Jeet, Diya aur Bati, Khwaish and a movie Ishawar.

2402:E280:3D7A:1C2:2862:7D63:B62B:2A4A (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into your account and or link to the draft at issue. That said, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:30, 27 June 2021 review of submission by AFRICAN001

Hi,

my draft article for this wikipedia page is supposed to be private from search engines. Yet, when a search is done with my subject's name, this draft, together with all the private messages and declines, etc shows up, which isn't good for the subject's image. Could you advise on how this can be rectified and set on private to wikipedia so it stops coming up on google search? Cheers

. AFRICAN001 (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFRICAN001 I only get the draft when I search the names with the word draft, and the results are other websites that routinely copy or mirror drafts and other pages. Unfortunately we cannot do anything about that. That is part of the risk when attempting to write on Wikipedia, and you agree that your contributions may be used by others with attribution, with every edit(see the notice above the Publish Changes button). 331dot (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you are concerned about their image because you represent them? Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. There is no way to guarantee that you will only enhance the image of these people. See WP:PROUD. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AFRICAN001, Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing should answer all of your questions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:52:39, 27 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Syed Tajamul12


Syed Tajamul12 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Tajamul12 What is your question? 331dot (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:24, 27 June 2021 review of submission by Pranjitaxom

Pranjitaxom (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pranjitaxom You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see WP:AUTO and WP:PROUD. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


June 28

01:04:26, 28 June 2021 review of submission by AgentX50

This is the second time the article draft has been rejected for "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." My second submission stripped down the draft significantly only to include statements made in major U.S. published sources (newspapers, etc.). Can someone help tell me what needs further removed from my draft to make this publishable? I have several other subjects I want to do but want to use a model that works before moving ahead and I'm scratching my head to understand why this isn't getting accepted--it's literally based on several pages just like this subject. Thanks in advance!!! AgentX50 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC) AgentX50 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AgentX50: the issue here is the article as it stands now is more about their works then the actual subject. This is currently not demonstrating how the author meets the WP:AUTHOR threshold. A biography should be about the person and not as much about their works. If no one has actually written about the author they may not be notable enough for inclusion as we probably wouldn't be able to write a verifiable article on their life. Now with that being said some of their books may be notable if you can show with proper referencing they meet WP:NBOOK. For this to happen you will need to cite full reviews of the works from reputable sources as well as proof of any literary awards. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcmatter: Thanks--you're describing my first draft that the reviewer rejected and I pared back. Note: He didn't reject either of my drafts for WP:AUTHOR threshold, but for sources. If I resubmit the first version about the author specifically--the bio--I expect he'll reject again and for his same reason, again sources, despite my using the very entities that define what is popular or famous literature in the U.S. The cited sources for each award were/are the very websites of these well-known, national awards. I basically copied the format of existing author profiles on Wikipedia (actually for authors not as famous as this author, which is what initially prompted me to make a list of famous authors missing from Wikipedia but referenced throughout several listings on Wikipedia) so I'm not sure what to do next. (BTW after getting each author's page approved my plan was to add their bestselling works). AgentX50 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC) AgentX50 (talk)[reply]
@AgentX50: The sources are the issue as the one which discuss the author proper only one is considered reliable (The Kansas City Star), the other is a press release and is not really worth anything for us to establish notability. All of the other references are about awards for books not the author. The Kansas State Library also is generally not going to be considered a significant award for notability sakes. Starting with the books may be a better path as if you can prove that the books are in fact notable then the author may then also be considered notable as a creative professional with multiple notable works. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:12:09, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Syed Tajamul12

Syed Tajamul12 (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Tajamul12, You again didn't ask a question. The draft is completely unsourced. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:46, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Menu maharaj

I have created an of a song Vardaan (song) and the reviewer declined the article he says the topic is not notable but the topic is notable because there are lots of source, big news paper talking about the topic

Menu maharaj (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the draft was first declined, it was with a comment explaining why each of the eight sources was inadequate, and that the entire draft is written like an advertisement. As far as I can see, you removed three of the poor sources, added six others that are just as inadequate, and resubmitted without doing anything about the promotional writing. "Lots of sources" is irrelevant, if all the sources are useless. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:10:48, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Ali2351

Ali2351 (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please refer to the top table here:
None of your sources help a whit for notability, and thus the draft has no chance of being accepted without much, MUCH stronger sources that discuss the subject at length, have competent editorial control, and have no connexion to the subject or their surrogates. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:39, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Uttarakhandgk007

Uttarakhandgk007 (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such sources can be found, removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when editing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. Your sources must be in-line, no exceptions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:03, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Deepak Namdeo14

