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 19:50, 17 May 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft: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


May 10

01:38, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Badabingbadaboong

What I need help is finding examples of a primary or independent, reliable, secondary source of information. The user Drimes really didnt go in depth on what an example of those sources are, he just shot down my draft. Could someone please go further in depth on the problems with my website, considering that there's literal proof that DC Comics announced that this is a crossover event? Badabingbadaboong (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badabingbadaboong, Drmies was clear in his assessment. Reliable sources are required. These need to have high quality editorial control and an established track record of accuracy and error correction. The sources need to be independent. That means that the coverage does not recapitulate press releases and is completely uninfluenced by any marketing, public relations or advertising activity by DC Comics. The coverage must be significant. It must devote a significant amount of detail to the topic. Brief, passing mentions are inadequate. So, which of your references meet that stringent three part standard? Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:23, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Bhubaneswar2009

can we use school website as a reference for staff details and student enrollment details in school articles? Bhubaneswar2009 (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed are references to published reliable sources that are independent of this school that devote significant coverage to the school. Once notability has been indisputably established, then you can use the school's website for uncontroversial details, but that does nothing to establish or bolster notability. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:21, 10 May 2023 review of submission by עומר תשבי

Hello, could you please tell me why this article was removed? What do you find in the text, that you believe that feels like an advertisement? Most importantly, how can I improve it? עומר תשבי (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, עומר תשב. This passage is among many that are overtly promotional: In his Hebrew University lab, Reifen studied and developed a process to extract an almost-pure protein powder from chickpeas. According to Ram, chickpeas have “several unique attributes that make it a particularly successful source for meat, fish and dairy-product substitutes”.Reifen states that “As opposed to protein produced from other legumes, the chickpea isolate has a neutral flavor. What’s more, it is clear, has no aroma and can be processed into a wide variety of textures”. As opposed to Soy Protein, Reifen states that “Soy contains feminine sex hormones – phytoestrogens – in immense quantities… Another drawback…, is that soy causes allergies. Another major problem is that soybeans only grow in certain parts of the world because they require specific climatic conditions”. That simply regurgitates the promotional claims of people closely associated with the company. An acceptable Wikipedia article primarily summarizes what reliable sources entirely independent of the company say about the company. We should never include any evaluative praise referenced to company people. Otherwise, Wikipedia articles about companies would always say, "We build the best widgets!!" That is the function of the company's website, not of a neutrally written encyclopedia article about the company. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 10 May 2023 review of submission by BioTechDon1

Checking how to re-submit for approval. Received a decline in February and (hopefully!) rectified the article to reflect the reviewer's comments but worried this is being treated as permanently declined. Is there a way to re-submit? BioTechDon1 (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BioTechDon1: you have resubmitted the draft; it is awaiting a new review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - amazing! Thank you! BioTechDon1 (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted.Naraht (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:56, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Rhichsi

just want to write article for a bio graphy Rhichsi (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhichsi: this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and is pending deletion. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn or other social media for posting personal profiles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Rhichsi

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request your kind assistance in publishing an article about Muhammad Umar Mumtaz on Wikipedia. Despite my best efforts, my previous attempts were rejected, and I believe with your guidance and expertise, we can successfully create a comprehensive and well-sourced article.

Muhammad Umar Mumtaz is a notable web developer and social media marketer based in Pakistan. His contributions in the field of web development and social media marketing have garnered significant attention and recognition. I strongly believe that an article on his professional achievements and contributions would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia's content.

To address the concerns raised in the previous rejection, I have taken the following steps to improve the article:

Notability: I have gathered additional reliable sources that establish Muhammad Umar Mumtaz's significance in the field. These sources include reputable publications, news outlets, and industry-specific websites, all of which provide comprehensive coverage of his work.

Sources: I have diligently compiled a list of reliable sources that support the information presented in the article. These sources include interviews, articles, and reports from credible sources known for their journalistic integrity and accuracy.

Neutral Tone: I have revised the article to ensure a neutral and unbiased tone throughout. The content now focuses on presenting factual information supported by reliable sources, avoiding any promotional or subjective language.

Structure: The article has been reorganized into distinct sections, such as Early Life, Career, and Personal Life, each providing well-developed and relevant information about Muhammad Umar Mumtaz's background, professional journey, and personal achievements.

Clear and Concise Writing: The revised article uses clear and concise language, making it accessible to a general audience. Technical terms and jargon have been appropriately explained or replaced with layman's terms where necessary.

I kindly request your guidance and support in reviewing the revised article and providing feedback on any further improvements or adjustments required to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. I am eager to work collaboratively with the Wikipedia community to ensure the article meets the highest standards of reliability, verifiability, and neutrality.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and the opportunity to contribute a well-crafted and informative article about Muhammad Umar Mumtaz to Wikipedia. 

Rhichsi (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refer to my previous reply (and please don't start multiple threads on the same issue). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 10 May 2023 review of submission by 167.102.157.170

I know the citations for Parker Select , The Takeover, and Boss Battle Bonanza are youtube videos, but they're actual episodes of the episodes listed above. Is there any way I can still cite said episodes without linking the youtube videos? 

167.102.157.170 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 10 May 2023 review of submission by ThumpLocal

I am asking for assistance as this is a historic business in a historic location with references including this recent article published by the Englewood Colorado Historic Preservation Society. You can see the article when scrolling down to the second page here http://www.historicenglewood.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Englewood-Newsletter-March-2023.pdf

Please help us as we have been trying for quite some time to get this article published.

Thank you in advance. ThumpLocal (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you need to properly declare your conflict of interest on your user page, the article has been created under a number of different titles now all deleted, this version has been declined and rejected, the topic isn't notable please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s been declined twice then rejected. I second the rejection. Not notable. I don’t intend to be harsh, but it’s time to give up on this. It will never be accepted. Thank you. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

06:29, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Sandipan1997

I am submitting an article which is getting rejected each time for different reasons. Kindly help me Sandipan1997 (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandipan1997: no, it has been declined three times, and finally rejected, always for the same reason, namely that there is no evidence the subject is notable.
And you have been asked to disclose your relationship with this subject (or any other that you're writing about) but haven't done so; please do it now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no relationship with the company Sandipan1997 (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Gabrielhussein503

London Gabrielhussein503 (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Separated By My Leader the unsourced draft has been rejected it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Kostaru76

Dear Sir/Madam, I am trying to obtain assistance in order to execute the following recommendations of my Draft reviewer.

Comment: Please remove the external links from the body of the article, we don't use them. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Also needs severe ref cleanup and a lead section. 🚂Locomotive207-talk🚂 13:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Please can you highlight for me which exactly external links I have to remove from the body of the article, because there are external links to other Wikipedia pages and also to several other newspapers. The reviewer of my draft also states the following: “ This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.” I have used different sources, some of which I have found in the Google Scholar database. These are international journals and the Cambridge database, and other sources refer to Bulgarian newspapers and electronic tabloids. If they have been considered untrustful, I will remove them. I kindly ask if you can reply to me with some more detailed guidance that will help me improve my article to meet Wikipedia standards. Kind Regards Kostaru76 (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the external links that need to be removed [1], [2] and [3]. Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 11 May 2023 review of submission by עומר תשבי

Does this article have a chance to be accepted to wiki? עומר תשבי (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@עומר תשבי: possibly, if the subject is deemed notable, and the article complies with the relevant policies and guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:56, 11 May 2023 review of draft by MAXOQ

I want this article to be published MAXOQ (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MAXOQ: please don't start multiple sections, thank you.
You haven't submitted the draft, so it hasn't been reviewed, and therefore cannot be published.
Not that there's much point in submitting it, as it wouldn't be accepted anyway, as it stands. In fact, it looks like it's pending speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:43:05, 11 May 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Reward3

Hello! While making final changes to my submission on Pike (John Pike Powers) Powers, the article was somehow deleted. Is there a way I can recover the draft? I would appreciate any help you can provide. This has been months of learning. 

