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 Stan.spin (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 12 January 2023 (→Article decline: new section). 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
June 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


January 5

Request on 08:13:20, 5 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Clkluigi

Hello, My draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clkluigi#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Montreal_declaration_on_animal_exploitation_%28January_5%29 has been refused. The reasons for the refusal are clear in themselves, but I don't see how to apply them. I felt I had sourced everything correctly and the peacock terms are in sections dedicated to feedback, which seem balanced to me. Should I delete the "reactions" section? Thanks in advance for sharing your expertise--Clkluigi (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clkluigi (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:34:22, 5 January 2023 review of draft by Mamajudi3


I came across an magazine article recently about Qeuyl and wanted to know more about him so I turned to wikipedia but i was shocked to see that theres no info on him on here, I don't really understand what wikipedia considers worthy and my friends tell me not to trust it for info because the people who write these are bias and trolly. than i went down a rabbit hole and decided to find what i can it sorta seems like some if not most wikipedia editors are only following trends.

I thought the purpose of wikipedia is to archive information like an encyclopedia, I remember my favorite letter was M I learned my first magic trick from reading about a boring card trick, now that trick wasn't popular or glamours at all but it was worth it

I need help with the subject Qeuyl as well as a few other subjects like a list of all the top TikTok influencers, and not just the ones who you see a lot because they pay for advertisement, I want to know what happened to E_Brzy the creator or 75% of all the transition's on TikTok is he still alive, Is my fathers favorite action star Sho Kesugi still making movies?

I have questions you got answers if not lets find them together.

Mamajudi3 (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamajudi3: do you, after that diatribe, have an actual question you would like to ask, related to the AfC review process? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes can you help me cite this article I'm new to this Mamajudi3 (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamajudi3: sure — WP:REFB explains the process of referencing; WP:RS describes the concept of 'reliable sources'; and WP:GNG explains how to establish the subject's notability using such sources, where the subject doesn't meet one of the special notability standards such as WP:MUSICBIO. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mamajudi3 Regarding "I thought the purpose of wikipedia is to archive information like an encyclopedia"; this is not exactly correct; the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    in other-words popular information, but what happens when the topic doesn't have enough coverage but is a key part of other topics Mamajudi3 (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mamajudi3: if a topic doesn't have sufficient (in both quality and quantity) coverage in published sources, then it is highly unlikely to be included in Wikipedia; that is pretty much the gist of the whole concept of 'notability' (as well as 'verifiability'), which is a fundamental requirement for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    in other-words popular opinion, do you not see the confusion here, on one end you are saying a topic must have sufficient resource information but I have already helped add references to topics with little to no references at all yet these topics have be accepted by the community. I love reading topics on here and helping add to the information but if I don't see a particular topic that I am actually interested in I am compelled to do all the research and start the Topic but according to the volunteers of wikipedia if it's not popular enough than theres no need to add it correct. Mamajudi3 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mamajudi3: be that as it may, the fact remains that Wikipedia is based on the principle of summarising what earlier sources have published, we are never the first outlet for disseminating new information. You are simply not going to change such core policy by debating it here at the help desk. Did you have an actual question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and yes that is why I asked for help on the Topic of Qeuyl Mamajudi3 (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:04, 5 January 2023 review of submission by Сергеич Иванов

Hi everyone! Happy New Year! I've changed my draft and waiting for resubmission. Could you watch and tell me if everything OK with it? Thank you!!!! Сергеич Иванов (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Сергеич Иванов If you have updated the draft, and you want it to be reviewed again, click the blue "Resubmit" button. David10244 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:18, 5 January 2023 review of draft by Philosophymaybe


I just submitted an article about a person. I was trying to upload his picture but every time it gave me an error. How do I do it?

Philosophymaybe (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophymaybe Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Your account is not yet four days old so you cannot upload images- but don't worry about images until your draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:21, 5 January 2023 review of draft by CastJared

I know that HBO made controversies surrounding it's programming in years. CastJared (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CastJared You haven't submitted it for a review, and it has very little content and no sources. "Controversies" is often considered not neutral; perhaps it should be along the lines of Criticism of Walmart, "Criticism of HBO". 331dot (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I updated to have sources. CastJared (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CastJared I see the sources there. If you are ready for the draft to be reviewed again, click the blue Resubmit button. David10244 (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:05, 5 January 2023 review of submission by Hickeygamez

I've requested a re-view because I've made several updates to the notability section. In particular, an article from journal has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles as of late.

