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 ASKanetkar (talk | contribs) at 13:13, 3 October 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Sample_coolers). 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
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


September 27

07:11, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Jesse Paul Blue

Interested about citing sources. I have not quoted anyone in the article. do I still need to cite? If so what then? Jesse Paul Blue (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jesse Paul Blue. As this is a biography of a living person, every material statement must be cited with an in-line reference. This is non-negotiable. Please have a read of WP:BLPRS and WP:INCITE, and for a tutorial on citing see WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Samaneh2894

Hi dears! In Help desk

Hope this message find you all well & in perfect heath.

I would like to inform you that I have just removed the external sources from the draft. But, I was not able to 1. find any unreliable references & 2. to understand tone of draft mentioned by the dear reviewer of the article as problems required to be fixed.

I have studied the relevant sessions on Wikipedia and found that my article is written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries are written, indeed, from a neutral point of view, with a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Would you please do me a favor and help me to resolve the problems in line with publishing my article on your useful free encyclopedia? Best Regards 

 Samaneh2894 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that you are associated with this company. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment) for information on required formal disclosures you must make.
You have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia in that it is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your draft does not do that; Wikipedia wants to know what those unaffiliated with the company consider to be important/significant/influential about it, not merely what it does.
Please understand that the Persian Wikipedia is a different project, with its own editors and policies, and as such what is acceptable there may not be acceptable here, and vice versa. You may want to write this for the Persian Wikipedia. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the "premier" Wikipedia.
If you feel you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer, you may resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:09, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Sam Veroone

Hello,

One user declined my draft for the Suyin Aerts article. While in Dutch the same article has already been published. How can I get another user to review the draft so that not a single person has the decision-making power? And how can I directly answer the user on his rejection of the draft?

Thanks in advance.

Greetings, 

Sam Veroone (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Veroone The Dutch Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English version tends to be stricter than others.
You can communicate with the last reviewer directly on their user talk page. Click the word "talk" next to the reviewer's name in the box with the decline message. Typically, a different reviewer will review it if you make changes and resubmit. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear. Thank you for your prompt response. Sam Veroone (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also have declined the draft, the content doesn't suggest that they are notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Carolinemoncure

My article was rejected so I made an edit and I *think* I resubmitted it. How can I tell if I have resubmitted for review? Carolinemoncure (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolinemoncure: yes, it has been submitted. You can tell by the big mustard-coloured box titled "Review waiting, please be patient." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Carolinemoncure (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 27 September 2023 review of submission by MilesJ22

Subject: Inquiry Regarding Rejection of Wikipedia Submission

Dear Wikipedia Editor,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek clarification on the rejection of my recent submission to Wikipedia, as I am eager to understand the reasons behind the decision and, more importantly, to rectify any issues identified.

The rejection notice stated that the draft lacked references demonstrating the subject's qualification for a Wikipedia article. Specifically, it was mentioned that the references should be in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. I appreciate the importance of adhering to these criteria for the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia articles.

Additionally, I noted the feedback regarding the submission potentially reading more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. I understand the significance of maintaining a neutral point of view and referencing a range of independent, reliable, published sources to establish notability and meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

I am committed to ensuring that my submission aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. To facilitate this, could you kindly provide more specific feedback on the shortcomings of my initial submission? This would greatly assist me in understanding the areas that require improvement.

Furthermore, if you could offer any guidance or suggestions on how to enhance the submission properly, I would be extremely grateful. I am dedicated to contributing to Wikipedia in a manner that upholds its standards and values, and your assistance in this matter would be invaluable.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your guidance on how to revise and resubmit my entry appropriately. MilesJ22 (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesJ22 Discussing this with the declining editor will be the most use.
What I see is a lack of useful references. To remind you, ee require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
I have not looked at the way it is written. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:The Phone Up Studios Inc.. Note that Draft:The Phone Up Studios Inc has been deleted on 22 and 25 September as advertising. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MilesJ22: just for the record, your first attempt was rejected, and subsequently deleted, as a copyright violation. Your second attempt was only declined, but also deleted, for being promotional. The third one has also only been declined (not rejected). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also note that Google search, Wikidata, Linkedin.com and company profiles are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 27 September 2023 review of submission by 173.174.211.237

