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 Jovial script (talk | contribs) at 22:57, 1 May 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding George William dunnick). 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


April 25

02:38, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Anukalpsinghkashyap

What do I need to improve in it? Anukalpsinghkashyap (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot submit articles without any references at all. Please read the messages you have already received about this article, and follow the links to help pages. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:29, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Bigstorywriter

Dear Wikipedia Editor,

My article is rejected due to not meeting the notability criteria. The comment on my article mentioned that the sources I provided did not discuss the subject in sufficient detail, even though I had used reliable sources. I am writing to ask for your advice on how I can improve the article so that it can be accepted on Wikipedia.

I would like to address the comment regarding the lack of detail in the sources by providing more information and citations that highlight Vinod Tiwari's notability. Can you please suggest any specific areas that need improvement or additional sources that would be helpful? I am happy to make any necessary changes to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Bigstorywriter (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bigstorywriter. When I look at your draft, I see obvious indications of reference bombing. A single assertion should require no more than one or two references. Adding nine references to one assertion is an indication to reviewers that the author (you in this case) is straining to show notability by stacking up a bunch of mediocre references. Three excellent references are far better overall than 20 mediocre references for establishing notability. Take a look at WP:THREE, and identify what you believe to be the three very best published, reliable, independent sources that devote truly significant coverage to Vinod Tiwari and his life story. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Pontiff Of Bread

Hello, I understand that this may seem as a random story written by some idiots, but you must understand that we take this very seriously. We really are trying to make our group a cult since we believe in this kind of stuff. Thank you for listening, I hope you understand. Pontiff Of Bread (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontiff Of Bread: and I hope you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for promoting your 'cult' or any other such nonsense. Please drop this now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly i see that as racist behavior. Do you act like this to every religion? Pontiff Of Bread (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontiff Of Bread: I would advice you to avoid further accusations of that kind, and generally to proceed with caution. Thank you.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Concord2005

What is the problem? Why declined this again submitted by me? Please give me the reason Concord2005 (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Concord2005: this is pure advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I will request deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:08, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Traxezz

The article was rejected on the ground of failing WP:BIO due to insufficient in-depth coverage.
From what I gathered from my research, Wang was quite a prominent leader of public opinion within the PRC before he was blacklisted by the Chinese government in 2019. While he does not have an exact reason for why he was banned in China, it was possibly because he was being too influential in public opinion (aka. too notable) in China as his social media account on Weibo had become more influential than some other state propaganda agencies' account such as the People's Daily. [1]
It really is a shame that 99% of his online presence and coverage within China had been pulled off the internet by the censorship board hence making it near impossible to find any in-depth coverage of him within China. In this case, the subject failed WP:BIO not because he was not notable, instead it was by the design of the CCP censorship board to demote his notability within China. In my opinion, I think the subject of the article deserves the benefit of the doubt regarding notability. I think that it is unfair to hold the notability of a journalist who was censored by an authoritarian regime to the same standard as a Western journalist who has the protection of freedom of speech.
I have since added more inline citations from Western media such as the BBC, DW and SCMP that survived the censorship board's purge, but they also only mentioned the subject briefly, probably failing WP:INDEPTH as well. However, I think that the fact that reliable sources such as the BBC and DW would quote the subject's opinion when covering a news story is a testament to his notability in itself. And in that sense, as well as the context that the subject's notability was intentionally "nerfed" by the Chinese government, I hope that the rejection can be reviewed.

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfIAXT-gHos


Traxezz (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Traxezz: firstly, this draft wasn't rejected, only declined; rejection means you cannot resubmit; decline means you can, once you've addressed the decline reason(s).
Secondly, there is no such option as "benefit of the doubt regarding notability": either sources exist, or they don't. Or (and I may be going out on a limb here) if your contention is that sources used to exist but no longer do, then at the very least we would need to see solid evidence of that, not just say-so.
Worth noting that Wikipedia is not a platform for publicising something that otherwise gets no publicity, nor for righting great wrongs. We publish summaries of what has been published elsewhere, without advocacy or promotion.
Finally, even if an exception from the usual notability requirements could be made, we would still need to see reliable published sources to verify whatever is said about the subject. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, my bad for the rejected vs declined thing. I meant to say declined, not rejected.
I do understand that wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY which I don't think the draft is. I've had a history of removing promotional content from Wikipedia and I know what a promotional piece looks like. I am mentioning the blacklisting/censorship not because I am trying to right a wrong, but just trying to add context to the lack of resources on a subject which the reviewer described as "should be notable". Apologies if it was phrased in an easily misunderstood manner.
On the subject of misunderstandings, by "benefit of the doubt" I am not asking for an exception to the rules, I myself had abided by Wikipedia's rule closely when editing articles which are evident in my contribution history. What I meant is that it is in my opinion that this particular draft had been held to an unreasonably higher standard of WP:INDEPTH given the context. To be clear, I don't think that the context should give the subject an exception to WP:INDEPTH, but at the time of submission, there is already a reference to a 4 pages article about the subject in Japanese (of which I sourced from the jp wiki about the subject). I have since added another 2 articles from RFA about the subject but they are in Mandarin.
My question is: Does the coverage have to be in English to satisfy WP:INDEPTH for en wikipedia? If so I think it is impossible to satisfy WP:BIO for now and I should put this draft on hold until there is more significant coverage of the subject in English as current there is only one in-depth coverage of the subject in English from VOA with the rest mainly in Mandarin.
Regards,
Traxezz (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Traxezz: no, sources don't have to be in English, as long as they meet the WP:GNG criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting more confused as WP:GNG is a pretty low bar imo and collectively my references certainly meet the requirements under WP:GNG. I suppose this is getting out of the territory of Help Desk and into the territory of the Teahouse. While this is not the first article I've created, I do admit that this is my first biography about a living person type article. I suppose I will take this discussion and my questions to the Teahouse instead. --Traxezz (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Traxezz: I don't know what you mean by "collectively [your] references" meet the GNG standard. Just to be clear, each of the sources (that you're relying on to establish notability) must at once meet every criterion of GNG, ie. be independent and reliable and secondary and provide significant coverage. It's not enough that some sources are secondary (but provide only passing mentions), while others provide sigcov (but are primary), etc.
And far be it from me to brief against the Teahouse, but I would argue that the best place to get advice on the AfC process is indeed here at the AfC Help Desk. You're of course welcome to choose whichever channel you prefer, but please don't post the same query in multiple places. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that I am asking in the right place.
To answer your question, not all references in the draft meet every criterion of GNG, but for one that doesn't, it was substantiate with another reference that do meet GNG. For example, for the sentence that states that the subject was temporarily suspended by his employer, I linked to both a primary source and secondary source. I suppose to fully abide by the GNG, the primary source should be removed.
Anyway I don't think this has anything to do with why the draft was declined. The reviewer commented that the sources "are secondary & reliable, but only mention the subject briefly (there is no in-depth coverage). To prove notability, add some in-depth secondary sources, like news articles.".
This confuses me as the draft had references to two in-depth article about the subject, one in Japanese on bunshun.jp and another in English on VOA reposted from AP. While I am not sure if bunshun.jp is news or not, AP definitely is news.
As mentioned earlier, I have since added references to more news articles from the BBC, DW and SCMP that quoted the subject in their news stories to substantiate notability of the subject. In addition, I've also added reference to another two articles from RFA about the subject to satisfy in-depth coverage.
I was going to ask if this is sufficient to submit the draft for a second review but on a second thought, I think the draft should be copyedited by someone else more proficient in English than myself before it is up to Wikipedia standard. So for now, I will just leaving the draft as it is. Regardless, thank you for your help.
Regards,
Traxezz (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Traxezz You said "To answer your question, not all references in the draft meet every criterion of GNG, but for one that doesn't, it was substantiate with another reference that do meet GNG". DG is telling you that references don't work that way. Each reference must meet all of the criteria. If not, the reference--and the material that is sourced to it--should not appear in the article. David10244 (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:24:08, 25 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jeaster2023