Hickeygamez (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hickeygamez I've added the template so you can submit it, since it's been awhile. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:29:28, 5 January 2023 review of submission by Rachelemg

I am trying to get a page published but it keeps getting declined for lack of credible sources. How do I fix this? Also note, this page existed before for some time before deleted and I was working on a new one.

Rachelemg (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelemg I assume this is about Draft:Jay Feldman. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Mr. Feldman, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Your main source is an interview, which does not establish notability as it is the person speaking about themselves. We want to know what others wholly unconnected with Mr. Feldman have to say about him and why he is important or significant. The only claim to notability I see is that he is friends with Mark Wahlberg, but notability is not inherited by association. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand now. If I were to post a new article but on the company and not him as a person, would that be doable? There is way more information and credible articles on the company. Rachelemg (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you might have a better shot that way, but it depends on what the sources say and if the company meets the definition of a notable company. The sources cannot be interviews of company staff, press releases, announcements of routine activities, or other primary sources.(they can be used for other purposes but do not establish notability). 331dot (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like the Company page was declined as well. How do I go about requesting some one who is fluent in the Wiki world to create the page instead? Rachelemg (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rachelemg You can make a request at Requested articles, but it is so backlogged that any request you make may not be acted on for some time, if ever. If there are not the sources out there to support notability, it doesn't matter who writes it; without appropriate sources, it would not merit an article at this time. Do you have a connection to this business? 331dot (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:24, 5 January 2023 review of draft by SonOfYoutubers

My draft has been awaiting review for over 2 months and I want my draft to be reviewed a bit quicker. I've completed about as much information that I can find, but I've been waiting and waiting and it still hasn't gotten reviewed. I understand there are many drafts to review, but I believe 2 months is a bit much. Thank you for the assistance! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SonOfYoutubers As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,112 pending submissions waiting for review." Can you tell us why your draft should be put on the front of the line ahead of the thousands of other people waiting? This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'm trying to be patient, but I just personally feel like there's not much more changes or information to really be added. Another problem I'm having is really getting any involvement from others so that information that I may be unaware of can be filled out. I'll wait further, but I'm just afraid that it won't ever really get reviewed. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SonOfYoutubers If there's no more to add, then there's no more to add. You are free to tell others both on and off wiki about your draft. If you are 95-100% confident it would survive a deletion discussion, you are free to move it to the encyclopedia yourself, this process is voluntary for most people. It's a good idea if you lack experience in article creation, but it's voluntary. If you would like advice, please be patient. I understand your frustration, but this is a volunteer effort. It will eventually be reviewed. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually SonOfYoutubers a few years ago drafts were taking upwards of 6 months for some to be reviewed, so you are lucky there are now a relatively small number articles for review. Remember that we have no deadlines, so please be patient. ww2censor (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

09:24:43, 6 January 2023 review of submission by Zihao H

Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for reviewing my submission. It's so frustrated that the article has been rejected. Apache Doris is a database project empowered by Apache Software Foundation, which is an NGO and known worldwide.

I want to know the reason why the article has copyright issue and how could I update the article so that you could accept it. In addition, I found a lot of projects that empowered by Apache Software Foundation has been listed in Wikipedia, such as Apache Hadoop, Apache Spark, Apache Pivot, Apache Cassandra, Apache Kafka, Apache ZooKeeper, etc. What's the difference between theirs and my article?

Thank you

Zihao H (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zihao H: "the reason why the [draft] had copyright issue" is that a substantial proportion of it had been lifted verbatim from an external source, which is not only disallowed by Wikipedia policies but almost certainly by actual laws also. Another version of the draft was deleted as blatantly promotional. Neither is acceptable, regardless of whether the subject is in and of itself suitable for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:31:00, 6 January 2023 review of draft by Tojoroy20


Tojoroy20 (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can the references in this article be considered a reliable and accurate source? If not, then why are they not considered as valid sources.