Hi Help Desk: What do I need to do to improve this new article to make it publish worthy? Thank you in advance for your help. PS: I did read the guidelines before submitting the draft, but I could use some help. :) 173.174.211.237 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all citations to unreliable sources, such as iMDB. Remove all sources that are adverts, such as the Stormchasersusa one. Remove any sources which are not independent, such as the StockFootage one (Wikipedia basically isn't interested in what the subject says or wants to say). Wherever you have multiple sources supporting a single claim, remove all but one - choose the strongest, according to the golden rule.
Doing this may not get the draft all the to an acceptable state, but it will stop it looking like a "can't find any high-quality references, so I'll pack it with dozens of feeble ones to make it look impressive". ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XERI_MUSIC/sandbox

These was the article was i was creating on my sandbox but I can't add links like YouTube links or external links when I added the links it's saving and publishing for review please can anyone help out with this XERI MUSIC (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XERI MUSIC: I don't know what problem you're experiencing, or even what exactly you're asking, but I'd say your main challenge is demonstrating notability, of which there is no sign at the moment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. The only sources that matter at this stage are ones that meet those criteria (see Golden rule. External links to YouTube are almost certainly completely irrelevant.
Wikipedia doesn't want links to the song: it wants citations to in-depth reviews published in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Jellybull

I don't know, what I'm missing! I've got in depth, reliable & independent! What else does it need? Jellybull (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:The Scratch 3.0 Show
As the draft has been rejected, you will need to contact the rejecting reviewer directly, usually through their talk page. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jellybull I will go through your sources one by one:
1) A WP:PRIMARY source, so not independent
2) A WP:PRIMARY source, so not independent
3) A WP:PRIMARY source, so not independent
4) A WP:PRIMARY source, so not independent
So, could you explain how you think your four sources are "independent"? Qcne (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 27 September 2023 review of submission by Simogasp

Hello, I still do not understand why the article has been continuously refused. The content is factual and supported by ~30 references of scientific, peer-reviewed papers published in international conferences or international journals. Each of them cites the software as it has been used in their work. Frankly, I don't know what could be done more to meet the standard. Simogasp (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simogasp: as this draft has been rejected, you will need to make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One reviewer said "Peer review does not make a secondary sources (with the exception of 'review articles' in special journals which usually have the word 'review' in the title). [2] These independent academic journal articles appear to mention the subject only in passing. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (per WP:GNG)". The mere use of the software does not make it notable. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I can add a bunch of scientific peer-reviewed papers (conferences and journals) that provide direct comparisons between Alicevision and other commercial or open-source similar software in terms of quality of results. Would that help to improve the reliability of the sources? Simogasp (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 27 September 2023 review of submission by MARIATINEOOO

Hello, I added more information to what I've written. Is there anything else that I need to improve? MARIATINEOOO (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MARIATINEOOO: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 27 September 2023 review of submission by 217.155.50.169

I feel that the last feedback, "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 unfair and does not qualify on reasonable grounds for rejection.

Can you please advise. Best wishes, Holly 217.155.50.169 (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holly, did you read the decline notice left by the reviewer? "All statements need to be sourced, such as the year of birth, and the entire early life section. WP:External links should be removed or converted to inline citations where appropriate". For the guidelines, please carefully read WP:BLP.
This draft was therefore declined appropriately, but you are welcome to address the issues and resubmit by clicking the big blue Resubmit button. Qcne (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 27 September 2023 review of submission by 2603:6081:F05:7700:8C37:6404:3A43:39F7

It has been rejected twice, and I would like some help to fix it so it shall not be rejected thrice. 2603:6081:F05:7700:8C37:6404:3A43:39F7 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. It's only been declined, not rejected, which means you can re-submit once you've addressed the issues. Your sources aren't great: only #5 and #6 are secondary sources- all the rest are WP:PRIMARY which does not count towards the criteria set out in WP:NBOOK. You need to find significant coverage in secondary sources, or prove how it meets another WP:NBOOK criteria. I'll also note that those two sources aren't formatted well and it is going to be harder to verify them. Can you please provide ISBN number for the T.S. Elliot book, and possibly an archive link for the newspaper article? Qcne (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 27 September 2023 review of submission by DWBarbour

I submitted this page recently and it was rejected. I would love some guidance as to why, as I am more willing to adjust it.