I am looking at the feedback of this article. Compared to other schools seen on Wikipedia I believe the school is more notable (for example, Woodbridge High School). The school is recognised in national case studies by the Department for Education, is 150 years old and won an Olivier Award (internationally recognised award) for Outstanding Achievement in Opera. Please advise further.

Jeaster2023 (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE, the Woodbridge High School, Woodford Green article has no indication of notability and reads like an advertisement, so should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note also that notability in the Wikipedia context does not arise from being featured in primary sources, or being X years old, or even (in most cases) having received awards; it arises from significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, and as I pointed out in my review, the sources cited do not meet that standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Ja2007

Hi, why was mu submitting declined? It is the same content as the original Czech one ( form the Masaryk University, where Jiri Fukac was the Professor. The English version is corrected by US musicologist Professor Michael Beckerman. Regards Ja Ja2007 (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ja2007: it was declined, as it says right there in the decline notice, for being not supported by reliable sources – as in, not a single source is cited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks, how shall I document the reliable source? It is from the Czech wiki shich is made by University of Brno, as mentioned. Ja2007 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Os the Czech wiki page not considered an original source? What is needed? There wasa list of Fukac's publications, also literature about him. What else?
I can not find my original draft ( not so used to work here). Can I start again a new submition on the same article? Thanks Ja2007 (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ja2007: in simple terms, every material statement must be referenced to a reliable published source; or rather, you should not write what you 'know' about a subject, but merely summarise what reliable sources have previously published about it, and cite those sources throughout the draft so that the information can be verified by readers.
And no, the Czech Wikipedia article, if that's what you mean, carries no weight here, because Wikipedia cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. If that article cites sources, you may, however, be able to use those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Which it does, one or two of, but probably not enough to support this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ja2007 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ja2007 The referencing requirements are stronger on the English-language Wikipedia than they are on most other Wikipedias. And no, the Czech Wikipedia is not considered a "reliable source" for referencing. The English Wikipedia is also not a reliable source. David10244 (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I spent a lot of time to submit the article about the Czech musicologist Jiri Fukac. It is all original sources from Masaryk University, where he was Professor. I could not translate it directly, so I submitted it here. The translation to English was checked by profesor in musicology Michael Beckeram. I woudl appreciate if you help to improve my evt mistakes in he layout and submit the article for me. Thanksl Ja2007 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Please don't start multiple threads, just add further comments to your earlier one.)
I don't know what you mean by "it is all original sources"; the draft cites no sources, which is exactly the problem here.
It is probably unlikely that anyone patrolling this help desk will want to contribute, but you may wish to request assistance at one of the WikiProjects, eg. Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:54, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Aslanzare

what can i do for it? can you please help me 

Aslanzare (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aslanzare: I've told you what needs to be done in my decline reasons. You resubmitted it twice without doing anything to the draft, even after I told you not to do that, hence why I rejected it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aslanzare did you read through all the material linked in the decline messages? The draft has no sources and reads like an autobiography, written either by the subject or a fan rather than an encyclopedia article. You made no improvements before you resubmitted which is a waste of not only your time but volunteer reviewer's time, thus the draft is rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aslanzare, unreferenced biographies of living people are contrary to policy, and will never be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:39, 25 April 2023 review of submission by HussainAnsar76

How to make article on school according to wikipedia policy HussainAnsar76 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HussainAnsar76 please see Your first article. S0091 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Dodocergo

it has some very popular apps, why it is not enough to be notable? Dodocergo (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft fails to provide references to independent, published, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this company. Please read WP:NCORP. Cullen328 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:23, 25 April 2023 review of submission by 122.56.171.181

I am requesting a re-review as I do not see why this has been declined, this draft I have written is all true information I have researched about. The topic Prune Jam was an original idea that has not been done before. Everything written was original words, meaning no copyright and everything I wrote was from reliable sources. If you could get back to me on why this has been declined that would be helpful. 122.56.171.181 (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined because it is unreferenced nonsense. Cullen328 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

01:45, 26 April 2023 review of submission by 41.232.15.124

I cant understand the reason for rejection.. many source for person. Person is famous musician in egypt. Can i got some help please ? What is the part that needs to be modified? 41.232.15.124 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needs to be modified; this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. After 5 months and 8 reviews, it has still failed to show that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 26 April 2023 review of submission by ThomaMi?q

I wanted to create the page of Prof. Hans-Joachim Lauth (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Joachim_Lauth) also as an English version and therefore I created a new page. Unfortunately, this has now been rejected. Is there another way to generate the German version of the page of Prof. Hans-Joachim Lauth also as an English version on Wikipedia? Or: What should I do that the draft won't be rejected again?