Thank you!! Raye Ward


Reward3 (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reward3: you already asked about this earlier. There's no record of deleted files in your edit count. And you seem to have only created one draft, Draft:Pike Powers, so it doesn't look like you could be mixing up different drafts.
That's assuming you've been editing while logged in, and only using your Reward3 account?-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DoubleGrazing -- I found it! And yes, but I lost it again thru an inadvertent redirect that occurred when one device malfunctioned and I had to switch to another. But I believe I resubmitted, and once again, my heart-felt thanks for you patience and readiness to assist. Raye Ward Reward3 (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reward3 Your draft has two sections which are entirely unreferenced, whilst the topic is notable it would help if it was correctly sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 11 May 2023 review of submission by 192.126.104.5

Hello! I made some revisions to this and hope it will be accepted. Can you verify that I properly submitted the edits? 192.126.104.5 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, there are few issues. Mainly, it is not clear really what the topic is. It starts out about a tweet (that quote way too long and may be a copyright violation) with an unreliable source, BoredPanda, which should not be used. Sources vary from talking about substack (not bars, nor a tweet), to the punk scene (not bars, not the tweet, and see Nazi punk). another about a video game (not a bar nor a tweet and also not a reliable source), then the last source again about the tweet, also from yet another unreliable source. There are no source that mentions "The Parable of the Nazi Bar". S0091 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic appears to be an Internet meme, essentially. I think the best outcome is a merge to paradox of tolerance if an actual reliable source mentions it, because it essentially means the same thing. "Be afraid to stop bad people and they will take over". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Sanasante0

Would like to further understand why the article was deleted. I got two very different reasons between reviewers. I spent several hours assembling everything and the citations so this is definitely frustrating. The company has citations from Visa, MANY from Mastercard, Pymnts, and Forbes. They are also found across Crunchbase, Golden, Zoominfo, and Wikidata. Happy to make additional edits but to straight up have the article deleted is frustrating and makes me not want to bother trying to contribute in the future. Sanasante0 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanasante0, I am unable to see the deleted draft however it looks to have been deleted because it was overtly promotional in tone and copied verbatim from a press release. Both of which are a huge no no here on Wikipedia as per WP:WHATNOT. Of the possible sources you listed above none would be good places to find sources to support notability. Since this is your first thing you attempted to do on Wikipedia I would suggest perhaps you look at existing articles and make some minor fixes and changes to learn the ropes more. Article creation is the most difficult task to undertake here especially if you have not looked at or understand the policies on the site. You can read through WP:YFA to see a guide. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will work to correct the oversight on the PR and thank you for your constructive feedback as it is well received. In terms of Notability, the company in question is 1 of only 4 Payment Processors for Mastercard SEND in Canada and 1 of only 10 in the US Market. Direct connectors in the Payments world are very rare and it is a very big deal. Examples of Direct Processors are Stripe, Square, Paypal, and Oracle. Would this not be notable? I see smaller companies in the Payments world that are on Wikipedia. Sanasante0 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanasante0, has any reliable independent sources written about the company on their own accord? If not then an article will not be possible at this time. If so then the article needs to be based off those sources and in your own words. I wouldn't even start without a minimum of 3 reliable independent sources to build the article off. WP:ORGCRIT is our standard for establishing notability, not what the company does or how many others do it. It is quite strictly and heavily enforced, the reviewers are generally quite adept at picking out the press releases and routine business announcements. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you could entertain one last question from me.
Most of the independent sources that have written about the company are related to rewriting of PR syndications from Mastercard. There have been several industry publications around a handful of events. When companies like Mastercard or Visa publish news most of the major financial outlets either resyndicate or republish the content in their own words. Considering this is how news/events become mainstream would these not be sources? Sanasante0 (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it looks like I answered my own question. I missed your link to WP:ORGCRIT. Reviewing it now Sanasante0 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so after fully reviewing WP:ORGCRIT - Could you please take a look at the following sources and let me know if these would be considered viable.
1. https://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/money-the-good-life/open-banking-digital-transformation-in-fintech-canadas-aptpay-revolutionizes-the-global-payment-industry/
2. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/267435/20211102/the-president-of-aptpay-suganthan-vishnu-krisnarajah-made-headlines-with-the-news-on-partnering-with-nrt-technology.htm
3. https://thecanadian.news/aptpay-launches-first-digital-payments-gaming-client-in-canada/
4. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/aptpay-to-integrate-mastercard-send-into-its-platform-quick-facts-2020-08-19
5. https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2020-08-19/mastercard-and-aptpay-speed-disbursements-across-multiple-industries Sanasante0 (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanasante0 those are either press releases/announcements emanating from the company (I mean, Bloobmburg says "press-release" in the link so clearly useless per ORGCRIT) and/or not reliable sources. Also we will not go through a back-and-forth looking at various sources here. If you want to create a new draft to submit for review, you can but I honestly think you will be wasting your time and the time of volunteer editors, especially if the above is the best you could find after reading ORGCRIT. In addition, you were instructed on your talk page not edit further until you address WP:PAID which is a requirement. S0091 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:58, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Darioivweb

I think my article is well-written and informative. It is comprehensive and covers all aspects of the topic of roof scuppers. It is also factual and based on evidence. I do not see any reason why it would be considered contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

The only thing that I might change is the title of the article. The current title, "Roof Scupper," is a bit too general. I would suggest changing it to something like "Roof Scupper: A Drainage System for Flat Roofs." This would make it clear to readers what the article is about.

Plesae help me modify the title and help approve it Darioivweb (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darioivweb: It reads exactly like it would if you were adverting roof scuppers for sale. It looks like a marketing pitch. That is why it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement platform - RichT|C|E-Mail 00:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

00:47, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Filmforme

Would like another opinion on this person for WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR. As a model, they have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. As an actor, they only have RS mentions for significant roles in notable films. Filmforme (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmforme: are you suggesting that the reviewer declined the draft frivolously or erroneously? If so, I suggest you take this up with them.
Alternatively (and this would be my recommended course of action), take the review in the constructive spirit in which it was no doubt intended, and improve those aspects which were the reasons for declining; then resubmit, and you will get your second opinion (you can always ask the earlier reviewer to skip it, should it come up before them again).
Of course, if you're convinced that this article warrants publication, then you can move it into the main space past the AfC yourself, given that you have extended confirmed rights. NPP will then run the ruler over it and take whatever action they see fit (which may include sending it back to drafts, or moving for deletion). Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thanks for the information. I'm thinking about resubmitting and asking the previous reviewer to pass on it. I'm convinced it should be published, but most of the time, I incubate drafts until another user says it's fine. There are exceptions when a subject has more than enough coverage. In this case though, most of the coverage is not in English, and is from print that is decades old. Under that circumstance, I am unsure if AfC is the best path. – Filmforme (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmforme if you resubmit it, I suggest adding a note on the talk page with WP:THREE. If you do that, let me know and I will add a comment letting the next reviewer know to look at the talk page. S0091 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Thanks, I have pinged you. Filmforme (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Well that didn’t work. All I want is another opinion, and the same user keeps declining it. They seem to have made up their mind that I have bias here. Filmforme (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmforme Based on the comments, @Lewolka has given it a fair assessment. Like DoubleGrazing said above, you can move it to main space and take your chances there. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmforme I left new comments here, I read all the sources you provided (for the record I happen to be fluent in French) and I really can't see how she could pass notability, I even searched for extra references as I often do that with potential articles but there's nothing there. It is looking a lot like a vanity page and I doubt it would last on the main space, I also find it odd that you started the article about her husband's one and only film. Lewolka (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:55, 12 May 2023 review of submission by LarryBright14

Hello, I am a Star Wars fan trying to update the page for Skeleton Crew by adding a separate page for actor Ravi Cabot-Conyers who stars in the upcoming series and has notable credits. Please advise on how to do this properly. Thank you.