I also have another, odder question. This was prepared by a number of people who are acquainted with David Young, a published poet of note. As a favor, I made the submission. After it was rejected, David Young -- with whom I have never been in direct contact -- received an email from a person named Laura N. Walters. She was aware that the submission had been rejected and offered to consult on fixing it for a fee of $380. Is this how Wikipedia usually does business? I am particularly baffled as to how Ms. Walters found Mr Young, especially as he is quite ill. Any guidance you can provide is welcome. Thanks.

David Barbour DWBarbour (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DWBarbour.
Firstly, the "pay money to ensure your article is approved" is a common scam and absolutely not how Wikipedia operates. Please see WP:SCAM. I'm sorry that he had this interaction with a scammer- as Wikipedia edits and logs are all public, it is fairly trivial for scam rings to follow an article and backtrace to try and extort the subject.
Articles about poets need to pass the WP:NBASIC or specifically the WP:NPOET criteria. The easiest way to pass this criteria is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover David in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of the article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: independent of the subject, for example not interviews, self-published, or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: ideally at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Remember that the article should be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, here's the actual link to your draft, @DWBarbour: Draft:David_Young. It has not been rejected, only declined (by me, in fact!). You have zero sources, so please have a read of WP:VERIFY and WP:BLPRS which explains that all articles must be sourced as my guidance above, and this is particularly strict for articles about living people. Qcne (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a relief about the scam. But when you say there are zero sources, there are, in fact 11 footnotes that to my mind seem to fulfill the criteria you are looking for. They include several journals and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial foundation. His books are linked to well-known publishers, including Alfred A Knopf and several leading university presses. There are no direct quotes in the entry. Can you give me a clue? DWBarbour (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DWBarbour: there are indeed 11 items listed, which probably are the 'footnotes' you refer to; it's just that they blend into the 'Literary Criticism' section so can be hard to spot.
Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using the preferred system of dynamic (as opposed to manually-numbered and rigid, as it is now) inline citations and footnotes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @DWBarbour. This is my fault, then- your footnotes were directly under the bullet points in the Literary Criticism and I mistook them for a continuation of those bullets. Usually we'd see the references in the empty References section below it. As it was empty, and you had plain text inline citations, I thought there were no references. Sorry about that.
There's a tutorial for creating proper inline citations at WP:INTREFVE which I'd recommend you follow to set up the in-line citations correctly. It will automatically generate a reference list for you.
Do that, and then re-submit. Qcne (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, really my mistake. Thanks for the clarification. I'll fix it up over the weekend and resubmit. DWBarbour (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 27 September 2023 review of submission by XERI MUSIC

I want to add more notable sources but only these are the sources I could find on the internet and I wanted to improve more by writing lot more i wanted to know the notable sources I found on the internet are all true and then why my article was rejected. XERI MUSIC (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The song does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a a notable song. If the sources do not exist, as you claim, no amount of editing can confer notability. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:21, 27 September 2023 review of submission by 78.82.216.152

Today I have made several edits and some clean-ups. I need help to understand if I am going in the right direction. 78.82.216.152 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what direction you're going in, but there are certainly several issues to sort out.
First and foremost, the draft seems to include content copied from external sources, which needs to be cleaned up. Please see WP:CV for important information on copyright violations.
Secondly, assuming you're Derekhal22 (in which case, please log into your account when editing), you need to respond to the paid-editing query on your user talk page before doing anything else.
And as to your draft, there is no indication that the subject is notable, which is why it has been declined. The draft is also promotional in both tone and content. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will check this out. It would help if you could show me an example, and also to advise how that example should be writtten. Derekhal22 (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to remember, Derekhal22, is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. It looks to me as if (like most beginners) you have written the article BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

03:24, 28 September 2023 review of submission by Redyr iksachli

The draft keeps getting rejected through the citations and sources of which I have changed much times, though this rejection I have just gotten is saying I don’t have enough sources (basically). Though for a topic on such a small in engagement in a relatively ill known war I can’t have that much sources for it. Redyr iksachli (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redyr iksachli, if there are insufficient sources devoting significant coverage to this battle, then the best course of action is to cover the battle in Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743). Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite telling that neither sv.wiki nor fi.wiki have an article on this, or mention it anywhere in anything more than passing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:21, 28 September 2023 review of submission by 202.152.71.162