I am glad about any feedback! ThomaMi?q (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThomaMi?q: it hasn't been rejected; that would mean you cannot resubmit it. It has only been declined, meaning you can resubmit, after you have addressed the reasons for declining. Namely, there is too much unreferenced information, with several paragraphs without a single citation.
And although it wasn't declined for lack of notability, you will also need to demonstrate that the subject is notable according to either the general GNG or the special NACADEMIC notability guideline. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:10, 26 April 2023 review of submission by Saman daneshi

I think this article has all the necessary conditions to be on the main page. The sources are credible and well cited. Please guide. Saman daneshi (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saman daneshi: this draft has been declined multiple times on account of inadequate referencing and/or lack of notability. You have not improved the draft's sources since its most recent decline. You must do so before resubmitting, as otherwise this is at a real risk of outright rejection. Please review the WP:GNG guideline for information on the kind of sources that are required. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 26 April 2023 review of submission by VPatricio

Thank you for your response. I noticed that you referred to it as an "encyclopedia article." After reviewing Isabel Allende's personal information and other details, I see that it is very similar to the one I just submitted. Please clarify how I can fix this and submit my work, as well as any future books that are forthcoming. If you search for Isabel Allende, you'll find that I have similar subtitles and ideas on my site. Perhaps this should be submitted as an author. Please, I need help. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Allende 

VPatricio (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VPatricio: firstly, Isabel Allende didn't write her own article, or if she did, she at least didn't write it in first-person voice. Writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, for all the reasons enumerated at WP:AUTOBIO.
Besides the voice, the text needs to be rewritten in a more neutral, factual manner, better suited for an encyclopaedia. Expressions like "became enthralled by the warmth and camaraderie of the community" and peacock terms such as "highly esteemed" are not appropriate here.
And although the draft wasn't declined for its sourcing, you (or whoever comes to write about in the future) also must ensure that all material statements and anything potentially contentious is clearly referenced with inline citations to reliable published sources, and furthermore that the sources cited are sufficient to establish notability by way of either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:16, 26 April 2023 review of draft by Saintambroise

After some substantial changes, the current article seems to me publishable. Could some experienced revision user have a look and suggest useful changes still necessary? Thanks!

Saintambroise (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft accepted. S0091 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 26 April 2023 review of submission by Brian.butt

The band has over 640,000 monthly listeners on Spotify many YouTube videos with over a million views. Why is that not notable enough? I have cited sources for that information in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Halocene Brian.butt (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian.butt: because notability doesn't arise from Spotify or social media metrics, or more generally from how 'popular' or 'famous' etc. someone or something is; it arises from the extent to which something has been covered in reliable and independent secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this correct, no matter how popular a group or a person is on a streaming platform until some other source documents it they can not have a Wikipedia article? That seems to be rooted in the past and not taking the modern media performance. Brian.butt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brian.butt: I didn't say "no matter how popular... they can not have a Wikipedia article". Popularity does not preclude anyone from having an article, it just isn't the basis for one.
Chart performance is an acceptable criterion (albeit not a guarantee) of notability per WP:CHARTS. Spotify just isn't an accepted 'chart', as it's only one sales channel. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did say popularity is not notability. The Charts are biased for bands that have signed with established major record companies making it unlikely that popular unsigned bands can not gain "notability" regardless of how popular they are. Brian.butt (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did say popularity is not notability; I didn't say popularity precludes notability. Be that as it may, your draft either demonstrates notability according to the currently prevailing guidelines, or it doesn't. That is the scope of the AfC review process. This is not the forum for debating whether the applicable guidelines are 'good' or not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 26 April 2023 review of submission by Radhey8

How can I add offline newspaper as a source. It's not available online. Only in pdf or image form it's available. But newspaper is government registered 

Radhey8 (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Radhey8: see WP:OFFLINE for advice on citing offline sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:48, 26 April 2023 review of submission by InEventOf

I'm struggling to see what the issue with this article is. It was at first declined because it did not have enough reviews. I added more reviews, but it was rejected with the claim that there was only one review. I have added another review. The page also has several reliable sources that are not reviews, covering the book's financial success and general reception. I believe that this novel and series are highly notable and should have a Wikipedia page; the series has achieved best-seller status and a rare level of media coverage. InEventOf (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as well, especially by the idea that Kirkus is not an acceptable source. Please resubmit this. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that you had done some more work on it after its last decline. You need to actually press the resubmit button if you have made edits and want an article to be reviewed again. -- asilvering (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the page to be about the series and resubmitted it. / InEventOf (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 26 April 2023 review of submission by Maidenlessbeing

Can I have it submitted because I just want wikipedia editors to have a great experience with it Maidenlessbeing (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:13, 26 April 2023 review of submission by TwistedPunk

This is my first attempt at creating a page, and I am not entirely sure what citations to include. Also, I am largely driven by circumstance to include certain citations, due to the absence of others. For example, citation [2] of my draft concerns a compilation album on which the subject band appeared. It is a noteworthy event in their history, but as the album went out-of-print approximately 40 years ago, there are virtually no mentions of it anywhere. The only verified mention is on the Discogs website, as this is a music database which contains verified releases. I included this citation as it is the best available. Citation [3] on the draft page also concerns an album from the 1980's. It went out of print approximately 35 years ago, although it has since been made available on digital platforms. Again, I included a Discogs citation. However, I have changed this to Spotify, as I felt this would meet the "independent publishing" requirement. Likewise citation [4]. Citations [6], [9] and [10] posed a slightly different problem. Music releases by the subject band are handled on a DIY basis, and as such are mostly sold directly to fans at live shows, with a smaller number available from selected retailers. Except for one review in a well-known magazine (also cited in the draft) there are no mentions in print media. For these releases I again chose Discogs, as it seemed the only alternative was to cite the website of a retailer selling the items. I was not sure this would be allowed. The YouTube citation [5] was intended merely as secondary information. Likewise citation [8]. This information is relevant to the story, but because it concerns an event held two years ago, there are no mentions of it anywhere except for the line-up confirmation contained within the citation.