I see others have tried to do this in the past for this acrtor would it help if I deleted their entry writing and just wrote my own based on internet articles about the child actor Ravi Cabot-Conyers, like that I see oof his co-star Ryan Kiera Armstrong or Jude Law and his Encanto, etc co-stars? LarryBright14 (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LarryBright14: this has been deleted twice, and the latest version declined no fewer than ten times over the past year. I see very little reason in even trying to revive this time sink.
But let's say you had suddenly discovered several really solid, hitherto-unknown sources which demonstrate WP:GNG notability beyond any doubt. Your best, indeed only, course of action would be to approach the reviewer who rejected this draft, and make your case to them. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing the reviewer who rejected the draft is blocked for being a sock. @LarryBright14 I took a look but agree with the reject. None of the sources meet WP:GNG as they do not provide in-depth coverage about him. I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. S0091 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, @S0091; I hadn't realised. Thanks for flagging that up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing you might consider installing the gadget in Preferences that displays blocked users with a strike through (its under the Appearance section, "Strike out usernames that have been blocked"). S0091 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Gabrielhussein503

London Gabrielhussein503 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabrielhussein503: you don't ask a question, but as pointed out earlier, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.
Please don't start multiple threads on this. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate lettherebedarklight晚安 15:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

14:56, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Gabrielhussein503

London Gabrielhussein503 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Msoutelo

So to you the migos page is more suitable and looks less like self-promotion. It is just another proof that some people are privileged just because they are signed to a major label. This is very regrettable not only for the artist that has dedicated their whole life to their craft but to the whole world. Ridiculous. Msoutelo (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@msoutelo: maybe don't write about yourself. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Msoutelo: I've no idea what you're on about. Did you have a question you wanted to ask, or are you just venting? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Iliochori2

I've just founded a Reliable sources for this article. Please when you have spare of time check if its. In the worst scenario let me know what type of sources you require in order to complete the article. Regards Iliochori2 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:21, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Gevorg Ghazaryan

Hello everyone. I am requesting assistance for the article mentioned above. I tried to reach out to the reviewer of the draft but didn't get an answer from them. I am asking you if you could give me proper feedback on the draft. The company is a watch and jewelry retailer in the United States and has been working for over 40 years. I included some sources again, even though they kept being deleted by an admin. If you will have time, please also have a look at the history of the article because some of the sources and material have been deleted by a moderator. Please reach out to me for any further questions. i can also try to find some more sources or book/publication mentions if necessary. Thank you! Gevorg Ghazaryan (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gevorg Ghazaryan: launching a website a decade before the web was invented is certainly impressive. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing, I am sorry, it was a mistake:) I was lost in words after changing the article so much. Could you please have a look at it again? Thanks--Gevorg Ghazaryan (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:56, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Gemmaeng1

Tried to make an article about this celebrity photographer however had seen there was already one created but had been deleted. I requested it to be restored. Since it was originally denied the individual has become more notable (Named on the forbes 30 under 30 list) therefore have made edits accordingly also changed around some wording as it seemed very 'personal' Gemmaeng1 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting assistance for the article above as I would like to get it published and continue to update the subject as his career progresses. Thank you! Gemmaeng1 (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gemmaeng1 Forbes "30 under 30" and other such lists do not contribute to notability. S0091 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, totally understand. I have included more work from the subject which I believe to be notable. Would you be able to review the article? Gemmaeng1 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look and since its last assessment, nothing has changed from a notability perspective. More "content" to the article is meaningless and honestly most of it needs to be stripped because most it is sourced to, at best, poor sources and some to unreliable sources. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Redredhen

I got declined and I am wondering why Redredhen (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page (User talk:Redredhen). S0091 (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redredhen, your draft is nowhere near to meeting the standards for an acceptable Wikipedia article. It is written in all bold for some unknown reason, mentions your birthday for no good reason, consistently misspells the simple word "planet", and is both poorly written and poorly referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Inthisdream

Hello,

I'm trying to revive a page about an artist that was removed a long time ago at the behest of the artist's team. This is a page that fully existed and was accepted by Wikipedia. Now I'm trying to revive it and wiki won't allow me to do so even though the artist has more notoriety now than he did when the original page was published years ago. I get a response saying it doesn't meet the notoriety requirements, but again, it already existed as a wiki page. Inthisdream (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Chad Price (singer-songwriter)
Hi @Inthisdream the fact it existed previously matters not as even then maybe it did not meet the notability guidelines. The logs do not indicate it ever passed a review. Either way, the draft has to show Price meets the notability guidelines for musicians and after three reviews by three different reviewers, the draft has failed the criteria which leads to the conclusion Price simply cannot meet the notability criteria, at least at this time. S0091 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

11:53, 13 May 2023 review of submission by 202.134.8.141

This article is the article of the central president of Bangladesh Islami Chhatra shibir. English articles have been submitted here, but the news source has been submitted with Bangla news at the national level of Bangladesh. Please activate it and make it open to public. 202.134.8.141 (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft will be reviewed in due course, once a reviewer gets around to it. This can take several weeks or even longer, as we have c. 4,500 other drafts also awaiting review, and this draft was only submitted today. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 13 May 2023 review of submission by Gdude189

what should I do for my page to get accepted by wikipedia Gdude189 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gdude189: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This 13 year old musician is simply not notable at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:54, 13 May 2023 review of submission by Lucasmauduit

Why is it refused? List them. Lucasmauduit (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasmauduit: the decline reason is given in the decline notice, in the small grey box inside the larger pink one. TL;DNR = the sources are insufficient to establish notability (and Instagram isn't an acceptable source anyway). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasmauduit Virtually every reference you have used is from Grieco's own social media accounts. The notability criteria need multiple sources that are independent of the subject. So sources need to be about him, not by him. What you have used that isn't from his own accounts is very weak as it's just passing mentions of him. For example, this just says he was in Portugal, that's not really featuring in the magazine. Nthep (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I listed more sources if you want to see them.
http://evene.lefigaro.fr/celebre/biographie/tony-grieco-24534.php
https://www.thenewyorktoday.com/exclusive-feature-on-tony-grieco-a-multi-faceted-artist/
and many more. Lucasmauduit (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source [4] says only "Guitariste et chanteur français" which clearly doesn't help establish any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
at least this famous magazine says that he is an artist established on Spotify and apple music and he makes music. Lucasmauduit (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which confers any notability whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Le Figaro is a well-known French daily newspaper founded in 1826, during the reign of Charles X. Named after Figaro, the character of Beaumarchais, it is one of the oldest titles of the French press still published. Lucasmauduit (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of Le Figaro but the source says nothing about him except "Guitariste et chanteur français". We need significant coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Today describes itself as an E-Magazine that publishes user generated content around Business, Technology, Entertainment, Health, Sports & Lifestyle News. In other words, it is a pay for play clickbait site that is the opposite of a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 13 May 2023 review of submission by 2601:18C:CD7F:7D30:692D:9D7F:D62A:7873

I'm wondering why my page was rejected. It says that it's "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia," but I don't believe that's true. I do not work for this company and there is no advertising present in the page. I'd like to rebut this rejection. 2601:18C:CD7F:7D30:692D:9D7F:D62A:7873 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, it has now been deleted as blatant advertising. I also note previous versions of the draft have been deleted and users blocked due to the same issue. At this point, I think trying recreate it is a waste of time and it if it continues, there will be measures taken to prevent any recreation. S0091 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:47, 13 May 2023 review of submission by Denniscabrams