This article are real life not made up. I hope ypu change it from draft to articles. 202.152.71.162 (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide vastly better quality references to reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to this 14 year old. The draft has been rejected because there is no evidence at all that this minor child is eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:40, 28 September 2023 review of submission by Priyal Pathade

Let me know hoe to create Wikipedia page, from which after searching in google our information will be available. Priyal Pathade (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Priyal Pathade: you can find everything you need to get started at WP:YFA. We have nothing to do with Google, however, so whether their search finds any given article or not is up to them.
And seeing as you say "our information", you should probably take a look at WP:COI, WP:PROMO and WP:OWN, to better understand how Wikipedia works, ideally before you even get started. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating first article

Hi, i have tried creating a new article of a living person named Charles Mashahary who is a Bodo singer, songwriter and also i have searched and added the notable sources and still finding more to add on it can anyone please help me out as my sources are sufficient or not or should I have to change something. Thank you!!! XERI MUSIC (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XERI MUSIC: I've just declined  Courtesy link: Draft:Charles Mashahary for insufficient referencing. Among other problems with it, please note that IMDb is not a reliable source, as it is user-generated.
My advice would be to concentrate on just one draft, so that you learn to understand how articles are written and what makes them acceptable for publication. Once you've mastered that, you can then create more on other topics. Otherwise this whole thing is going to spin out of control – you now have five drafts, all with the same sort of problems, most of which could have been avoided if you'd created them sequentially rather than all at once.
But regardless, the first thing you need to do is respond to the conflict-of-interest / paid editing queries on your talk page. Please do that before any other editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DoubleGrazing i really liked ur advise and I will really be helpful for improving my articles yeah I have interesting writing or editing article about music and artist's I love but I'm not paid for to write for anyone I'm just creating an article on topic about Bodo song's or Bodo Artist's and i have also tried searching for every news sources. XERI MUSIC (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to add image to an article

Also, there are photos uploaded already on Wikimedia Commons of Charles Mashahary but I dnt know how to use it where can I link it. XERI MUSIC (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XERI MUSIC: you simply link to it with an internal link, like [[File:imagename]].
For basic editing questions like that, you can ask eg. at the Help desk or the Teahouse. This AfC help desk is for drafts undergoing the AfC review process, on which images and other optional 'bells & whistles' have no bearing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:17, 28 September 2023 review of submission by XERI MUSIC

I want to improve my article these is the enough sources i could find but the thing which I've are written are all notable sources and it's all true please can I submit the article for review again my article is rejected. XERI MUSIC (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @XERI MUSIC. I am afraid that draft is not suitable for Wikipedia at this time and the rejection is correct. Please closely read the WP:NMUSIC guidelines. The only source you have that is of any use is savaalmagazine, and that's a PR piece so not actually very useful. All your other sources are either WP:PRIMARY (so useless to establish notability) or not reliable. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:25, 28 September 2023 review of submission by Shane VV ZA

Hi, Please could I get some help with my Draft.

I would like to know if I have submitted it correctly and if there is any way to get reviewd faster and what I would need to do.

Thanks so much! Shane VV ZA (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shane VV ZA. It has been submitted correctly. There is a backlog of 3500 articles to be reviewed. It will be reviewed eventually, but this could take up to four months. Qcne (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shane VV ZA: yes, you have submitted it correctly. And no, there is no way of expediting reviews; please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate the response, I understand, I will work on improving in the meantime. Thank you! Shane VV ZA (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 28 September 2023 review of submission by XERI MUSIC

Hi, wt is wrong with my article everytime it is getting declined now rejected can I really get a help from someone who can explain me wt should I add or wt should I remove XERI MUSIC (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XERI MUSIC, I have explained on your message to my Talk Page. The sources do not prove notability under WP:NMUSIC, it is as simple as that. Qcne (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rejection means there is nothing more you can do, the draft will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 28 September 2023 review of submission by Nameiscs

why this page was declined Nameiscs (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nameiscs: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice(s), which you presumably saw before you deleted them?
It has also been previously rejected already – twice – so you shouldn't really have resubmitted it in any case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 28 September 2023 review of submission by Tea And Biscuits 123