Hi Tojoroy20, please see reliable source for guidance on sources and also note what Slay yPoint says about themselves is not useful for notability (interviews, their comments, etc.). Based on a brief look, I suggest also looking at WP:BIO1E. It seems a lot of the quality sources are about the "Binod" event. S0091 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:56:56, 6 January 2023 review of draft by Museumsart


Museumsart (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Museumsart I assume this is about the draft I have placed a link to above, replacing a link to a different page. You have resubmitted it for a review, do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitted without any improvement, I might add. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Museumsart: the whole point of the review process is that when a draft gets declined, you address the reasons for the decline, and then — and only then — resubmit. You have now twice resubmitted without the slightest attempt at improvement, and if you continue like that you risk having the draft rejected outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FOR INFO: it appears we now have Draft:Azure way museum (draftified from the mainspace), in addition to the earlier Draft:Azure Way Museum. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:46, 6 January 2023 review of draft by ManyKinds

I believe that the draft I created is correct. The draft was recently declined for not having a notable subject and reliable sources but I believe that to be false. The article shows that the subject is highly notable around social media and the internet and the articles include citations from news pages that are know worldwide. These news pages include a whole page which only talks about the subject. I am talking about Draft:Greg O’Gallagher.

ManyKinds (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the partial exception of the CNBC article, essentially those references are relatively trivial pieces and very close to vanity content - the 10 people you should follow in 2021 is not serious content. The decline of the draft means "you need to do a bit more", it does not mean they aren't notable - just that you haven't yet sufficiently demonstrated it. MarcGarver (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:35, 6 January 2023 review of submission by TylerBSS

isnt wikipedias goal to preserve everything? he has a video with over 100k views. please rereview this TylerBSS (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBSS: no, that isn't the goal of Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to summarise what it considers notable, which in most cases means topics that multiple independent and reliable published sources have previously covered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:35:13, 6 January 2023 review of draft by Tojoroy20


Tojoroy20 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References are credible enough and not just a passing mention of the subject. Sources discuss a lot about the subject and the subject's work, rather than entire articles being based on the subject. Most of the sources are media articles, and are based on accurate information.Some articles may not be directly about the subject, but they do not disprove the facts mentioned. Information about Slayy Point is also available on wikidata.( I would be like to know exactly which sources are not considered reliable or In depth )

Answered above. @Tojoroy20: please do not post multiple sections/queries. S0091 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:00:13, 6 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Rockywriter88


examples of sources that can be added more? and not all museums add all artist book to there national collection of research.


Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve the page?

Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockywriter88: what you're asking for is a review of the draft, but you have submitted it already and it will be reviewed when a reviewer gets around to doing so, which may take weeks or even months, as there are c. 3,000 drafts awaiting review.
And please don't open a new thread with each question, just add them to your previous one. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for your feedback. Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:24, 6 January 2023 review of draft by CastJared

Um... I copied multiple of them, but 7 HBO series pages needed them to be moved. Also, I need more sources to be added. CastJared (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CastJared, it is unclear what your question is but the editor declined it as a POV fork. I see you have posted on several articles' talk pages but I do not see consensus and some were just posted yesterday. I suggest posting a note at WP:Television as well. S0091 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is content fork. CastJared (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:55:41, 6 January 2023 review of draft by A.Alex10

A.Alex10 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added more references to the article. Can you please tell me if they are good? Can you please help me in making this article better? Good enough to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Alex10 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A.Alex10 there's still several unsourced paragraphs. If sources are not available to support the content, then remove it. We generally do not give reviews here so if you want another review, you need to resubmit it. S0091 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:27:25, 6 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Addingcontentagain

Having trouble understandin the comments from reviewers. I'm struggling navigating the requirements for new articles. For this specific entry, I get comments that sources aren't notable, reliable, secondary, or independent. However, having read the instructions about these terms, I feel that the sources used in the article indeed are notable (e.g., Wired), reliable (Public Service broadcaster ZDF), secondary (Netzpolitik), and independent (all of the above). Would appreciate hands-on pointers as to what to do next. thanks!


Addingcontentagain (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Addingcontentagain, the subject needs to be notable, not the source. The sources supporting notability of the subject need to meet all four criteria. Using Wired as an example, while it is generally a reliable source, there is no mention of "ACM Conference on Recommender Systems" or "ACM" for that matter so is not useful. The Hindustan Times article, which is in-depth, is a Brand post so not reliable in this context or independent so again, not useful. S0091 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction to my learned friend's comment, the Wired piece does mention the conference, but only in passing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

07:45:59, 7 January 2023 review of submission by 2001:8003:E4A1:7700:24F4:A801:4771:8792

2001:8003:E4A1:7700:24F4:A801:4771:8792 (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC) WHY DOES WIKIPEDIA SAY THAT THE WORLDS LAGEST TRAVE SITE IS UN RELIABLE PLEASE POST A LIST OF RELIABLE TRAVEL SITES[reply]

Could you please either log into your account and/or link to the draft you're referring to, so we know what you're talking about? Your current IP's only contribution is this post.
Also, please DO NOT SHOUT. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:36, 7 January 2023 review of submission by Gertice4

I feel like the argument "there will always be a next election" doesn't make sense as many other countries already have a wiki page about their next elections. The Wiki page can be renamed to the year the election will be held in the future (In this case most likely 2024). So I would like a re-review of the article as I believe the reason it was rejected was a poor one.