I'm not sure why this article was published. Only the intro and background sections were complete. It's an article about a murder which doesn't describe the murder. I also planned to add a section about the trial and the impact (i.e. the resignations and firings and the explosion of the number of kids in foster care). I'd probably prefer that it be moved back into the draft space but maybe this is an acceptable level of completion for a Start-Class article? I'm not sure. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was submitted for review and accepted. You are free to carry on improving it of course. Theroadislong (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Denniscabrams the draft was submitted by @JSwift49 so you will need to take it up with them. S0091 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Denniscabrams I had thought it was okay for a start, and I decided to publish because it hadn't been edited since December. I apologize if you didn't want me to. JSwift49 20:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JSwift49 if the editor is still active, it is probably best to check first before submitting. Also by you submitting drafts, especially if you have made no substantial improvements, it could be construed as you taking credit for drafts did not you had nothing to do with (i.e. getting the acceptance notices). S0091 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. That wasn't my intention at all, I just looked at it and thought it's better to publish than, say, have it auto-deleted. But in future I'll do that, thanks JSwift49 21:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can mark them with the {{promising draft}} template, which prevents them from being deleted generally for a year and adds them to Category:Promising draft articles. I do not think what you are doing is an issue at all for editors who are no longer active thus the draft is clearly abandoned but appears to meet notability. S0091 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @JSwift49. S0091 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks JSwift49 21:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Denniscabrams: what am I missing? You started a draft, and it's been accepted for publication. Which bit are you unhappy about – your drafting, someone else submitting it for review, or the reviewer accepting it? If your point is that this should have remained in the draft space, I'm happy to move it back for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would've been best if it had remained in the draft space but I suppose that's what I get for being lazy and not participating in the discussion. At the end of the day, I guess it doesn't matter. I guess this just lights a fire under me to actually finish it. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 13 May 2023 review of submission by Rayemufc1995

Why has my page been declined????

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Aartii_Naagpal&oldid=prev&diff=1154583321 Rayemufc1995 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is in the grey box inside the pink box namely... "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

02:54, 14 May 2023 review of submission by Andro Keshelashvili

My submission has been declined twice and I don't think the reviewer has helped me in feedback a lot, I simply don't understand one of the problems the reviewer stated. So some outside assistance or help would be very appreciated. Andro Keshelashvili (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer in this situation, the main problem is that the article goes against the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy requiring context for fictional elements. Which would be fine for his FANDOM article but not a Wikipedia page. Specifically, fictional characters/elements on Wikipedia need to pass general notability guideline which requires significant coverage from secondary sources. That means critics analyzing the character and why he is important. I can't really find anything that would qualify on Google. It might exist, but if it does, I can't find it.
On a smaller note, the Missions section simply goes against WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and would have to be removed entirely. There's no way to possibly tweak it so that it follows Wikipedia guidelines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As a random example of what "significant coverage" would look like for a fictional character, this is a full article talking about the depiction of a certain Fire Emblem character and their gender. It has a great deal of analysis and goes on at length about that specific character. It demonstrates they are important in a way that goes beyond simply being linked to the game they appear in. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:01, 14 May 2023 review of submission by 176.12.198.220

Hello, My submission has been rejected again after I tried to correct the draft according to the comments I received. This time though, no explanation or indication has been given as to why the publication is rejected besides "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" which makes little sense to me. If anyone could please enlighten me and indicate the next steps toward publishing my article I would be very grateful. Thank you very much in advance. 176.12.198.220 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the draft. It is overtly promotional and completely unacceptable for Wikipedia. One example is this entirely unreferenced gem of a sentence: Her perspective challenges conventional thinking on the factors behind Israel's success in the tech industry and offers insights on how innovators worldwide can foster the Israeli approach to innovation and entrepreneurship. That is corporate jargon and meaningless babble that is poorly written, and redundantly includes "innovators" and "innovation" in the same sentence. It is the opposite of neutrally written encyclopedic content. Frankly, it is drivel, as is much of the rest of the draft. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and it is mandatory and non-negotiable. Promotion, advertising, marketing and public relations are forbidden on Wikipedia. There are plenty of websites where promotional activities are welcomed. I suggest that you direct your efforts to other websites. Cullen328 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable input.
I'm happy to make necessary changes in order for the article to be published, I did my best until now to follow guidelines from previous rejected submissions.
Unfortunately, editing is not available anymore. Could you please advise on the procedure to continue from there?
Thanks DanielChutzpah (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 14 May 2023 review of submission by Mojahidur Rahman Sipon

Why was my article submission rejected, what was wrong? I wrote this article about Cyclone Mocha, here about all things Mojahidur Rahman Sipon (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mojahidur Rahman Sipon: did you read any of the comments the reviewer left? The draft is entirely unreferenced, and the topic already exists at Cyclone Mocha. (Also, you've placed this draft at the wrong title, being your username, but that's not why it was declined.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am correcting the mistakes and republishing Mojahidur Rahman Sipon (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mojahidur Rahman Sipon Please don't re-publish, as pointed out the article already exists here Cyclone Mocha where you are free to edit and add content. Theroadislong (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

02:04, 15 May 2023 review of submission by 59.154.107.86

I am trying to add an artist but it always gets rejected, would love some feedback 59.154.107.86 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will need more information. Do you have a link to the rejected draft or can you provide the name of the artist?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:28, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Cyberspacecat

Hello. I am proposing a split from an existing article. The reviewer says the conservation of the medium deserves a page but not the medium itself. Saying time-based media does not deserve a page because that info is covered in conservation is like saying painting does not deserve a page because painting is described in painting conservation. I updated the conservation page because was very messy and too dense. Time-based media deserves its own page because media conservation only exists because time-based media came first. Cyberspacecat (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
. S0091 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Thefreeeditor1

I want to add an article about an famous Travelogue writer, researcher, and biographer. The person already has an Urdu Wikipedia article. Now we want to add that person's English article but failing againg and again. We are using the same references which are used in already uploaded Urdu article. Please help us to add this article. Thefreeeditor1 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefreeeditor1: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Just to explain, each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project, with different policies and requirements for notability. Just because an article on this subject exists in another language version has no bearing on whether one will be accepted into the English-language Wikipedia. Similarly, just because sources have been deemed adequate for inclusion in one language version doesn't mean they are adequate for another version. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Shreklover932

Hello. I recently tried to publish an article, on a subject that no one had written about before, but it got rejected right after i submitted it so please read it again and publish it. 

Shreklover932 (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shreklover932: couldn't publish it if I wanted to, as it has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but if I re-write it would you publish it? Shreklover932 (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you write the same thing again, it will be rejected and deleted again. Stands to reason, no? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Man is it just beacause im black?
I have visions too man! Shreklover932 (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:28, 15 May 2023 review of submission by StanislasMontreal

Good Morning,

Could you tell me why the article has been rejected as this article exist on the wikipedia platform in french and spannish ?!

Have a lovely day,

Stanislas Montreal StanislasMontreal (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@stanislasmontreal: wikipedia-space articles are not submitted through the afc process. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) edited 09:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry ... I am not sure to understand ...
Is it the title that has to be changed ? StanislasMontreal (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 15 May 2023 review of submission by 247dot247

What will happen if Bengali news is published to publish Wikipedia articles in English language? The central president of a country's student body can not publish Wikipedia articles? 247dot247 (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@247dot247: can you rephrase that, please; I don't understand what you're asking? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a national level news source in a person's native language, can an English Wikipedia page be created under that person's name? 247dot247 (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
247dot247 The language of a source is not relevant, a source may be in any language, see WP:NOENG. The bigger problem that you have is that this person does not appear to be notable as the English Wikipedia defines it. It is possible that he meets whatever criteria the Bengali Wikipedia has, and if so, you can certainly write about him there, but that is a separate project. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your talk page, you seem to think that the head of a student organisation is somehow inherently notable, is that the issue here? Hate to break it to you, this is emphatically not the case, despite fancy titles like 'Central President'. To be included in Wikipedia, this person needs to meet the WP:GNG notability standard, like pretty much any other subject does. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now can I publish Eucdia in this person's name? (Draft:Razebur Rahman) 247dot247 (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 15 May 2023 review of submission by 2001:4C4C:1817:2000:BC8C:8837:6584:80B2

Can someone help me with what is required for the article to be accepted? 2001:4C4C:1817:2000:BC8C:8837:6584:80B2 (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the decline notice, this draft fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable. So what is required is for you to cite sources which achieve that according to the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Shikeishu