Deepak Namdeo14 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi,

Have changed resources links in the article but still it is not getting approved

Can I use the following links in the article for resource links? In the below links CaseFox is mentioned

https://wardblawg.com/best-case-management-software-for-law-firms-uk/ https://www.capterra.com/legal-billing-software#shortlist https://www.business.com/articles/legal-document-management-software/ https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/milpitas/profile/computer-software/casefox-1216-1298100 https://blog.capterra.com/free-and-open-source-law-practice-time-tracking-software/ https://www.reportsgo.com/legal-billing-software-market-121405 https://www.legalitprofessionals.com/component/mtree/list-alpha/c https://www.linkedin.com/posts/marketresearchintellect_global-conflict-checking-software-market-activity-6811705575504781313-63Mf https://legaltechsociety.wildapricot.org/Document-Management-Software

Please refer to the top table here:
So the answer is no. Mere mentions do not cut it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:40, 28 June 2021 review of submission by LilyHawkins97

I am requesting a review on the Wikipedia page for Intimacy Coordinator Vanessa Coffey. She is notable within her industry, which since the #MeToo movement is of increasing importance. Actress Michaela Coel recently praised the work of Intimacy Coordinators in her BAFTA acceptance speech, bringing the role to the forefront of the media and securing an abundance of press requests for Vanessa to explain more about Intimacy Coordination.

Her credits span a number of notable projects for screen and stage, and with other professionals holding the same position in the industry being granted a Wikipedia page, including the likes of Ita O'Brien, it is only fitting that Vanessa's page be re-reviewed. LilyHawkins97 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LilyHawkins97, The subject is not notable, per our general notability criteria. Many of the sources that are cited are not reliable sources, as they are primary sources. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:56, 28 June 2021 review of draft by DamesnetV

I've now added references so that there are only two short paras without references. This article seems to have more references than some that have been published so I hope it can be approved for publication now. Many thanks.

I note that one of the links in the references is very long, and would welcome your advice on shortening it.

Many thanks DamesnetV (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:51, 28 June 2021 review of submission by 117.196.175.129

117.196.175.129 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added more informations in this draft Draft:Traditional Malayalam months.And the Article 'Malayayalam calender' does not contains detailed informations about Malayalam months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.175.129 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is completely unsourced. As was mentioned in the draft, you are welcome to add such information into the duplicate article Malayalam calendar; however, any additions you make must be supported by reliable sources. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:38, 28 June 2021 review of draft by Gihan Jayaweera

Hello to everyone. I have seen that my Draft has been declined by some admins. But, I can assure that the person is notable. Also, all the important things are given. Promotional tones and wording are removed. He has won several international business awards. Also, he is a similar character to founder of Dilmah tea brand, Merrill J. Fernando. So, his article is saved. But my article has deleted or rejected. I don't get that. Most of you are telling it is not encyclopedic. But I have added some notable awards and other prose, but later you said they are under promotional. So, I am confused. Also I have given several reliable primary and secondary sources, in local language, English language. Some are newspaper articles, which are purely reliable. So my point is, why we cannot improve the article and just accept it. There are many useless single sentence articles in Wikipedia on biography. But in my article, I have provided all the necessities to accept the article. But, you are keep deleting and refusing it. I hope you will understand. Thank You.

GihanJayaweeraTALK 15:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:29, 28 June 2021 review of draft by 103.25.251.243


103.25.251.243 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above draft was marked by the author for [WP:G7|G7 deletion]]. Curbon7 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:52, 28 June 2021 review of draft by AliMehboob22427


AliMehboob22427 (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:20, 28 June 2021 review of submission by Sxnnyy

I believe this is sufficient enough to be posted because the representative is very popular in massachusetts and his children receive enough attention to have a wikipedia page/ Sxnnyy (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sxnnyy, Inherent notability is not a qualifier for an article on Wikipedia. Every article must be notable per our general notability criteria. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:56, 28 June 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:1895:FEC2:B65E:536D:C5EB:2158

2402:3A80:1895:FEC2:B65E:536D:C5EB:2158 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please follow the advice of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:51, 28 June 2021 review of submission by 2603:8080:1E03:BC1F:3051:1294:A65E:EB48

Please advise whats going on and why we cant approve this?