-Gertice4 Gertice4 (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Maximilian This user is quite correct, we have Next United Kingdom general election. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gertice4: this is a somewhat tricky area; it is true that there are similar articles, such as the Next German federal election; on the other hand, Wikipedia is not a CRYSTALBALL, and we cannot know for certain that a particular country will hold a particular election, even if it is currently expected to do so. FWIW, my (entirely non-expert) opinion is that the next Kosovan election seems notable enough, and likely enough to take place, that it could warrant an article. That being said, your draft is completely unreferenced, so clearly couldn't be accepted as it stands. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding my initial problem. The reason the draft is unreferenced is beacuse...well... at this point there isn't really much to reference.(Except for the opinion polls, which they are referenced). The Electoral System category dosnt need to be referenced as that's how the country votes for its leaders since 2001, while the background category, allthough can be referenced, dosn't really have to.
But if references are required then I will reference the background category. Gertice4 (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gertice4: picking up on the point you raise, and at the same time correcting my earlier comment where I said this seems "notable enough", if no sources can be found (yet) to support this article, then that could mean it isn't (yet) notable enough for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, I have added several references to the drafted page. Hopefully it will get accepted now. Gertice4 (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gertice4: My two questions left in regarding the page are "When?" and "Why?". A reference on what day the election must take place by, so not by 2024, but by November 30, 2024 (or whatever the day is), why it is that day (something like 3 years from the first day that the existing legislature is in session (whatever it really is) and then a reference for that either to a secondary or even a primary (the Kosovan law) source. If that were added, then I'd personally move it to mainspace.Naraht (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already fixed the date on when the election will be held. I have referenced the Kosovan constitution. I wasn't able to provide an exact date as you asked due to the Kosovan constitution not being direct on the date.(Example. It dosnt say it must take place exactly 4 years from the previous one).Hopefully you will accept this. Gertice4 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:02:05, 7 January 2023 review of submission by Feetfeet 341

Feetfeet 341 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC) I am requesting a re-review[reply]

Feetfeet 341 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, and as such will not be considered further. Please see the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:07, 7 January 2023 review of submission by Africannewschannel

Because I feel like this article is from the global south, include informations about alternative medicine, climate change, India activist etc. these are some of the important topics wikipedia is trying to bring up in there pages.

Gokul, is having articles in his name I found via search in Google. And also he is inspired a lot of young doctors in ayurveda (alternative medicine field) to pursue their voyage of proving to the world the importance of alternative medicine & researching on it. Also, Climate action as an Indian Youth. Most part of india even have not heard of such opportunities which he trying to bring to those people in the south. Together with Health & Climate, he has a lot of action done. A person like him should be included in wiki, if not its something which is going to be a lose to wikipedia itself.

Lastly, I'm learning how to add pages to Wikipedia & this is the way I can do it. I think there is a lot from out global south that should be part of wiki. Please help me learn & do more wiki pages. Africannewschannel (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Africannewschannel: you're proverbially flogging a dead horse. Time to drop this and find other pastimes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(User now indeffed as a sock.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:13, 7 January 2023 review of draft by Logandeb

Hello, I am seeking clarity regarding the status of the article I created, Swift Current Transit. To me, it looks to be of a similar caliber to the likes of 100 Mile House, Bella Coola, Campbell River, Comox Valley, West Kootenay, Airdrie, Prince George, Fredricton, Saint John, and King's Transit; yet it was flagged for deletion and has been moved into drafts. What more can I do to flesh out the article aside from going to the town itself and rifling through their archives to find something. Is the solution as simple as flagging it as a stub? Many thanks for any assistance! Logandeb (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Logandeb I haven't looked at the references in depth, but you should read Other Stuff Exists.
Not to be harsh, but I also hold the opinion that an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, should not contain information that is likely to become out-of-date quickly. This includes transit schedules, which bus or train lines run which routes, the exact cost of fares, etc.
Are you committing to re-checking the article against the sources, and updating the article every couple of weeks until the end of time to keep it accurate? If you are, that's a lot of work. On the other hand, if you create an article and want others to keep it up to date, then you are inadvertently creating work for others to do. (In computer programming, we call this "adding technical debt".)
Readers who want to know this information will be much better served by checking the transit line's own Web site, or a search engine, at the time they need this information. I think that all of the other articles that you mention suffer from the same issue. I hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:55:57, 7 January 2023 review of draft by Denahansen