Hello everyone, I have been working on the article Draft:Ichiko Ima, who is an award-winning manga artist whose most famous series sold several million times. The reason given why the article is not accepted is that I don't quote enough sufficient sources. However, here I link a scientific paper focussing on her work, here I quote her Japanese publisher. I also include interviews and smaller mentions in other sources to support. I can't find reliable other sources. I would be grateful for support in how to go further. Thank you. Shikeishu (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shikeishu Interviews and information from her publisher do not establish notability, as an interview is the person speaking about themselves, and her publisher is associated with her. As noted by the reviewer, most of the other sources are brief mentions, which also does not establish notability. If this is all you have, and there are no other sources that have significant coverage of her and are not associated with her, she would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you speak Japanese, it is possible that she would meet the criteria on the Japanese Wikipedia, which has its own editors and policies as a separate project. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shikeishu: it isn't clear what exactly that scientific paper is, whether it has been properly published and peer-reviewed, and if so where; in any case, note that scientific papers are not necessarily secondary sources, which is what we need to see for notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining, I understand these criteria, although it was not clear to me they are this strict. I have been going from my experience of improving other articles about manga artists. According to these criteria, many articles in the List of manga artists are meant to be deleted then.
I was looking for support in finding better sources for this specific case. Shikeishu (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shikeishu: you may want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga if anyone there can help you with sources.
As for other articles which exist but shouldn't, feel free to take them to AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Matthew Tailor

Hello,

I am currently working on the above article draft and user:MaxnaCarta has added a maintanance tag regarding COI & Undisclosed Paid on the page. I have already contacted him on his User talk:MaxnaCarta and informed him that I am neither a paid author nor have a close connection to the subject mentioned in the article. He replied that I should contact the AFC help desk and it can be reviewed by another editor and possibly removed. Matthew Tailor (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew Tailor: obviously we cannot ascertain this one way or the other, and are reliant on you to tell the truth, so if you're saying that those issues don't apply then you're welcome to remove the tags yourself.
That being said, for example the two middle paragraphs in the 'Early life' section contain private personal information which isn't backed up by referencing; this inevitably raises the possibility, at least, that you might know this individual personally. Where did you get that information from? Which is a way of saying, wherever you got it, please cite your sources. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for the quick reply. The information about his early life comes from the German newspaper article of the "Westfälische Nachrichten", which I have already added as a source. Matthew Tailor (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew Tailor: okay; you still need to cite the source against that information, though. Especially in an article on a living person, where the information is potentially sensitive or contentious, clear citations are a hard requirement (and are best practice also in other articles). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, so do I need to cite the source for those two paragraphs again? Because I quoted that source at the end of the whole "Early life" section because all the information in that section is also part of that source. Matthew Tailor (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors with 63 edits do not know what edit summaries are, or how to apply a WikiProject tag. Yet within 5 edits you are using edit summaries, applying WikiProject tags, and submitting formatted drafts. This, to me, says you have prior knowledge of editing Wikipedia. If not a paid editor, is this a new account? How do you know how to navigate the AFC process, ping editors, and do other things most editors take quite a while to learn? You have also, by your own admission, been pushy. To me, these edits suggest you have one purpose: to get this article up. Why such passion from an uninvolved editor? That's what I would like to know. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta I understand your objection. I haven't looked at it from that perspective yet. To answer your question, I've been on Wikipedia a lot for a long time, just as a source of information and a reader.
As a result, I read up on it, looked at how Wikipedia works, and then tried to publish my first article (fortunately, everything is actually very well described and backed up with examples). Of course, I don't know a lot of things yet and I'll take any help I can get. With my article I have oriented myself much at other articles from the similar category and tried these "to imitate", I admit. And yes, I said that I am a bit pushy, that's me because I put a lot of time and effort into the draft and also tried to stick to Wikipedia's guidelines. I admit, I like to listen to the music of Fifty Vinc very much and also for a very long time. Nevertheless, I personally have nothing to do with him / his music, nor was I paid to write or publish anything. Matthew Tailor (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MaxnaCarta besides our small discussion about the maintenance tag, I would appreciate your feedback on the article draft and what I could do to improve it. I would also appreciate it very much you if you can give me feedback in terms of sources. Thanks in advance. Matthew Tailor (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve offered all I can on this. Please resubmit and engage with the editor who next reviews it. I have nothing further to offer with this draft. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 15 May 2023 review of submission by AH.Data20

It is unclear to me why the sources for my topic are deemed not in-depth, unreliable, primary, or not independent. I have reviewed the guidelines for sources and am still confused. Does anyone have specific advice on why these sources are not usable and how to find proper sources, or how to change the wording of the submission to use the sources properly, such as in the last example in the "Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/reliable sources quiz?" AH.Data20 (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AH.Data20: based on a quick scan, I'd say at best two of the sources, the PBS piece and the Forbes article, come even close to meeting the WP:GNG standard, and even they are more about the founder than the business; in any case, those two alone wouldn't be enough, even if they were fully focused on the company. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! I appreciate your time in reviewing. Do you have suggestions to finding proper sources? AH.Data20 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AH.Data20: other than searching on the internet, and/or asking your client, no I don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The company isn’t notable. I wouldn’t bother resubmitting this for the reasons DoubleGrazing has mentioned. Sorry. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 15 May 2023 review of submission by 2A0A:A548:B70:0:E1F:1DB7:6DAE:927D

I was not finished. 2A0A:A548:B70:0:E1F:1DB7:6DAE:927D (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you submit it for review, that's you saying "I'm finished, please check it". Certainly that's what you're saying the fourth time you submit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can provide comments in the article. For that, you need to click or tap "Edit" on this article on Wikipedia. 2A0A:A548:B70:0:FC1B:5427:85BB:E0B5 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Jakemcmurchie

Hi. I'm trying to add basic information about our past releases, including this one. I've created pages for them using the 'articles for creation' process but they've been rejected because they have no references. What kind of references are appropriate? The record label no longer exists so I don't know if there is a definitive source of information. Jakemcmurchie (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakemcmurchie: first thing to say is, you need to formally disclose your conflict of interest (COI) with regards to the band and any related topics. This has been flagged up on your talk page before, but I cannot find a disclosure anywhere.
As for your question, this, and every other article, needs to be supported by references to reliable published sources so that the information can be verified. Moreover, there needs to be sufficient sources to establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources (meaning, newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, books, etc.). In fact, it goes further than that: when writing an article, you shouldn't just write whatever you know about the subject, and then try to find sources which support what you've written; you should find sources meeting the GNG standard, summarise (in your own words) what they have said about the subject, and cite the sources against the information they provide.
If you cannot find sufficient, appropriate sources on a given topic, then it isn't possible to have an article on it included in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 15 May 2023 review of submission by EliLG

Thank you YesI'mOnFire and CNMall41 for your feedback on my article Healthy Living Market. I'm more than happy to remove language that has been flagged as promotional so that it is in a neutral point of view. As I have provided 14 independent, third-party sources and cited them abundantly in my article, I don't believe it should be deleted. Also, other local grocery chains (Bi-Rite Market, D'Agostino Supermarkets, Sprouts Farmers Market) have been approved with similar citations, so I have reason to believe that these sources meet our communities requirements of describing the subject from a neutral point of view. EliLG (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EliLG: advertising isn't allowed, no matter how well referenced your draft is. And whatever other articles may exist is not relevant here, as new articles need to be created in line with the currently applicable policies and guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Sara Erika Walter

Hi, my draft was rejected, but it is in fact the translation of the published French page, so I don't understand how it can be published in one language, but not in another. Best regards, S. Sara Erika Walter (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sara Erika Walter: it wasn't rejected (which would mean you couldn't resubmit it), it was declined (which means you can, once you've addressed the decline reasons).
Each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project with their own rules and requirements, and an article being included in one language version says nothing about whether it will be included in another. This draft was declined for lack of notability, and the notability standard on the English-language Wikipedia is higher than on any other language version (that I'm familiar with, at least). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sara Erika Walter, you need to provide references to reliable, independent sources that verify the assertions in the article. Veifiability is a core content policy. Read Referencing for beginners to get started. Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Keymung

What Happen to keymung Articles Page Keymung (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Keymung, it has been rejected and will not be considered further. This is not the place to write about yourself. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It not about myself i am write for my fav singer KeyMung Keymung (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Keymung: then you need to change your username, because it looks like you're Key Mung. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can change my user ! Please Help me how to change. My first time write for my fav artist so i put wrong Name on my wikipedia users name. Keymung (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keymung, your draft lacks references to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. An article about a student in a student newspaper is not independent. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Senjasenkaappi

I would like to express my concern regarding the ongoing process of publishing this article, which has been taking a considerable amount of time, extending over a period of six months. Initially, the article faced two rejections due to insufficient sources or lack of significant differentiation. However, these concerns were addressed by incorporating additional sources, particularly when it was discovered that Finnish language sources could also be utilized in the English Wikipedia.