I am unsure which reliable sources I can add for this page creation. I am creating this page on behalf of the person - Boris Hiestand - and all information has been cross checked by him before the submission. Boris Hiestand has a NL Wiki page already (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Hiestand) so the information on that has been copied across to the English version that I am creating (not including the Dutch language articles). The reasons that I had for the denied page creation are below: 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. 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. Any further assistance would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. Tea And Biscuits 123 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tea And Biscuits 123: firstly, we're not interested in what Hiestand has told you about himself, we're interested in what reliable and independent published sources have said about him. You need to write this article by summarising such sources, and citing them against the information they've provided.
Secondly, whether there exists in the Dutch Wikipedia an article on this subject is immaterial in what comes to the prospects of its acceptance in the English-language one. Each language version is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tea And Biscuits 123: as for the reasons for declining this draft, these are two-fold:
  1. We need to see that the subject is notable, which usually requires sources that satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, meaning multiple secondary sources which are independent and reliable, and which have provided significant coverage of the subject. Of the 46 (!) citations, at most one meets this standard, and it alone isn't enough (and is in any case a bit borderline IMO).
  2. We also need to have all material statements and anything potentially contentious clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Currently much of the content is not referenced at all, and many of the citations are to unreliable sources, esp. IMDb.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least 40+ sources are to IMDb, please remove all references to IMDb it is NOT a reliable source see WP:IMDB. Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 28 September 2023 review of submission by Jonjonalvarez

This is a summary of each year of what President Nayib Bukele said in each UN assembly, a reference to each speech is also attached and it is also very important for young Salvadorans who seek information about history and the presidential periods of Nayib Bukele, it is a very important article, I don't know why you think it is not important, I would like to know. Jonjonalvarez (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonjonalvarez: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a catalogue of someone's speeches or travels or appointments, etc. If you can find independent and reliable secondary sources that have analysed Bukele's speeches and/or discussed their importance, etc., then you may summarise those, citing the said sources, and possibly end up with an encyclopaedic article which could be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, as an encyclopedia it contains historical events of importance. I am adding information about a president's speech in United Nations.

If Wikipedia is not to contain such important events about politicians, how is it possible there is an article titled “Chavez 2006 speech at UN” or “2022 Joe Biden speech in Warsaw” which is not only a summary, it contains president’s Biden whole speech. What about the article called “Speeches of Barack Obama” which contains remarks on more than 25 speeches of president Obama.

Why am I being censored under arguments that are not applied to all the platform?

16:57, 28 September 2023 review of submission by Stuoop1dstoodant124342

first article, im not sure how to make an article. 

Stuoop1dstoodant124342 (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stuoop1dstoodant124342: this draft has been rejected, so there is no way to make it an article; it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:26, 28 September 2023 review of submission by Atomkronos

Hello, I worked really hard on this submission, and listed more than 10 reliable sources for this entry. I have seen numerous other submissions with way less references and worse formatting, that have been granted. Can you please explain what to do to get this submission granted? I would really appreciate you help. Thank you Atomkronos (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atomkronos Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. That an article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone. We can only address what we know about. If you want to help us out, you can identify these other articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Regarding your draft, the sources you have offered do not have significant coverage of Alex Theory or what makes him important/significant/influential(what we call notability) as independent reliable sources that can be summarized see it. Unless you have that, Mr. Theory would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


September 29

03:01, 29 September 2023 review of submission by AfnanzafarBD

Need a help to review my re-submission after revising the comments. AfnanzafarBD (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AfnanzafarBD: it will be reviewed once a reviewer picks it up, which can be days, weeks or even months from now; please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 29 September 2023 review of submission by Cydricks27

To post it on Google so everyone can search Cydricks27 (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no interest in promoting you on Google, your draft gives zero indication of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:39, 29 September 2023 review of submission by Jorgefdez7777