Denahansen (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what's your question, @denahansen? lettherebedarklight晚安 07:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

01:37:55, 8 January 2023 review of draft by 2600:8802:3A12:E700:1487:DE05:C24B:FD5A


2600:8802:3A12:E700:1487:DE05:C24B:FD5A (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


RE: Nolan Davis draft. Before I created an article I was told that these were good resources. I asked. I was told to create the page. Now it's because of personal reasons.

I put multiple sources but they were removed so you could say they don't exist. Newsweek

https://www.newspapers.com/image/7569120/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

Good Los ángeles times https://www.newspapers.com/image/385576226/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/99105353/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/438045088/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1


Good Austin American Statesman https://www.newspapers.com/image/359907814/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

Good Miami Herald https://www.newspapers.com/image/625439292/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

Best Kansas City Star https://www.newspapers.com/image/675979185/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/853540502/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

Olathe News https://www.newspapers.com/image/816460432/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

I can't see any of these sources so cannot comment, it would be better to use the actual details, sources don't need to be online. Theroadislong (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:45:43, 8 January 2023 review of submission by Ggsilverscreeneditor

I made some additions to this article including adding an additional source by the LA Times. Ggsilverscreeneditor (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ggsilverscreeneditor: it doesn't look like either of the sources cited provides significant coverage of the subject. In any case, this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:07:34, 8 January 2023 review of submission by DONALD DANNY

it's an article which i would like to publish if any changes required please let me know as am new to wikipedia some more articles are on pipeline to do

DONALD DANNY (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DONALD DANNY: that draft was unreferenced and promotional, and has now been deleted. You are of course welcome to create more drafts, but please see WP:YFA for advice, and ensure that future drafts are appropriately referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sure thanks noted 2405:201:C401:B019:3412:B0C5:1FF:3F8 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:10:34, 8 January 2023 review of submission by Dragonwarrior18

Dragonwarrior18 (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragonwarrior18: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

01:42:56, 9 January 2023 review of submission by Presto222

Presto222 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request a review because I am working on projecting researchers working on eliminating malaria and therefore. My job is to give them the recognition they deserve and to help sell their amazing work. I ask for more time to get this through.

Presto222 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to honor or recognize someone. It definitely is not a place to talk up someone's work for the sake of doing so. I must agree with the comments left by reviewers. If you have a connection to this person, please read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Presto222 The draft is also devoid of inline references (in the first 3 sections). And 331dot is right, of course. David10244 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:21:49, 9 January 2023 review of draft by 41.116.126.169

Hi there, I keep getting a page declined but the subject is an extremely well-known producer who has been working over 20 years with many award nominations including an Oscar list. Not sure what I need to do to get it accepted as many less reputable people have pages. I have 10 high quality references as well. Thanks

41.116.126.169 (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been declined for lack of apparent notability. Most of the sources cited provide only passing mentions of the subject. The three exceptions being #7, 8 and 9 (as the refs are currently numbered; one of these wasn't there when the draft was last reviewed), of which the latter two are just appointment news (equivalent to routine business reporting), and 7 alone isn't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. So respectfully, I will have to disagree about the refs being particularly "high quality".
Alternatively, the WP:DIRECTOR special notability guideline has four possible routes to notability — which one does this person, in your view, satisfy, and what evidence is there to support that?
Finally, please log into your account, assuming you have one, so we can address you. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:40:33, 9 January 2023 review of submission by Shadysbook


The company is one of the top three fertility clinics in India. Not sure why its is getting rejected. It has presence across India with 30+ branches. Need to reconsider once again Shadysbook (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shadysbook As noted on the draft, your company does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company at this time. The sources offered are not significant coverage of the company- coverage that describes on their own, and not based on materials from the company, how it is significant or influential. The sources offered are brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, or glowing promotional pieces by the company or paid for by it(the "Prime Insights" one lacks a byline, a strong indicator of promotion). This draft will not be reconsidered in the near future, absent newer, appropriate sources being found for this draft to summarize instead of its current content. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:28:16, 9 January 2023 review of draft by Lazarmarkovic112


Hello, i am making a page about my friend who is professional football player here in Serbia, idk why you declined it last time.