Apologies for the lengthy question, but it appears that I would be better to leave certain citations (and thereby confirmed information) out of the draft completely. This seems strange, and I would appreciate any guidance.

Best Reards, TwistedPunk. TwistedPunk (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the reason you're struggling to find sources that have satisfied reviewers so far is that you're doing, or at least skirting around, what Wikipedia calls "original research" (WP:OR). It can be appropriate to use the kinds of citations you've used here for verification of facts in some cases. But the goal is to write about topics that have been covered somewhat extensively by secondary sources. Newspaper articles, books, that sort of thing. If that doesn't exist for this band, then no Wikipedia article should either. Sorry. The ephemeral and underground nature of a lot of the punk scene doesn't make this easy. -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings - and thank you for your reply.
I do understand the need for articles to be cited where possible. I believe the original 7" single was given a (very short) review in Sounds music newspaper back in 1979 and another article about the band did appear in a local newspaper in 1980. If I can find details of exactly which editions carried these pieces, these citations should satisfy the 'Original Research' requirement. I will hunt them down! However, I am surprised that Discogs is not accepted as a reliable source. This is a database which contains verified information and is independent of the bands/artists. Do you know the reasons it is not classed as reliable for Wikipedia purposes? Thanks, TwistedPunk. TwistedPunk (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TwistedPunk Discogs is user-generated thus not reliable just like Wikipedia is not reliable. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and you might want to post at note at WT:WikiProject Music to see if anyone there in interested in the draft and/or may have sources. S0091 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

02:30:38, 27 April 2023 review of draft by BP0003

Hello, the name of the artist in the wikipedia draft name is misspelled- it should be Kristin Oppenheim. Can you please assist in fixing this error? Thank you.

BP0003 (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --bonadea contributions talk 06:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! BP0003 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:37, 27 April 2023 review of submission by Wsjimmys

how do i make a better article about myself Wsjimmys (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wsjimmys: you should not be writing about yourself in the first place; see WP:AUTOBIO.
As for writing articles in general, you can find all the advice you need to get started at WP:YFA. The most important thing is to find reliable and independent published sources that demonstrate that the subject is notable, as otherwise there can never be an article on the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:49, 27 April 2023 review of submission by Edna.Arhat

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ehab_Lotayef

After reviewing Bearcat's comment on the page rejection, I have evaluated the citations used to support the content. Here is a subset of the significant coverage about the subject in reliable independent sources. All of these are mainstream news outlets, and the articles either primarily discuss the subject or he is a significant aspect of the article.

The various aspects of this individual's public life make him a notable Canadian. So I just want better guidance as to how to meet the requirement for it to be published without simply saying "If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia" as the current version has many such references.

sample list: Footnote# / link 2) https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/newsmaker-ehab-lotayef-tried-to-break-gaza-strip-blockade-1.726524 4) https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bridge-building-on-menu-as-westmount-synagogue-hosts-shabbat-evening 10) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-urged-to-condemn-egyptian-ministers-remarks-saying-critics/ 11) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/9/25/palestinian-talks-egypt-seeks-to-regain-regional-power 12) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mcgill-racial-justice-board-of-governors-1.6028981 17) https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/campaign-against-quebec-s-bill-21-to-launch-1.4578007 Edna.Arhat (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edna.Arhat: the sources you've listed here all offer only passing mentions of Lotayef, mostly where he is commenting on the subject of the article. We don't want to see what he has said, we want to see what others have said about him. Also, the first source is an interview, and interviews are essentially close primary sources as it is the subject speaking.
Also just to clarify that "various aspects of this individual's public life" is not how notability is defined in the Wikipedia context; per WP:GNG, it is defined purely as arising from significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That offers more clarity. Thank you. Edna.Arhat (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:36:27, 27 April 2023 review of draft by 2402:3A80:A5F:7BED:0:9:8A5D:1

The filmography section is error something that having problems please help someone to solve the problems of filmography

2402:3A80:A5F:7BED:0:9:8A5D:1 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 27 April 2023 review of submission by Rameegroupofhotels

We need to create page for group of hotels,

Please assist. Rameegroupofhotels (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rameegroupofhotels: the first thing you need to do is to disclose your obvious COI and paid-editing status. Then, you need to change your username. Instructions for both have been posted on your user talk page. That said, you may be blocked soon, if you haven't yet been, and you are then unlikely to be allowed to post more such promotional content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 27 April 2023 review of submission by DevopsNepal

Could you give more insights on why this page is rejected? DevopsNepal (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Bato - Road to Death
@DevopsNepal: this hasn't been rejected, only declined. The reason was lack of notability, as detailed in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a movie in pre production.We have generated the imdb pages and added the media news that are available on internet which are listed in references. First trailer is going to be launched tomorrow. DevopsNepal (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DevopsNepal: okay, and? If the launch is still almost six months away, this is almost certainly a case of TOOSOON; see WP:NFF.
Also, sounds like you may have a conflict of interest. I've posted a message on your user talk page on how to deal with that; please action it promptly.
Finally, when you say "we have generated", that implies your user account is shared. Please note that according to our T&Cs, user accounts are strictly for one person's use only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 27 April 2023 review of submission by Akbn24