I keep getting messages of COI, I don´t know what to change now Jorgefdez7777 (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jorgefdez7777 What is your connection with Marta Maldonado? You must have one since you took an image of her in her studio. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She has been my art professor for more than ten years. I also do web pages so i have done her webpage www.martamaldonado.com Jorgefdez7777 (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So she's more than someone you admire(as you state on your user page). At a minimum, you need to declare a conflict of interest(click for instructions). If you are compensated by her for creating her website and/or editing for her, you must make a paid editing disclosure. The compensation does not have to be money, it can be a grade, consideration for a job, or anything at all you receive for your editing or website work. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get paid by her in any way, i am not professional. I do it a favor and as a student getting into new projects is good. I will state the COI... Jorgefdez7777 (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The main issue with the draft is that it is not written in an encyclopedic style. I would suggest that you look at some articles about artists(preferably those classified as good) to get an idea of what is being looked for.
Not related to the draft itself, but it's curious that she would want to release her work under Wikipedia's license, which permits reuse for any purpose with attribution- this would mean people could take copies of this work and sell them(say, printed on clothing) and she would not be entitled to any money from the use of her work. However, this is certainly her choice. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 29 September 2023 review of submission by Shamoonahmadham

You can Google all the information regarding this article and everything posted here in Wikipedia is true to its form Thankyou again Shamoonahmadham (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself and what you do, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My article was 100 percent genuine sir. With news references media links and many more Shamoonahmadham (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create a new section for every post you make, please just edit this existing section. Again, your draft was rejected which means it will not be considered any more. How "genuine" it is is not relevant. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 29 September 2023 review of submission by Tomasz11234

We need to add the Ludigames page on Wikipedia right now! Tomasz11234 (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz11234 Who is "we", and what is the urgency? Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Tomasz11234. I rejected your draft. You provided zero sources that demonstrated how Ludigames meets the WP:NORG criteria. All of your sources were WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia is not a business or game directory, please see WP:NOT. Qcne (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 29 September 2023 review of submission by Maria Andreina Francisco

I'm not sure I understand the reasons for rejection. womENcourage is an event similar to Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing and Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing (although it's newer). I've tried following the same structure and style as the other events hoping that's what it should look like and I would really appreciate some more specific tips to get it accepted. Maria Andreina Francisco (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Andreina Francisco We don't need the whole URL when you link to another Wikipedia article or page, simply place the title of the target page in double brackets, as I've done here.
Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that a draft may be resubmitted.
Please read other stuff exists. The existence of other articles has little bearing on your draft. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community.
The main issue with your draft is does little more than tell of the existence of this conference. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about this event- what we call notability(see the definition of a notable event). 331dot (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first article you mention has been marked as problematic since 2016, and shouldn't be used as a model. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 29 September 2023 review of submission by Darius Rawson

I Need My Wiki Created Darius Rawson (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the "draft article" about your business I have tagged it for speedy deletion, it clearly doesn't pass WP:NCORP and is entirely promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 29 September 2023 review of submission by Jlfranzasu

Curious about the review status on this article. This is for an academic and the last round of edits were based on feedback from the reviewer/editor who said "These are both very minor things and I think as soon as they're done there's no reason why this couldn't be accepted." Please advise. Jlfranzasu (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is pending. As noted on your draft, a review "may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,579 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 29 September 2023 review of submission by Wofoz

Hi. I've done some edits on this, correcting the 'too many citations' comment. But the option for saving seems only to be 'publish' which I don't want to do as I need someone to review this due to my COI. Would you please let me know how I can do this properly? Thank you! 

Wofoz (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Publish changes" should be understood to mean "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". You have submtted the draft. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:03, 29 September 2023 review of submission by Tomasz11234

We need to add a Wikipedia page for this iOS game Tomasz11234 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:30, 29 September 2023 review of submission by Xm4729

How can I get this re-reviewed? I previously got help and reviewed low quality sources and such. Xm4729 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xm4729: this has been resubmitted, is awaiting review, and will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up; please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

02:52, 30 September 2023 review of submission by Elumalai011980

This page is getting rejected. Can you please let me know what I should do to get it published. Elumalai011980 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elumalai011980: it hasn't been rejected (although probably should have been), only declined.
There is zero evidence of notability. Until you've shown that the subject is notable, this draft will not be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
left 'm my highly educational and informative deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:59, 30 September 2023 review of submission by 2404:1C40:53:2562:1:0:EAD9:27B7