2603:8080:1E03:BC1F:3051:1294:A65E:EB48 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, as it appears the person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. No amount of editing can confer notability on someone. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:05, 28 June 2021 review of draft by Goldstriker


Goldstriker (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goldstriker You don't ask a question, but you have submitted your draft for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


June 29

00:36:28, 29 June 2021 review of submission by CaptainJohn21

CaptainJohn21 (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:08, 29 June 2021 review of draft by Cxxisroy

Hi,my submission had been declined so many times, I just can't understand the relevant reason you gave to me that the reference does not show the significant coverage, the references I cited were the securities companies' research reports which totally focus on the research about FULONGMA.

Cxxisroy (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cxxisroy That is not what is being looked for, you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. Please read Your first article. If there are few or no independent sources with significant coverage, the company would not merit an article at this time. If you work for the company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:09:47, 29 June 2021 review of submission by Deepak Namdeo14

Deepak Namdeo14 (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi,

I had changed the content and also resource links twice but still, my article is not getting approved.

I want to know that can use the following URLs for resource links (verification) in the article Casefox.com on these pages:

https://onlineprnews.com/news/50008999-1622708383-casefox-categorized-in-the-leaders-of-legal-billing-from-getapp-in-the-leaders-report-2021.html https://www.activepractice.com/articles/casefox-overview.html https://comparecamp.com/casefox-review-pricing-pros-cons-features/ https://www.airslate.com/bot/explore/pre-fill-from-casefox-bot https://www.infotech.com/software-reviews/products/casefox https://blog.technolawyer.com/2012/04/casefox.html https://appadvice.com/app/casefox/1073623175 https://bisouv.com/world/2687383/conflict-checking-software-market-industry-analysis-with-top-players-casefox-nelson-quillin-cc-check-geni-financial-services/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak Namdeo14 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Namdeo14, Most of the sources cited in the draft are not reliable sources, as they are primary sources or simply are not useful in referencing the subject. Also, of the links you've rovided here, I'm not sure very many, if any, are reliable. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curbon7 (talk • contribs)

10:54:26, 29 June 2021 review of submission by Icecoffeeallyearlong

Hello I've been collecting statues and collectibles from Prime 1 Studio for quite some time now. I'm trying to edit the wikipedia but don't know how to proceed. Please help. Icecoffeeallyearlong (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icecoffeeallyearlong, I left a welcome template on your page with a series of very useful links you can check out to help you get started. As far as that draft goes, you should create a new version as I note the current draft was rejected a few months ago. Curbon7 (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:31, 29 June 2021 review of submission by Kstenson86

 Courtesy link: Draft talk:Kstenson86/sandbox

Kstenson86 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm if Richard L. Greene page creation is now complete. Does it require any additional verification.

Kstenson86, Thanks for your contribution, but Richard L. Greene already has an article. You should make improvements there instead of to the draft. Curbon7 (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:12:10, 29 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Memadigan64


Memadigan64 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memadigan64, you didn't ask a question. The draft must be supported by reliable sources in order to confirm notability. Curbon7 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:10, 29 June 2021 review of submission by Kstenson86

Need assistance to remove the notification (top of page) on Richard L. Greene's wiki page Kstenson86 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kstenson86, this isn't the proper medium for discussing articles in mainspace. It would be better for you to check out the main help desk or the Teahouse. Curbon7 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:28, 29 June 2021 review of draft by Saurabhbans87


Saurabhbans87 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabhbans87, you didn't ask a question. Also, the draft is completely unsourced. Sources are needed in order to verify notability. Curbon7 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:09:40, 29 June 2021 review of draft by Nutellab

Hi! Just wondered if I could get some extra eyes on the page Draft:Photograph_magazine. I've been adding more sources and would love input. Thank you so much :) Nutellab (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:31:13, 29 June 2021 review of submission by Piyushdear

Piyushdear (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above draft was deleted under both G11 and G12. Curbon7 (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:33:45, 29 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by JennilyW

My draft keeps on getting declined. It says that I don't have reliable sources, but the sources are form WP:VG/RS. That is the only place where I can find sources, unless WP:WPCPY has some. Please help me!

🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on the specific outlets doesn't matter when the specific articles you're citing are just passing mentions. IGN, the second NintendoLife cite, Gamespot, and Upcomer don't actually discuss ILCA in any real depth. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


June 30

00:35:13, 30 June 2021 review of draft by Uzik01


Good afternoon,

After 4 months in review the article I've created on Adolf Shapiro (theatre director) was declined by the user Scorpions13256 citing minimum standard for inline citations.

Unfortunately the user Scorpions13256 is unavailable for any comment, user talk page is down for mental health issues.

The article does not contain direct quotations, no challenged statements or statements tagged with "citation needed", no statement that is likely to be challenged, and no contentious material.

The article also contains 18 inline citations.