Hello everyone, my draft was rejected with the explanatory note that the topic is "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". I read the linked article about notability. Here, a rather wide range of possible reasons is given why an article is not approved. Since I have not yet received any further information about what exactly is wrong with my article, I don't know what I have to change in order to meet the Wikipedia standards. I would be very grateful if you could give me some advice on how to proceed. Many thanks in advance! Akbn24 (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, there is nothing you can do, it was blatant advertising and not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 27 April 2023 review of submission by Deepc product

I am attempting to create a new page for deepc, a company in the Healthcare AI space . I have added citations from external news sources and trade publications, yet I still get a message that I don't have a third-party reliable sources. I need help getting specific feedback on why my sources (outside of the deepc company website and press releases) are not acceptable. As far as I can see, they meet all of the requirements. Deepc product (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Deepc
@Deepc product: the sources cited are a mix of routine business reporting, churnalism and primary sources, none of which contribute towards notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. And the draft as a whole is promotional in tone and content, pretty much just WP:ADMASQ. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:37, 27 April 2023 review of submission by Pin.moldova

My article was declined because it was not in English, but Romanian. How can I change the language of the page, and get my article approved? Thank you! Pin.moldova (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pin.moldova: "change the language"... you mean translate it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't just resubmit it without any improvement. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no improvement needed. The issue is a technical one, and it is about the language of the page Pin.moldova (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
”This is the English language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language. Please provide a high-quality English language translation of your submission. Have you visited the Wikipedia home page? You can probably find a version of Wikipedia in your language.”
I need this page to be in Romanian. What are the steps? Pin.moldova (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pin.moldova: I think we're talking at cross purposes. If you "need this page to be in Romanian", then you have to translate it; no one here is going to do that for you.
Just so we're clear, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept content in English (as indeed you've just written there yourself). So yes, there is improvement needed, namely this material must be in English, and it isn't, therefore no matter how many times you resubmit it, it won't be accepted. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pin.moldova you're looking for Romanian Wikipedia, which is here: [1] -- asilvering (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Bohl (painter)

Draft:Maximilian Bohl (painter) looks dubious to me. Aside from what I write about it here, I am intrigued to read in it that "Around 1910, 27 years old Maximilian became influenced by early works of Virginia Wolf [...]". Such works would have been very early: I believe that Woolf's first book wasn't published till 1915.

However, it's my bed time (and tomorrow promises to be a long day). Over to somebody else. -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources also don't stack up, and the 'photo' seems dodgy. I've declined it; happy to be proven wrong on this, of course, if someone produces some credible evidence to back it up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: @DoubleGrazing: Maybe created as some kind of art project? See [2]. --bonadea contributions talk 14:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DoubleGrazing and bonadea. (And pinging Johannes Maximilian and GoingBatty.) I further note that Adeline Virginia Stephen only became Virginia Woolf two years after the year around which our visually reconstructed fellow was, most precociously, being influenced by her works (despite comprehending nothing). A considerable effort to promote Bohl is being made (in both Szczecin and Berlin) by this fellow (Facebook link, sorry). It's all rather confusing. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 27 April 2023 review of submission by Bhdgaw,fgjhqewiuefyweo

what do i need to add???? Bhdgaw,fgjhqewiuefyweo (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhdgaw,fgjhqewiuefyweo: If you're talking about Draft:All Mincraft mobs I rejected it because not only is it just listing the various mobs in Minecraft, but it's also an unencyclopedic topic and wouldn't pass AFD regardless. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Your draft has been rejected it is not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia and is so poorly spelt as to be largely unintelligible. Theroadislong (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Mincraft"? David10244 (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:41, 27 April 2023 review of draft by Joe minney


I started a page called “cleared hot podcast”. I meant to name it “The Coming In Hot Podcast”. How can I edit the name?

Joe minney (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth changing because the draft is just advertising and there is no indication of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, moved it already! :) Yes, a bit pointless at this stage, but hey ho.
@Joe minney, it's now at Draft:Coming In Hot. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I’m an idiot 😝 Joe minney (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 27 April 2023 review of submission by Ajosephg

The editor refused the article saying it was a 'neologism'...but it has no neologisms in it, so I'm confused. Ajosephg (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It surprises me too. But more importantly AngusWOOF also wrote "Please discuss at the talk page for Trinity whether such an article is needed." Thank you for creating Talk:Trinity#Logical_criticisms_of_the_Trinity; now wait for responses there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like an WP:XY. I haven't seen the phrase "Logic and the Trinity" in common usage before, so that's why I tagged it as a neologism. It also reads like some essay or research topic. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

01:47, 28 April 2023 review of submission by Brownbellcaps

I'm not sure how to fix this error: Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined Is this about a problem with a particular citation. Brownbellcaps (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed! -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:17, 28 April 2023 review of submission by MykolaPro112

I was curious why my article was declined and what could I do to make it better and accepted later. MykolaPro112 (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links in the decline message. -- asilvering (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:48:32, 28 April 2023 review of draft by 119.73.117.196

Hello I need help in editing my article. I just need a minor help thanks. Link to my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Raimond_Magomedaliev

119.73.117.196 (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to be more specific, "minor help" doesn't tell us much.
In any case, this draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait you can only get help if you don't submit the article? Apologies, I'm new to wikipedia. So I don't know the rules. Anyways could you kindly look at my article, if it isn't much trouble to you??? I just need constructive comments on where I could improve the article. 119.73.117.196 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can get help at any time. But you're effectively asking us to review your article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, since the article has been "submitted", it will be reviewed, in due time. As DG says, the hosts here won't do a "pre-review" while the actual review is pending. It can be confusing until you get used to how things are done here... David10244 (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:38, 28 April 2023 review of submission by Rowbarton