What can I do to publish this article? Tell me why this page is not being published 2404:1C40:53:2562:1:0:EAD9:27B7 (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. Drop it, and find something better to do with your time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 30 September 2023 review of submission by Hananali13244

i publish the article of self made its decline kindly approve my article Hananali13244 (talk). 07:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your question makes little sense, but your autobiography has zero independent, reliable sources, so has zero chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 30 September 2023 review of submission by Ahmadhussain2274

He is a famous person in marketing and digital media like on Facebook and YouTube. and doing good for the generation. Ahmadhussain2274 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmadhussain2274: you haven't asked a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being on social media is not notable. KylieTastic (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:24, 30 September 2023 review of submission by Madian wiki

What should I do right now? Madian wiki (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 30 September 2023 review of submission by Madian wiki

Place aprove my sorce. Madian wiki (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutrality request not to remove the page. At the same time requested to accept the sorrows. Madian wiki (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madian wiki: I don't know what a "neutrality request" is, but this draft has been rejected and is pending deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove this page, as this page will be updated later. New information will be added. Madian wiki (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is pending deletion and will soon be deleted. Please read WP:NOT. Qcne (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:01, 30 September 2023 review of submission by 94.112.229.118

Hello, I see no reason to reject the article. Really, what is written in it, the person really has, his compositions can be listened to on youtube, spotify, amazon music, Deezer, Apple music, and he also owns a company that runs a radio, he also has a verification on youtube that he is a music composer and has a content id 94.112.229.118 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that not one word of the paragraph above has anything to do with notability in Wikipedia's special sense, which is about whether wholly independent commentators have published enough about the subject (in reliable sources) to provide the content of an article. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to reject is that there is no evidence of notability. Just because a person exists, and has released a couple of songs, is not what we're looking for. We need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:44, 30 September 2023 review of submission by Sinfulorlop

I need your help with this page! Sinfulorlop (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with! Qcne (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to do - what you needed to do first of all, before you started writing the draft - is to find some sources which are independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the company (see Golden rule). Your first three contain only routine information about the company, not why it is noteworthy - and the obituary may or may not be independent. I can't look at the last reference without disabling my ad blocker, so it may or may not meet the criterion of significant coverage. ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 30 September 2023 review of submission by Ahmedasif.dev

How can i submit my data on wikipedia? Ahmedasif.dev (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. Use social media to post your resume or tell the world about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about subjects deemed notable. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 30 September 2023 review of submission by Sportsik1998

Basketball 2026 Asian Games Sportsik1998 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this process is not for requesting redirects. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

12:10, 1 October 2023 review of submission by Chiaseanlim

I have tried to edit the draft to meet requirements such as providing more references but seem still not yet fulfill. Please advise for more details that I missed out. Thanks. Chiaseanlim (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiaseanlim: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:38, 1 October 2023 review of submission by Henrybardklein

My original submission in April was sent back for better documentation. I supplied this in an an article about Mary Conway Kohler on June 20, but have heard nothing. Can you tell me the status of this submission. Henrybardklein (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrybardklein: this draft has not been resubmitted since it was declined in April. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back. Boy am I puzzled by that. Ok, I'll get back to you. Henrybardklein (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't submitted because you didn't pick the "Resubmit" button, probably because you deleted it when you ignored the message Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 1 October 2023 review of submission by Saxofun200

hi!

this article has been flagged for not having sufficient sources-- I've been adding other sources which are very similar to sources i've been using for other articles of similar topics. Please advise how I can get through this to make sure my page is published! Saxofun200 (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saxofun200: if you're confident that you've sufficiently addressed the reasons for the earlier decline, then you can resubmit the draft, and in time a reviewer will assess it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:22, 1 October 2023 review of submission by 84.18.98.249

Why are the sources in the article not reliable enough? 84.18.98.249 (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be very difficult for a reviewer to judge the reliability of the sources, as they are in Russian. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there restrictions about the link language? 84.18.98.249 (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, sources can be in Russian, but it's going to be difficult for a reviewer to evaluate them unless they know Russian, which probably few if any reviewers do. It might help if more of the sources were online. Have you published this on the Russian Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, the article is in the Russian Wikipedia. 84.18.98.249 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although both offline sources and non-English ones are acceptable, you could help the reviewers a lot by giving better indication of what the sources are that you're citing. I understand that publication names may need to be in the original language, spelled in Cyrillic script, but there is no reason why the meta information (eg. "Стр" for 'page') has to be. You could also provide an English translation of the title, and possibly a short quote of what the source says. ISBN numbers should be entered correctly so that they become easily searchable. And if there is an online version of the source available, please cite that instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I fixed it 84.18.98.249 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