This is him. https://www.transfermarkt.com/filip-mirkovic/profil/spieler/763766 https://www.srbijasport.net/player/8640-filip-mirkovic

Thank you very much. Lazarmarkovic112 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazarmarkovic112: this draft has no references, and therefore no evidence of notability. Please see WP:REFB for advice.
Given that, as you say, you are writing about a friend of yours, you also need to make a conflict-of-interest declaration; I will post a message on your talk page with more information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:36, 9 January 2023 review of submission by MKL123

I am am requesting re-review because other less successful drivers have articles exactly like this. MKL123 (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MKL123 Please see Other Stuff Exists. Maybe those other articles should be deleted. David10244 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:46, 9 January 2023 review of submission by Fluffysandbox

Fluffysandbox (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I probably need help fixing what ive written

Not sure you can fix a hoax? Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:35, 9 January 2023 review of submission by 32.219.212.180


Requesting the submission review to add more content to and provide more references for Cyber Protect, going forward. 32.219.212.180 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

02:35:25, 10 January 2023 review of draft by Alanwrick1


Alanwrick1 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@alanwrick1: what's your question? lettherebedarklight晚安 03:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
exact duplicate lettherebedarklight晚安 03:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

02:36:01, 10 January 2023 review of draft by Alanwrick1


Alanwrick1 (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:24, 10 January 2023 review of draft by Jaystjohn

Draft submission was declined due to lack of reliable sources. My question is, how are the sources used in this article any less reliable than the ones used in any other article about college football rivalries? Non-Power 5 rivalries are seldom reported on in national publications - compare the sources cited in my submission to those in the Royal Rivalry or the Battle for the Belt. And it's not as if it is lacking in the number of citations when contrasted with the Cincinnati–UCF football rivalry article. I have no issue trying to find better sources for the article submission, but I question how much better quality of sources are required, when the sources used are on par with ones used in similar articles.

Jaystjohn (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaystjohn Please read other stuff exists; what happens to other articles isn't usually relevant, as what's there could be inappropriate as well, and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us; we can only address what we know about.
It's not the sources themselves that are the issue- You really only have two sources that are good for establishing notability; the 247Sports and perhaps BirdsUp(though that is the media of USTA). Most reviewers look for at least three. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OSE acknowledged, but is AP News not also a good source? Jaystjohn (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaystjohn: that decline isn't saying that none of the sources are reliable, only that the draft as a whole isn't adequately supported by reliable sources. This can mean that some of the sources aren't reliable, or that some of the content isn't supported by sources, or both (in this case, IMO, both). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:24:39, 10 January 2023 review of draft by FZQMe

Can you please tell how to declare conflict of interest on an article?

FZQMe (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FZQMe Instructions are provided at WP:COI. If you work for the company, or have any form of paid relationship with it, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure, please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:57:25, 10 January 2023 review of submission by 60.60.188.211

Hello I have added sources from Britannia and articles. This person is cited in many wiki articles. Wha can I add more!? 60.60.188.211 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected (after no fewer than seven earlier declines, I might add) and won't therefore be considered further. If you now have sources that may be used to establish notability, you should take this up with the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source from "Britannia" is malformed. The source that is supposed to verify that the subject was "a Fashion Editor for almost a decade for publications such as Numéro, Elle and Nylon, he has been appointed editor-at-large for Visionaire Magazine since 2018, and created in 2011 his luxury streetwear fashion brand Arnodefrance" points to the home page of that fashion brand "Arnodefrance". That link certainly does not verify all of the claims in that sentence. If there are any better sources, they need to be referenced better. David10244 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:04:13, 10 January 2023 review of draft by Wanjuiri

I need help to edit my article please

Wanjuiri (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wanjuiri: this draft was declined because an article on that subject already exists. Therefore this draft will not be accepted, and you are invited to edit the published article instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this Article about George Barasa, same person you are writing about. I think you can edit and improve it instead. Kelmaa (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:20, 10 January 2023 review of draft by Sumip1990

The reviewer says that my article is copy and pasted from some other source. Please let me know the sources. Is it because that I did not add citation? would like to know more on the same

Sumip1990 (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumip1990: I said may have been copypasted from somewhere, but I also said I cannot identify the source (if any). Perhaps you could enlighten me?
In any case, I didn't decline this for being a copyvio, I declined it for being completely unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:52, 10 January 2023 review of submission by Shamshul Arfin Kabiri