Hi I am trying to submit my final edit for DoubleGrazing. I am hopeless at this. I went to 'edit' as instructed, then deleted my declined page needing amendments. pasted my new submission, showed preview, explained edit, then published but there is no submit link. Please help. I have told DG it is coming but now unable to fulfil. I am 94 so not tech minded but still have most marbles I think!!. Patrick (Rowbarton) The Fourteen of Meaux Rowbarton (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rowbarton: Wikipedia formatting can indeed be a bit confusing, and I can only hope to be as capable as you are at the age of 94, of using whatever technology will be used in the 2060s! The references should be added in templates with curly brackets, but fear not – I'll be happy to tinker a bit with that later today, unless someone else beats me to it.
Would it be possible to add an introductory sentence or two, to summarise what the topic of the draft it?
Once you feel ready to submit it for review again, click the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink box at the top of the draft page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is so kind of you Bonadea. DoubleGrazing is also looking into it and I do appreciate this help after weeks of research and frustration, at times close to giving up. I have , as you suggested, added two paragraphs at the start to lead into the subject and give clarity and I can see exactly why this was necessary. I published this just last evening. My problem is this. I have just, this minute, opened as always to this last 'in progress' edit page shown (but which is never the one I saved last!) on site which does have a RESUBMIT button but tells you to click 'edit' which takes you to another page. I did this and pasted from my word pad my revised and latest submission which is my best shot so far. I then 'Published' to save but there is no 'RE-SUBMIT" button I can see on that edit page so I selected the 'go back' arrow and am told I may lose my edits if I do. And I do - since next time around the original unedited text is still there preventing me sending my revised one!! I'm sure it's my fault but I don't think of myself as a thicko' and with everyone's kind support I am sure I will get my effort to you for appraisal eventually and, as I told DoubleGlazing I can stop sobbing and my Huguenot wife will stop beating me for my tantrums!! Thanks again. Very kind of you.. Patrick (Rowbarton) "The Fourteen of Meaux". Rowbarton (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Rowbarton (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:49, 28 April 2023 review of submission by AtasProBaby

Could you please specify what edits should made in order for the article to be processed further? AtasProBaby (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask essentially the same question multiple times. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:53, 28 April 2023 review of submission by AtasProBaby

Could you please specify guys wy the article was rejected for further processing? AtasProBaby (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AtasProBaby: are you looking for a reason other than that it's pretty much incomprehensible, completely unreferenced, and with no evidence of anything even approaching notability? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 28 April 2023 review of submission by Boaz.levin

After it was rejected several times, I revised this entry and hope it now maintains Wikipedia's editorial standards. Kevin B. Lee is an important critic and filmmaker, currently the Locarno Festival professor of the future of Cinema at Università della Svizzera italiana, whose work and reputation without a doubt merit an entry. I would hope you would assist in ensuring this entry meets Wikipedia's standards and can finally be published. Boaz.levin (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boaz.levin: this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. If you have new sources which weren't taken into account in the latest review and wish to appeal the rejection, you need to do that with the rejecting reviewer directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 28 April 2023 review of submission by QalasQalas

i updated part of reliable resource, i tried my best if you better you can help me QalasQalas (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QalasQalas: the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review; do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:36, 28 April 2023 review of draft by Genxyourself

I am making changes because he is my son and I don’t know how to add the changes. Here are the references:

https://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article274797491.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bradenton-19-old-sprint-car-210846863.html

https://nascar.nbcsports.com/2023/04/26/alex-bowman-fractures-vertebra-in-sprint-car-crash-out-3-4-weeks/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/motorsports/nascar-driver-out-for-significant-time-with-horrible-injury/ar-AA1arLsB


Genxyourself (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Genxyourself: seems that you already figured out how to add those sources, so I'll assume you're okay now.
However, given what you say about your relationship with Morrell, you need to formally disclose your conflict of interest (COI); I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions on how to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for your help, I’ve never done this before Genxyourself (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

04:31, 29 April 2023 review of submission by IVickyChoudhary

Why it looks like an asvertisement, I wrote whatever I got on google search. I saw his work that's why decide to create his Wiki profile. IvivekChoudhary (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly revert back and guide. IvivekChoudhary (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hosts: there's a draft, plus an article in mainspace that's proposed for deletion. The latest note on the draft is a decline. Seems like too many "things". Also, I'm not sure I believe the "own work" tag on the image. David10244 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm creating the article, I don't know by that time about the already drafted article of same person. That deletion tag was placed because of a misleading news article(Award name similar to Dada saheb falke award). Now guide me that on which article I work, draft one or new one? IvivekChoudhary (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:13, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Isukchainsingh

Respected Team,

I submitted my article regarding a person who is serving the Indian army and is also an athlete but my submission was declined many times I need help for posting my article. Help me with this, please.

Thanks Isukchainsingh (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Isukchainsingh. Your draft biography of a living person is entirely unreferenced. Please be aware that unreferenced biographies of living people are a policy violation. Your draft cannot possibly be accepted unless you provide references to significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. This is mandatory. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:40, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Tunnizar

Sorry, Don't Delete Here This Original: User:Tunnizar/The Mystery of the Disappearing Rabbids Tunnizar (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tunnizar: deletion hasn't been requested or proposed, at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:01, 29 April 2023 review of draft by Biodam


Biodam (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Biodam? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know why wazzy records page got declined? Please what’s the errors , can you help fix it Biodam (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Biodam: as it says in the decline notices and comments (did you read them?), the draft is promotional, and there is no obvious notability.
Also, if you have a conflict of interest in the subject, you must disclose it. I have posted instructions on your user talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Biodam. Your draft is full of overtly promotional language like a household name and keeps getting massive airplay as he keeps dropping hits and the next big thing to watch out for. Promotion, advertising and marketing is not permitted on Wikipedia, and all drafts must comply with core content policies like the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks , I understand now Biodam (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:08, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Shrivathsa Rao

Hello, my page was declined mentioning, no reliable sources for the information provided in the page, My Answer: " the page is about an upcoming film in Kannada Film Industry, and I am the director of the said film, hence I acknowledge all information provided are official, reliable & perfect details of the movie" So I finally request to review the page again & grant it go live. Shrivathsa Rao (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrivathsa Rao: sorry, but we will need to see actual published sources; more specifically, multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and fully independent, and provide significant coverage of the subject.
Also, you need to formally disclose your conflict of interest; I have posted a message on your user talk page with more information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Gianoseduto

Dear NP83,

I not so recently submitted an article to Wikipedia, titled High Stone Games, which was unfortunately rejected for not meeting the notability guidelines.