Subsequently, the article encountered three further rejections on the basis that it appeared to be promotional in nature. It appears that the product being discussed, which has the potential to enhance gas turbine power output by 1-2% and subsequently reduce CO2 emissions, was the primary reason for these rejections. Despite the availability of research findings and practical experience supporting these claims, it seems mentioning them has been discouraged, although they are directly relevant to the company in question. It is worth noting that this company was among the pioneers in recognizing the significance of air permeability and filterability of filters in improving efficiency, and has been actively developing such a product in collaboration with a research institute since the early 2000s.

Now, the most recent rejection suggests that the topic lacks sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, I have come across various companies on Wikipedia that are less familiar to me, some of which are smaller in scale or have not even existed for a quarter of a century. This prompts me to question the criteria for defining a notable company, especially when a publicly listed company fails to meet the requirements. I am uncertain about the appropriate course of action for the article if the opinion of a single reviewer holds the final decision.

I had intended to write about a few other companies with environmentally interesting products, but given the circumstances where one person's unfamiliarity can deem them uninteresting, I feel hesitant to proceed, as it appears to be an unproductive use of my time.

I kindly request your assistance in addressing these concerns and providing clarity on the matter. I appreciate your attention to this issue and I am hopeful for a favorable resolution. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Senjasenkaappi: first and foremost, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. If you wish to appeal the rejection, you need to take your case to the rejecting reviewer.
Second: what is your relationship with this business? I have posted a message on your talk page regarding conflict of interest (COI) and how to manage that.
As for why this draft was ultimately rejected, it was for lack of evident notability. In the Wikipedia context, notability does not arise from the subject being more energy-efficient, or being the first or best in something, or whether the subject is familiar to you or not; it arises from whether there are secondary sources that are independent and reliable and provide significant coverage of the subject, which are sufficient to satisfy the WP:GNG notability requirement. Based on a quick scan, I would say that the only one of the sources cited which meets this standard is the Kauppalehti one, and that alone isn't enough. Note that primary sources such as company websites, press releases, routine business reporting and churnalism do not count. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this company lies in the fact that its past activities, as documented in reputable publications such as Suomen Kuvalehti (https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/avainsana/loudspring/), are easily accessible. Even government ministers have promoted the company for its ESG investments. The former management of its affiliated company, Nocart, had claimed to utilize development funds worth hundreds of millions of euros to invest in solar power plants in Nepal. This endeavor received significant attention, and numerous articles were published on the subject, highlighting strategies for successful green investments. However, it eventually became evident that no orders were placed, resulting in the company losing its credibility and undergoing management and name changes.
In 2021, the company made the decision to shift its focus solely to its sole profitable ESG investment, which ironically drew criticism for its involvement in the fundamental industry of filter manufacturing. Given the company's complete transformation, the bankruptcy of Nocart several years ago, and the current management's lack of connection to emerging market investments, there haven't been a substantial number of articles written about the company yet.
Please note that the above information is based on my understanding of the situation and available sources. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Senjasenkaappi: putting all that to one side, the only question we're interested in regarding notability is do sources exist, which are sufficient in quality and quantity to satisfy GNG, or not, and if they do, are they cited in the draft (it's no use saying they can be found and are "easily accessible")? Bear in mind that the sources must cover directly the subject in question, not any indirectly related matters such as affiliated businesses or earlier ventures. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is a translation from the Finnish Wikipedia. While it is important to note that these are distinct projects with limited connection, the source material in the Finnish Wikipedia relies on reputable sources such as stock exchange releases. It is crucial to uphold the accuracy of information, as publishing false information would constitute a securities market offense. Notably, very few newspapers dedicate separate articles to topics like share consolidation or similar operations, which are worth mentioning in the company's information. This inclusion is relevant as it may attract the interest of investors who do not closely follow the company but are curious about the whereabouts of previously held voting shares that were used for control purposes.
Conversely, newspapers often exhibit a higher margin of error. Given my familiarity with the company's history and the discussions surrounding it, the sources cited in the article instill a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the information presented. For instance, in a recent article, Kauppalehti, which you mentioned, described the company as follows: "It is a small company in terms of market capitalization and turnover, comparable to start-ups, as it is still in the initial stages of its business." The current Wikipedia article remains more up-to-date than the perspective of a journalist who possesses limited knowledge about the company. Consequently, the existence of the Wikipedia article serves a valuable purpose by providing a comprehensive reference to verify all relevant facts about the company. These facts are accurate, current, and appropriately sourced. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Senjasenkaappi sources serve two purposes, verifiability and notability. Stock exchange releases may be fine to use for verifiability, but here on the English Wikipedia, do not nothing for notability and your purpose to "attract the interest of investors who do not closely follow the company" is the antithesis of Wikipedia's purpose because it is inherently promotional. Please see read NCORP along with WP:NOTPROMO thoroughly. S0091 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I once wanted to find out how many times Microsoft stock has been split in history. It's possible to calculate it by going through the stock exchange releases, but it's very laborious and you can miss something if you're just looking for keywords. Wikipedia had the information right away (Microsoft#Financial). The fact that a listed company gives information about the number of shares and what kind of shares it is is not promotion, but information for those who are interested in these things.
I did read the NCORP along with WP:NOTPROMO thoroughly. Relevance and suitability of Wikipedia articles may not apply to companies like Eagle Filters, which have a long history and have made a strategic decision to focus on their core strengths. Transitional events are often overlooked by mass media, as they tend to prioritize tangible results.
If I were to include the history of an investment company age in an article, I could find some very good articles on it, for example in the Finnish newspaper Suomen kuvalehti I mentioned earlier. They just have nothing to do with the current situation of the company itself. Just as Nokia once manufactured televisions, rubber boots and car tyres. Those divisions are all sold.
However, I would like to emphasize that the market shares of gas turbine filter manufacturers are diverse, without any single dominant player. While many competitors already have Wikipedia articles, it is only fair that Eagle Filters also receives recognition through its own dedicated article.
Eagle Filters holds an important position as a filter manufacturer, contributing to CO2 reduction efforts with their unique products. Sharing their accomplishments and merits more widely would enhance knowledge and understanding within the industry. Moreover, having an article dedicated to Eagle Filters would be beneficial for individuals, such as students, who may not be familiar with the sector and find it challenging to evaluate available information. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Senjasenkaappi: I think we're talking at cross purposes, or you're not wanting to understand the concept of notability and its relevance here, so it's probably best if I leave this now and let someone else carry on from here. Just to reiterate, though: this draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong second opinion please? — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:59, 15 May 2023 review of draft by Burvegas


Burvegas (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Burvegas you do not ask a question but the draft appears to be a copyright violation so likely will be deleted. Please see your talk page, User talk:Burvegas, for more information. S0091 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:31, 15 May 2023 review of submission by JackyVRKiwi

Inquiry on notability failure.