Shamshul Arfin Kabiri (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shamshul Arfin Kabiri: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or personal blogging platform. If you wish to tell the world about yourself and your professional skills and experience etc., try something like LinkedIn or Facebook instead. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:12:02, 10 January 2023 review of submission by 91.214.228.98

91.214.228.98 (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:58, 10 January 2023 review of submission by Kelmaa

This article was previously declined. I made some improvements and apparently, I can't seem to get more credible references despite the model being famous Kelmaa (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it so I'm not sure what your question is. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:53, 10 January 2023 review of submission by AkashhhChandra

AkashhhChandra (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AkashhhChandra: what is your question? This draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:49:08, 10 January 2023 review of submission by Arun Yesubalan

Arun Yesubalan (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arun Yesubalan: what is your question? This draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:49:15, 10 January 2023 review of submission by CarlyEvans444

CarlyEvans444 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:14:27, 10 January 2023 review of submission by Frazz86

It says that wax melts are not a sufficiently notable thing for wikipedia. I do disagree with this notion as they are gaining popularity rapidly, in fact are sold by many major outlets across the world now. They are very similar to candles, they're essentially wickless candles. I can make a subsection within the Candle wiki but it felt like it made more sense to have its own page. While not quite on the scale of candles, if candles have a page I definitely believe that wax melts should too. Frazz86 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frazz86 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The trouble is that you only offered a single source- a topic merits an article if it receives significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. "Gaining popularity rapidly" is a strong indicator that the topic does not yet merit an article- Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows. Once it is popular enough to receive significant coverage, it will merit a standalone article. I think a good place to start is as you say- a part of the candle article for now. It can always be separated later. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:45:30, 10 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Adefemi Ayodele Babatope

I have been working on this. Provided reliable resources yet its rejected. Please kindly enable it for submission.  It is important


Adefemi Ayodele Babatope (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adefemi Ayodele Babatope Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about you, not what you say about yourself. "Rejected" means your draft may not be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a resume or any of such
I only used resources that i considered reliable. However I will work on it. Besides its a biography. Thank you Adefemi Ayodele Babatope (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adefemi Ayodele Babatope There is no more work that you can do. No amount of editing can confer notability on you. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. You are being hateful right now Adefemi Ayodele Babatope (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? Because I'm informing you of how things are? I have no hatred in my heart. Instead of accusing me of hatred because I didn't tell you what you wanted to hear, maybe consider the experience of those who are telling you these things. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. What will be required to be considered acceptable Adefemi Ayodele Babatope (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important information that needs to be heard. It is an African that is notable. Kindly consider for submission Adefemi Ayodele Babatope (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adefemi Ayodele Babatope It doesn't matter if you are African or Asian or European or Vulcan. There is nothing more you can do. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying yourself. Its people that write on others, you know
However, what can be done to be accepted
It will be worked on Adefemi Ayodele Babatope (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered your question. There is nothing that you can do other than find another topic to edit about. This is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Since you are not listening to me because its not what you want to hear, I will have no other comment. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

02:12:40, 11 January 2023 review of submission by Rajasufyanali

Rajasufyanali (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasufyanali 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 read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:57, 11 January 2023 review of submission by Roshanhadat

Roshanhadat (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roshanhadat 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 or post their resumes, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:24:38, 11 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by HenryCavillu

Hi I created my first Wikipedia article Draft: Abhishek Agarwal but I do not understand what I am doing wrong, My submission was first rejected due to lack of credible sources and when I added adequate references, it was rejected second time for the tone. Any support or suggestions are welcomed. Thank you.

HenryCavillu (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HenryCavillu Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone and what they do- an article about a producer must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable producer or more broadly a notable person. The key here is "significant coverage", which must go beyone merely documenting their activities and go into detail about what the source sees as significant or influential about the person. This cannot include things like interviews, press releases, or brief mentions. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was interesting insight., Thank you.
If I am getting this right, does that mean, His Production Studio "Abhishek Agarwal Arts", which has made big name for itself with controversial film The Kashmir Files is something that is in accordance with WP:Notability (notable producer) "3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); " and "4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"
Would you recommend that I create an article for his studio as that has better coverage than him as a producer? HenryCavillu (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HenryCavillu It can indeed sometimes be more productive to write about a company rather than its owner/boss. Evaluate your sources according to the notability standard for companies then decide if it will be a good use of your time and effort. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes Sense, Thank you @Dodger67 and @331dot HenryCavillu (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:16:16, 11 January 2023 review of submission by Ffreudenberg