I would like to request some clarifications and advice on how to improve the article and resubmit it in the future. Specifically, I would appreciate your input on the following points:

Specific reasons: Could you please provide me with specific reasons why my article was rejected? I would like to understand which aspects of the article did not meet the notability guidelines or any other criteria that may apply.

Guidance: Could you please provide me with guidance on how to improve my article to meet Wikipedia's standards? I would appreciate any specific suggestions on how to make it more notable and how to provide more reliable sources to support its claims.

Community assistance: Could you please suggest any ways I can seek assistance from the Wikipedia community in improving my article? This may include reaching out to other editors or administrators, or seeking advice from forums or social media groups dedicated to Wikipedia.

Open-mindedness: I am open-minded to constructive criticism and feedback. I understand that Wikipedia's standards are high and that rejection does not necessarily mean that my article is not worth publishing. I am willing to use the feedback I receive to improve my article and make it more notable and informative.

Thank you for taking the time to review my article and for your assistance in improving it. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, gianoseduto Gianoseduto (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gianoseduto: this draft has a number of issues, but they can mostly be dealt with by editing. The one problem that no amount of editing can resolve, which is the reason this was declined and then rejected, is lack of notability. To establish notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. The reviewers contend that this standard has not been met.
You may enquire at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, to see if someone is interested in collaborating with you to develop an article on this subject, but don't get your hopes up too much. In any case, even then you would need to start by finding sufficient sources to satisfy the GNG notability requirement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Hamdymaster

i need help for publishing Wikipedia article Veronica Studio 14:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hamdymaster: that draft has been rejected, and I've just requested that both it and your sandbox one be deleted.
Please don't create multiple copies of the same content.
I've no idea what 'Veronica Studio' is. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Inchwiki

The draft was declined because it did not meet the Wiki standard for inline citations. I agree more inline citations could be useful, but the Wiki page on minimal standards for inline citations mentions 4 types of statement which require inline citation. As far as I can see the article does not contain any statements of those kinds. So some clarification here would be useful. Inchwiki (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Inchwiki: you may be right in saying that you don't strictly speaking have to add more inline citations (although the 'likely to be challenged' situation is pretty open-ended, and could well apply here), but IMHO they are the gold standard of referencing and should really be used at all times. Is there any reason why you don't want to add more of them?
The reason why many reviewers (among others) prefer inline citations is that they make it very clear where the information comes from, ie. which source has provided which bit of content, and how much of the content remains unsupported. You would be greatly assisting in this if you provided inline citations throughout.
Or put it this way: there are several paragraphs without a single citation. From where did you get all that information? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Hickeygamez

This page has been declined a few times, but it seems like it has made some notable steps for improvement (the topic is now indexed with Medline, recently featured in many news articles). Do you think it is worth submitting now? Hickeygamez (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

02:47, 30 April 2023 review of submission by 林儀承

Hi, My draft for the National Dong Hwa University College of Science and Engineering contains numerous references, including information on World's Top 2% Scientists, China Subject Ratings 2021, and World University Rankings 2022 by subject: computer science, which are all well-known in the field. What can I do to ensure that my draft is published as a formal article? Thank you for your attention. 林儀承 (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:National Dong Hwa University College of Science and Engineering
@林儀承: in order for this draft to have any chance of being accepted, you need to demonstrate that it is notable per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. So far there seem to be no such sources cited.
Note that while universities typically are notable, individual departments, faculties, schools, colleges, etc. seldom are. Which may be why the declining reviewer suggested that this information (or at least salient points of it, as there is far too much detail here) be added to the article on the university itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:35, 30 April 2023 review of submission by JackW2016

I found multiple link resources about Simo Idrissi and need to add them the other thing, Simo Idrissi is a writer and has public links to his research and articles. I still don't know the maximum number of resources needed to make this article follow Wikipedia regulations. Thanks JackW2016 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackW2016: this draft has been rejected already; if you wish new sources or other evidence of notability to be considered, you must take the matter up with the rejecting reviewer. Beware, though: I had a quick look at the sources cited, and couldn't find anything there that would seem to contribute to WP:GNG notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago, I added a few sources to an article about Simo Idrissi. These sources are legitimate. Friends from Wikipedia helped me answer my questions and said that resources should contain the name of Simo. That is exactly what I am doing. Now, I have a few questions:
  1. What is the maximum number of resources that an article can have?
  2. Can I create a new article about the same person when I have all the links available?
  3. Simo Idrissi is not my friend and he doesn’t know me, but I know what he is doing as a public figure and soccer coach. I like to write about these people and I have more people to write about, but I am still learning the process. How can I revise Simo Idrissi’s article and have it accepted?
Hope you understand me.
Have a nice day JackW2016 (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 30 April 2023 review of submission by Shashi.myofficial

The new resubission for Draft Bhavtosh Pandey is still pending. 

Shashi.myofficial (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shashi.myofficial: I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but just so we're clear, this draft has not been resubmitted, and is therefore not pending review. That being the case, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 30 April 2023 review of submission by Raves2023

Hi, I dont understand how and why this isn't approved.. the magazine is like others and even does more collaborations.. i am new to this so please do tell me what else needed to get it approved since I looked at other articles and i dont know what else to do... thank you! Raves2023 (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raves2023: as it says in the last few decline notices, the draft was declined because it was/is promotional. I can see that you have subsequently made changes to it and resubmitted for another review, so you will get another assessment when a reviewer gets around to evaluating it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 30 April 2023 review of submission by Regal venator

what must should i add to make it notable Regal venator (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Regal venator Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, meaning in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources must already exist for a topic so a "struggling" actor will not warrant an article. This is the reason is was rejected so will not longer be considered at this time. However, a draft can proposed in the future should the actor gain such coverage which is generally after they have had several significant roles in notable works. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:11, 30 April 2023 review of submission by Nealmcb