I'm failing to understand the standard here. How is a VR game not notable enough when the game received 206k view in itself and 1m view for its predecessor from just one video each from reputable youtubers? Is that not enough coverage by a 2nd party? Do youtube videos and articles about game not count as coverage?If gameplay view count is not enough notability, there are other reviews of the games.

There is also a news article from one of the major news stations in Finland. Are those not considered as verifiable evidence?

I asked the editor who rejected the article to elaborate more by commenting, but no response was given. JackyVRKiwi (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JackyVRKiwi, the number of views, etc. does not matter and YouTube is generally considered unreliable (see WP:RSPYT) unless is it is by an otherwise reliable source (i.e. BBC) and based on what you linked, they do not meet that standard. The one news source you cited may meet the the standard but a single reliable source with in-depth coverage is not enough. Multiple are required. You might find WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources helpful and feel free to post a note at WT:WikiProject Video games to request assistance. S0091 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment and providing useful links. So if I understand correctly, YT is generally considered to be a non-reliable source. Since jornalism in game is relatively new, only posts from reliable sources list can be approved, and even than it can be situational.
I'll check the reliable source list and the refence library to add more sources.
How about notability? The article was rejected for 'clear notability failure'. Are notability only applied to jornals and blogs, and not youtube where you can see views and comments? So notability means notable in jornalist sources and not as in generally notable to the public? JackyVRKiwi (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JackyVRKiwi I think was you are describing is "popularity" versus "notability" so yes, something or someone can be popular, even "famous" but not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. Also, blogs generally not considered reliable (see WP:BLOGS). Not sure what you mean by "jornalism in game is relatively new" but publications dedicated to video gaming go back at least to the 1970's. Still young from a historical perspective but I wouldn't describe it as "new".
Anyway, it looks like you have one good source, Push Square, which is an in-depth review. If you can find a couple more like that, it will meet notability. And be kind to @DoubleGrazing. They are very helpful editor here and I agree with their assessment of the Yle article. S0091 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JackyVRKiwi: the Yle article you mention here talks about VR gaming in general, and discusses at some length the Cave Digger game, but makes only passing mention of the (at the time, forthcoming) CD2.
In any case, one wonders why you mention sources here which weren't cited in the draft, and even then do so only after the draft has been rejected. When we review drafts, we can only look at what is included in the draft; with 4k+ drafts awaiting review, we don't have the time to go hunting for sources, nor is it in our job description. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment, but you're neither answering the question nor being helpful unlike the previous comment.
I'm failing to understand the purpose of your reply. JackyVRKiwi (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked about the Yle article; I replied. I'm sorry if you're failing to understand. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

07:01, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Iam1947

I want to know why this NGO is not being considered for an article. It has proper citations and references and engaged in notable work at the global level. Is there something wrong with the tone of the artilce? Iam1947 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iam1947: it has been considered, several times in fact, and each time been found wanting. It is promotional, poorly referenced, and the sources cited do not establish notability per WP:GNG. In any case, this draft has now been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I will have to rewrite the draft all over again and then attempt a review? Please explain as the body of work of the NGO will essentially remain the same, so how can I make it better? A little detail will certainly help Iam1947 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iam1947 You misunderstand what it is that we are looking for. An article should not merely document the existence of the organization and tell about its activities- it 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. We don't merely want to know its activities, we want to know what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about the organization on their own, and not based on materials from the organization(like interviews, press releases, discussion of its routine activities). As the draft was rejected, this means that it won't be considered further at this time. If something fundamentally changes after the rejection, like new sources found that the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the reviewer directly. I'm wondering if you have an association with this organization. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iam1947: first you have to find multiple sources that meet the GNG criteria, then summarise (in your own words) what those sources say, and cite the sources as you go. You can only include content which comes from such sources. And everything you write must be supported by a reliable published source, and be written in a neutral, non-promotional tone suitable for an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. It really clarifies a lot of my confusion. I dont directly have an association with the org, but I did attend one of its very first training workshop in Pakistan on climate literacy and climate action.
I will try following your directions and see if I can find independent sources.
Thanks. Iam1947 (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:46, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Bmcstan

Hello!

I replied to a declined submission response and have not heard anything back yet (I hit reply on my talk page) and I'm looking to see if someone else is available to assist or take a look at my reply perhaps. Mainly trying to see what else I would need exactly or if I could resubmit it in comparison to another page that I linked in my reply.

Appreciate any help! Thank you. Bmcstan (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmcstan: you probably didn't get a response because nobody saw your comment; for future reference, you need to PING people if you want them to get notified.
As for your question, no, you cannot use non-reliable sources to support anything, because they are... well, non-reliable. (You can use reliable primary sources to support non-contentious information, but not anything more than that, and not to establish notability.)
And comparing your draft to existing articles is pretty pointless, as they may also have flaws, and in any case new articles are judged on their own merits and with reference to the currently applicable guidelines and standards – see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (If you have come across articles that are also insufficiently referenced, feel free to improve them or else start deletion proceedings.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Sew1920

I've made some edits to this draft (added references/citations), is it suitable for submission now? Sew1920 (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sew1920: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If new sources have come to light which weren't available at earlier reviews, you may make a case for reopening the draft, but for that you need to approach the rejecting reviewer directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Josephintechnicolor

The article was declined. I wanted to ask help as to how specifically I can work on this to be approved. Josephintechnicolor (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Josephintechnicolor: did you read any of the notices and comments left by the reviewer? In short, the article is insufficiently referenced, with no evidence of notability.
Also I'm going to move it to a more appropriate title, getting rid of all those post-nominals and trademarks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 16 May 2023 review of submission by RehanshiMirza

Please help publish this article. Give me some precise information that what else should I add to this article so that the article can be displayed on Wikipedia. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shihab_Chottur RehanshiMirza (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RehanshiMirza: did you read the comments left by the reviewer? As it says there, this person seems to be known for a single event only, which doesn't make them sufficiently notable for inclusion. Can't really give you "precise information" on what to add, other than to provide sources satisfying the WP:GNG notability standard, if you can find them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:05, 16 May 2023 review of submission by 212.82.93.137

Hi, I'm requesting assistance with the aim of pinpointing why the references provided with this article are causing the publication to be rejected. Are there any examples of notable sources added? 212.82.93.137 (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, it appears all the coverage is local, Liverpool, which is not sufficient to meet notability. Generally, at least regional coverage is needed, if not national. See WP:NONPROFIT. S0091 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 16 May 2023 review of submission by 2A0A:A548:B70:0:FC1B:5427:85BB:E0B5

Why are you telling me that I need to stop resubmitting the access? 2A0A:A548:B70:0:FC1B:5427:85BB:E0B5 (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

because we want you to stop submitting your draft. when a draft is rejected, further submissions will not be considered. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate lettherebedarklight晚安 13:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

12:44, 16 May 2023 review of submission by 2A0A:A548:B70:0:D68F:6589:9E02:38DD

Hello, Wikipedia I'm done. 2A0A:A548:B70:0:D68F:6589:9E02:38DD (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Darioivweb

The article submission I provided is not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and its purpose is to provide a comprehensive and neutral record of human knowledge. The article I provided meets these criteria, is well-written and informative, and does not appear biased or inaccurate.