Furthermore, the article is a translation of the article within Russian language wikipedia which apparently does meet citation standards. Except where Russian language article has 12 inline citation here we expanded the list to 18.

Perhaps the problem is with citation format, or some specific statement is causing the article to be declined, but since the reviewer is unavailable for comment I have no choice but to request help here.

Thank you in advance.

Uzik01 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:09:47, 30 June 2021 review of draft by 76.66.120.12


I am the original creator of this draft but I was told it was not referenced properly. But I was not told which lines are missing citations so I can add them. They are all from an official University website so if needed I can cite every single line (but that seems excessive to me).

76.66.120.12 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One source is nowhere near enough to justify an article, let alone a source associated with the subject. You need to come up with strong third-party sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:54:12, 30 June 2021 review of submission by Sapodefirst

This is a media outlet for one of the most valuable utility tokens in Africa. Sapodefirst (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. An organization only merits an article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization; your draft does not do that and the reviewer rejected it because they see little chance that it can. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:50:26, 30 June 2021 review of submission by 2401:4900:3149:4846:A405:AA12:5548:903C

2401:4900:3149:4846:A405:AA12:5548:903C (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:12, 30 June 2021 review of draft by AlicjankaC


I would like to speed up my draft review, and add a category to my draft:Małgorzata Cybulska. It is about Tokyo Summer Olympics 2020, women equestrian/ eventing athletes. Unfortunately, the category I see is "german scientists" and don't know how to change it. I would like to add this tag about Tokyo since my draft is about one of the nominated athletes for Tokyo that did not have her article yet, so publishing this article should be fast.

Best

AlicjankaC (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That draft would never be accepted because it is not in English. Please write it on the appropriate Wikipedia for that language. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:59, 30 June 2021 review of submission by TheUniversalRapMusician

TheUniversalRapMusician (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft contains no reliable sources and contains zero indication of notability. --Kinu t/c 16:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:04, 30 June 2021 review of submission by Hrishikesh Namboothiri V

I don't know why you're saying that the article have no reliable sources. You can search in google for the topic 'Traditional Malayalam months'. Is Google a reliable source? Yours sincerely, Hrishikesh Namboothiri V

Hrishikesh Namboothiri V (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Google Searches aren't a reliable source, because 1) there is no real control and 2) it is highely dynamic: What might appear now on the first results page, might be gone in an hour. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is redundant to the article Malayalam calendar, which is sourced more adequately. --Kinu t/c 18:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are some books on the topic'Traditional Malayalam months'.

18:08:01, 30 June 2021 review of submission by 76.240.112.154

76.240.112.154 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Refer to this:
In summarry, your sources are all useless. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:04:26, 30 June 2021 review of submission by 137.103.251.12

Hello this is a new startup i've been following as i met the CEO at tech conference event, I truly believe this will be the next big tech company, how can we help by getting this page up?

137.103.251.12 (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Four of your sources are 404-compliant and the other two are press releases, which are primary sources and cannot help for notability as Wikipedia defines it. We do not have articles about "the next big thing"; they must have already made a name for themselves for us to even consider having an article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:40:17, 30 June 2021 review of submission by TheoryReader

TheoryReader (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. In order to satisfy WP:Notability, we need multiple reliable third-party sources that discuss the book at length, which for books generally means professional or scholarly reviews. One single review is not going to cut it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked online and while there are some reviews, the sources are borderline notable so would agree this wouldn't be notable regardless of any additional sources being added. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:08:02, 30 June 2021 review of submission by Morris Bannerman

Morris Bannerman (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add an article to wiki and link to the composer involved with the article - Morris Bannerman (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Morris Bannerman/sandbox
We need to see more sources that discuss them at length. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

02:22:18, 1 July 2021 review of submission by LythPython


Hi! My article was declined, and I'm wondering what I can do to fix the sources within it. As per my knowledge, the sources are from large local websites, and award organizations, as well as from websites with an authors opinion on an esports controversy situation subject that pertained to the brand that I'm writing about. Thanks!

LythPython (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:22:37, 1 July 2021 review of submission by Syedanustanweer

Syedanustanweer (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article template, not an actual article, and was rejected for that reason. Come back when you've actually written an article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:44:11, 1 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:7000:2143:8500:C13F:1A89:7716:B2C3

It meets GNG. The editor rejecting it did not even indicate that he considered GNG .. only the sport-specific guideline, but clearly simply meeting GNG is sufficient. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C13F:1A89:7716:B2C3 (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that all of the references are basically the announcement of him qualifying to compete in the Olympics so nothing outside of that which shows why he is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1031377296"