As a long-time wikipedia editor, with no connections to the subject of this article, but a commitment to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, I ran across this draft on Joan Sullivan Garrett. It is clear to me that the subject is quite notable. I've trimmed it down to 2/3 the size and I've tried to overcome the promotional aspects of the article and the fact that the original editor had an undisclosed connection. I would like someone else to agree that it is now worthy of promotion to article status where further editing can take place as normal, or point out additional aspects that need attention. Thanks in advance! ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nealmcb what you are asking for is a pre-review which we generally do not do. Given you are autoconfirmed you can simply move the draft to article space. Outside of non-autoconfirmed or COI/Paid editors (or some type of ban), there is no obligation for a draft to go through AfC even if previously declined. If you choose to go through AfC, submit it then I suggest placing a note on the talk page with the WP:THREE sources that meet notability. If you do that, let me know (ping me here or note at my talk page) and I will place an AfC comment letting reviewers know to look at the talk page. S0091 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 30 April 2023 review of submission by The haul

I'll provide all the details with citation with genuine information and things then why my article deleted. The haul (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The haul you do no ask a question but please see the messages on your talk page, User talk:The haul, as to why the draft was deleted. S0091 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:37, 30 April 2023 review of submission by JackW2016

A few days ago, I added a few sources to an article about Simo Idrissi. These sources are legitimate. Friends from Wikipedia helped me answer my questions and said that resources should contain the name of Simo. That is exactly what I am doing. Now, I have a few questions:

What is the maximum number of resources that an article can have? Can I create a new article about the same person when I have all the links available? Simo Idrissi is not my friend and he doesn’t know me, but I know what he is doing as a public figure and soccer coach. I like to write about these people and I have more people to write about, but I am still learning the process. How can I revise Simo Idrissi’s article and have it accepted?

Hope you understand me.

Have a nice day 

JackW2016 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

06:41:36, 1 May 2023 review of draft by Natsu Misikava

Learn how to write an article on bussnes

Natsu Misikava (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I am new to wikipedia and i don't know how to wright a article Natsu Misikava (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Natsu Misikava: you should be able to find everything you need at WP:YFA.
However, the first thing you need to do before you start writing anything is determine if your intended subject is notable. Usually this is done by reference to the WP:GNG notability standard, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. If you cannot find such sources, then there is no point in even starting a draft. If you can find sufficient sources that meet the GNG standard, then essentially you write your draft by summarising (in your own words) what those sources have said.
Actually, the very first thing you need to do is disclose any interest you may have in your chosen subject. I will post a message on your talk page with more info on this. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Rishus5911

approve my page Rishus5911 (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishus5911: this draft has already been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further, let alone "approved". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanx Rishus5911 (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 1 May 2023 review of submission by 109.253.182.198

Hello, I don't understand why this draft article has been rejected. Could I please receive some guidance as to what I'm supposed to modify in order to get it published? Thank you very much in advance. 

109.253.182.198 (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Lesterleexxx

I am trying to publish my article about the first Uzbek technology company, which produces computer software, games and other digital products. But moderators think that I am publishing an advertising, which only promotes a company. Why? There is no any links to products, which I might advertise. Lesterleexxx (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesterleexxx:
Firstly, because this is advertising; see WP:YESPROMO.
Secondly, there is not even the slightest suggestion of any notability, which is a hard requirement for any article to be accepted into Wikipedia.
Thirdly, because you have a conflict of interest, as stated on your user page, yet you have not made a formal disclosure. For this reason you are also not allowed to publish anything directly (and this includes moving from drafts into the main article space) on a subject where you have a COI.
And fourthly, because you keep recreating the same content over and over again, which is WP:TENDENTIOUS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Draft deleted, yet again; user indeffed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Cseedi

The topic appears notable in view of its historical association with a related topic Scientific American. Cseedi (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cseedi: 'association' with anything does not confer notability; also, the sources cited are pretty rubbish, if I'm honest. If you wish to appeal against the rejection, you need to take your case to the reviewer who rejected this, and demonstrate that the subject meets WP:NJOURNALS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Gpshibu

Gpshibu (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gpshibu: please don't copypaste your draft here.
Is there a question you would like to ask? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 1 May 2023 review of submission by CliveKeyte

Hi, I'm trying to get some help with this article. I found a page on Companies based in Hampshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Hampshire, and wanted to add Intrafocus to the list. I then looked at the format of three companies in the list and copied the one for Kenwood Limited. I substituted the content with content from Intrafocus Limited and submitted the article, which was rejected. I'm not too surprised, but I hoped for some more constructive help rather than what appeared to be a boilerplate response. Is there anyone who can help me construct a more informative page? Many thanks. CliveKeyte (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CliveKeyte: the draft is promotional, poorly referenced, and has no indication of any notability.
Also, you clearly have a conflict of interest; I will post a message on your talk page on how to address this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably also worth explaining that you shouldn't model your draft after existing articles, but rather by reference to the policies and guidelines applicable; otherwise you may simply replicate errors which exist in the articles that you try to mimic. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Brian.butt

I cannot understand why this band is being rejected as not notable I have verified large amount of monthly streams from independent sources. I am aware of similar bands with less verified sources. I need help getting this article approved. Brian.butt (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown how they would pass WP:NBAND and Spoitify, YouTube and Discogs are not reliable sources. If you see any "similar bands with less verified sources" then tell us what they are and we can either improve them or delete them, see WP:OSE. Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:06, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Ifayinka12

I don't know how to enter my draft afc Ifayinka12 (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ifayinka12 please see Your first article. Wikipedia is not a blog or social media so is not the appropriate place to write about yourself. If that is what you want to do, you will need do it elsewhere. S0091 (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:40, 1 May 2023 review of submission by 122.56.171.181

I've improved my draft please read it again 122.56.171.181 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:57, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Jovial script

my page was taken down even though nothing in it is false why is that. I just think it would be cool to have my own wiki page Jovial script (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1152725409"