By the way, in the building and homes construction business, this is something that only some know what it is and how it works, the reason why having that jn Wikipedia will be beneficial to many people. Please review and approve it to be a typical article. Darioivweb (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darioivweb: please do not create more drafts on this topic; you now have not only Draft:Roof Scupper, but also Draft:Roof Scuppers: Overview and Main Issues, Draft:Roof scupper and Draft:Flat Roof Scuppers in the system. This is getting tendentious.
While it is true, as you say, that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit, it doesn't follow that anyone can write anything they want. We have policies, chief among them requirements for verifiability and notability, both of which are addressed through referencing. Your drafts are all insufficiently referenced, in that most of the content is unsupported, and the sources are not sufficient to show that the subject is notable. There are also things that Wikipedia is not, and those include manual or guidebook, whereas parts of your drafts read exactly like one.
In short, it may be possible to write an article on roof scuppers, but it needs to be well-referenced and encyclopaedic, and follow certain rules. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: BTW there is already a general, though short stub, Scuppers that might be expended to include scuppers of various kinds, such as roof scuppers. ww2censor (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 16 May 2023 review of submission by T-IC-2o23

I do not understand what the editor meant by "Please also remove the external links within the article per WP:EL.". What external links are they referring to? T-IC-2o23 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@T-IC-2o23: for example in the 'Dying on Stage' section, the [https://www.festival-automne.com/ Festival d’Automne] is a link to an external website. External links are only allowed in the end matter, ie. 'References' and later sections (and one in the infobox, where relevant). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see! Thank you for your help!
One other question: There is a (very minimal) wikipedia page that exist for this person in German. Is there a way to officially link these two on Wikipedia? T-IC-2o23 (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@T-IC-2o23: yes, but the interlanguage linking is only possible between published articles, and therefore can only be added once this draft has been accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you again! T-IC-2o23 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:33, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Vehicleman76

My article was declined because of "unreliable sources". The source I used was from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, a major marine research center. Why is this considered an unreliable source? Vehicleman76 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicleman76, the reviewer did not say that your single source was unreliable. But multiple sources are required. And you have done a poor job of summarizing so far. I believe that the topic is notable. You just need to do more work to show it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I understand. Thank you for the help! Vehicleman76 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 16 May 2023 review of submission by 205.200.115.1

We are working to update our page so that it meets your requirements, but are having difficulty editing our sources into an acceptable list. Please advise - does each of our sources need to meet all four of the content requirements, or can we fulfill the requirements across a range of sources?

Any other editing help would be greatly appreciated. See our partner company Wawanesa's approved page for comparison. 205.200.115.1 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you have a user account, please log into it when editing.
Secondly, you need to disclose your conflict of interest / paid editing status before doing anything else.
As for your question, all the sources that you're relying on to establish notability do have to meet every criterion in the WP:GNG notability standard. You may be able to use other sources as well, such as reliable and independent primary sources, or sources that don't provide significant coverage of the subject, but they do not count towards the GNG requirement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 16 May 2023 review of submission by Wofoz

Hi there. I'm wondering if there is something additional I need to do to have this draft approved. It is a few days short of four months since I submitted Thank you for your help! Wofoz (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wofoz the draft is pending review. It's just a matter of a volunteer reviewer getting to it. S0091 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:23:20, 16 May 2023 review of draft by Wofoz


Hello. I'm not sure if I have done something wrong with submitting my draft on Mia Malan. It has been over four months (submitted on Feb 1) but I haven't heard anything back. Thanks for any suggestions you have.

Wofoz (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wofoz see response above. S0091 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

04:15, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Yorkmich23

My page keeps getting rejected. I have numerous articles that mention my name, background, experience in the music industry, and current role as a Managing Partner for Range Media Partners - a leading management and production firm in Hollywood with a numerous list of A-List clients. Is there any chance this can be reconsidered? I've been trying to get this approved for a very long time. Yorkmich23 (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YOURSELF. There’s a reason we discourage writing about yourself. By the way, are you using multiple accounts? “You” have been trying to get it approved yet not the author of the article? Using multiple accounts is strictly prohibited. You also are not notable for our project. Most of your mentions are from articles not actually discussing you and certainly not in sufficient depth. We don’t care what role you have either. You need to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources of sufficient depth to have a biography written about you by someone. The rejection is final. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Amendment: Multiple accounts are usually strictly prohibited unless for certain reasons I doubt this editor is making use of) — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:43:22, 17 May 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Wmydaughter

The draft requires changes. I need assistance to edit or correct the sentences due to which the draft is rejected. The content is genuine and can be published for the readers to know about a philanthropist Wmydaughter (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@wmydaughter: sorry, we won't edit your draft for you. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply. I request you to kindly inform the sentences or words which you feel are inappropriate for publishing. This will be greatly appreciated. Wmydaughter (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wmydaughter: there is little point in starting to go through this with a fine-tooth comb. The entire draft is a promotional vanity piece, poorly referenced (and with half the sources not working, even more so), and with no evidence of notability. As such, I have declined it, and I would suggest that it is significant improved before next submission, lest it be rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:00, 17 May 2023 review of submission by TheNewCivilian

My article has been rejected as it seems to be "not adequately supported by reliable sources". I currently have one reliable, secondary, strictly independent paper that talks about the topic in depth, but can't find any other paper that does so (only small mentions, newspaper articles, etc.). As the topic is quite similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDTGV, which seems to not contain any independent source, I now wonder what I need to do to verify the information of my article correctly. TheNewCivilian (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNewCivilian: your draft has been declined (not rejected) not just for inadequate referencing but also for the related but separate reason of lack of apparent notability. Per WP:GNG, we would need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources for this draft to be accepted (note that these sources can be in a language other than English). With only one such source cited, this will again be declined.
Modelling your drafts on other, existing articles is a mistake (an understandable one, but a mistake all the same), as you may be trying to emulate ones that themselves have problems. You need to work with reference to the currently applicable guidelines and policies instead, most notably the core requirements of verifiability and notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you for your in depth explanation! I will further try to find sources that fit the General notability guideline requirements. I am currently still struggling to find more scientific work, that mentions more details about TrenOK.
I am still confused if i.g.
- fan reports
- Trademark records
- YouTube videos
or news article could work as reference and if so under what circumstances? TheNewCivilian (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:57, 17 May 2023 review of submission by AAkash Kumar Karate

I have submitted an article but it has been deleted. i am not sure why i have given all the details correct also is it compulsory to mention the reference. AAkash Kumar Karate (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Williamhenryincedo

Hello, I have written an article about Incedo Inc. and sent it for review on 11-May-2023. However, I am unable to verify its current state. Could you please assist here? Williamhenryincedo (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It got deleted because it was blatant advertising. Please stop trying to recreate the article. We don’t publish promotional pieces on companies. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Darasimi2019

i don't know why it shows rejected and it is a notable company Darasimi2019 (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it’s not notable, you’ve been told many times why yet continued to submit the article anyway. It’s now rejected and will never be considered further. Please let this go. It isn’t right for us. Sorry. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 17 May 2023 review of submission by GoldGaming

Why was this draft deleted? GoldGaming (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:56, 17 May 2023 review of draft by SCS1934

I have inadvertently created a duplicate title, because pages already exist about other people with the same name as my subject: Rboert Poole (Historian) etc. Mine should be Robert Poole (Industrialist). I cannot figure out how to change the title now that the article is ready for submission. Please tell me how to change the title. I believe I am autoconfirmed and should be able to submit my article without review, but I seem unable to do so because of the article title duplication problem.

SCS1934 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SCS1934 no problem! I moved it (read that for instructions) for you to Draft:Robert Poole (industrialist). When you are ready to publish it, you can move it to article space and if needed, change the title then as well. S0091 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am very confused. The article I am working on is long, it contains a good amount of information, and has multiple links. I met the person once but I am not sure why that is a problem. Can someone help?

Article Petjayso (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No clue how my article did not get through and this one did Petjayso (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Kenny093

I don’t get what the problem is? Kenny093 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Kampasbill

why my draft is rejected?the article was published by its author. He gave me the right to upload it? What do I need to send you to be sure it's not a copy? Kampasbill (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kampasbill it was rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, not because it was a copyright violation, however it may be deleted because it is. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Advm pb

I have written the article from neutral point of view. I have also added inline and external references. I did a thorough research before writing and submitting this article. I am not understanding what more should i do for verifying this page. I wish someone could help me with exactly what changes to be done. Advm pb (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Jovial script

why did you get rid Jovial script (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1155350596"