Dear All,
Creation of this page has been rejected as it supposedly does not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. According to the editor's comment for the page to accepted it needs to meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

However, looking at the eight academic-specific criteria, I can at least identify three fitting criteria:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
This might be a bit of subjective criterion, but IMO having published more than 500 articles is bound to have a significant impact.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
Several prestigious awards are indicated both on the nation and the international level.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
As indicated in the article, Andreas Reif is president-elect of the European_College_of_Neuropsychopharmacology meaning that in 2025 he will become president of the society (see https://www.ecnp.eu/about-ecnp/how-we-are-organised/executive-committee/announcement).

I believe that in particular the last point should be sufficient reason for this article to be created, as current and past-presidents of the European_College_of_Neuropsychopharmacology have a Wikipedia page and Andreas Reif is one of the few people mention in the ECNP Wikipedia article without an article.

I would be very grateful, if you could help me understand how to improve the article to get it accepted.

Kind regards,
Florian

Ffreudenberg (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Mattdaviesfsic. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks EchidnaLives. Granted he does meet the award set of criteria (although, this doesn't always mean an article is worthy of being there). However, regarding your first point, I shouldn't have to research how they might have had an impact. The page I linked to (WP:NPROF) does say that it's irrelevant how much they have published; it's the effects and impact of those publications which are key (which you could emphasise if you wanted to before resubmitting. If you resubmit the article, however, given the other criteria, it would probably be accepted though. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the feedback. I will then resubmit the article. Ffreudenberg (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:40, 11 January 2023 review of draft by Catboy628

My article was not approved as they said I don't have enough supporting, but I have attached many of Ko Tsz Pun 's interviews and provided the films he directed, I even provided the informations of awards he got, I don't know why they said I didn't provided enough supporting to this director. Could you kindly help me, please? Thank you very much!

Catboy628 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catboy628 Interviews do not establish notability, because Wikipedia wants to know what others say about him, not what he says about himself. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:51, 11 January 2023 review of submission by Fluffysandbox

Fluffysandbox (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


does this mean anything

@Fluffysandbox: Please read Blaze Wolf's comment. Use either the public sandbox or your personal sandbox for testing. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:32:17, 11 January 2023 review of draft by Greemble2

Submitted article was declined due to not having enough verifiable links. Yet there are three references used - one from the organisation itself, another from a separate, independent listing (not a blog) and the third from a UK Government appointed association. These seem verifiable and yet there are many other articles in the same category with no links or only one to their own site. Greemble2 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greemble2 An article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The organization itself is a primary source and does not establish notability. The other two sources are brief mentions and also do not establish notability. We need sources that go into detail about what they see as significant or influential about the organization, not how it sees itself.
Please see other stuff exists. There are many inappropriate articles that we haven't addressed yet, this isn't a reason to add more. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:52:17, 11 January 2023 review of submission by Mohammadjoharin20

Mohammadjoharin20 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammadjoharin20 You didn't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

January 12

07:07:12, 12 January 2023 review of submission by Keishaun Morris

Keishaun Morris (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@keishaun morris: Draft:Kay Vibes has been deleted for being an exact copy of copyrighted text. if you wish to continue, start a new, non-copied draft. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:20, 12 January 2023 review of submission by AISORESNAVY

11:06:20, 12 January 2023 review of submission by AISORESNAVY

AISORESNAVY (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AISORESNAVY You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:32:42, 12 January 2023 review of submission by Ramahare

Ramahare (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramahare Sorry, but rejection means that there is nothing that you can do to improve it. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. You will need to move on from this. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:41, 12 January 2023 review of submission by Pluke

Hi, Would you be able to give more details on why the submission of Draft:AliceVision was rejected? I believe that @BMaujean addressed the concerns raised previously, see commends on the page and I have edited out the non-notable references. The references left are numerous and notable as far as I can see. No one has yet replied to @BMaujean's points and I think that it now meets Wikipedia:Notability, but would be happy to see the rationale why it isn't. Many thanks Pluke (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article decline

15:23:15, 12 January 2023 review of draft by Stan.spin

Hello, i dont understand why our article looks like an advertisement if similar article were approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortinet What kind of references i have to provide? We have a links from our CEO publications, industry sites, mentions in the various industry lists.

Stan.spin (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1133175085"