06:02, 2 October 2023 review of submission by Sportsik1998

Ok Sportsik1998 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsik1998; that's not a question; do you have one in mind you'd like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 2 October 2023 review of submission by Talhabaig1211

Why is my article not being published? What is missing in it? Talhabaig1211 (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Talhabaig1211: because there is no sign of notability, the draft is promotional, and in any case you shouldn't be writing about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIO). This draft has been rejected and is pending deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talhabaig1211, overtly promotional language like "renowned" and "Ethical Hacker" and "widely recognized" and "significant strides" and "a prominent place in the global cybersecurity community" and "deep curiosity " and "honed his skills" and "establishing himself as a prominent figure" is utterly unacceptable language for a neutrally written encyclopedia. Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:14, 2 October 2023 review of submission by Pankajwill

This page is not unambiguously promotional because it provides a balanced and factual representation of Dr. Bhaskar Dwivedi's life and career, highlighting both his achievements and contributions to various fields, rather than solely focusing on promotional content. Pankajwill (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pankajwill you had zero sources, and re-submitted without providing any sources three times. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Please very carefully read WP:VERIFY. Qcne (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was completely unsourced and was promotional in nature- Wikipedia is not a place to post someone's resume, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources state about a person and what makes them notable. This is why your draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 2 October 2023 review of submission by Gogo1479

why isnt it suitable Gogo1479 (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been rejected because it fails to show that this person is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 2 October 2023 review of submission by Charlie Rosenbaum

Hi there,

Hope you are doing well. I submitted an article for review and the did not approved it. I am not sure what to write the article right way and resubmit it. Please help me to write and resubmit the article.

Kindly Charlie Rosenbaum (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlie Rosenbaum: firstly, please see WP:AUTOBIO for all the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself.
If you still plan to go ahead, then see WP:GNG for the main notability guideline, which your draft must meet in order to be accepted. Basically, this requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject.
See also WP:BLP for the referencing etc. rules applicable to articles on living people. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:46, 2 October 2023 review of submission by Origagari

Hi,

Why do you reject this biographical article? Seyidullah Nebati is a well-known businessman. Can you please let me know if I have done anything wrong?

Good Work. Origagari (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:01, 2 October 2023 review of submission by Naniu9hei

Can you please confirm if the submission is still under review? If there are any other requirements, please let me know. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration Naniu9hei (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is still pending, as indicated. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply Naniu9hei (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 2 October 2023 review of submission by Record straighter setter

Can you please instruct me how to change my article established in German Wiki to get accepted in English - thanks a lot for your assistance! Record straighter setter (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Günther Knör -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Record straighter setter: you need to show that the subject is notable by either the WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC standard, and also to make sure that pretty much everything you say is supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. (And just for clarity, whether or not this is "established in German Wiki" is irrelevant in what comes to its prospects for being accepted into the English-language Wikipedia.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 2 October 2023 review of submission by HAMZJAHANZEB

I am wanting to ask if I have enough sources here to back claims. There are lots of references, and I wanted to ensure that I do not get rejected on that basis.

Can you kindly provide me with some feedback?

Very best, HAMZJAHANZEB (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAMZJAHANZEB: I'm not quite sure what you're asking. This draft was declined for inadequate referencing. You haven't since made any improvements, yet you're asking if you have enough references. No; self-evidently, you don't. You are citing three sources, with four citations in total. I would not call that "lots of references" by any measure. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:50, 2 October 2023 review of submission by CodesonCanvas

Page declined Why did my page submission get declined? CodesonCanvas (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has no independent sources, is blatant advertising and zero indication of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 2 October 2023 review of submission by Mronzon

Hello! Been trying to get this article approved for quite some time, any help would be greatly appreciated. It keeps getting rejected because of the validity of the sources, but all sources included are from reputable sites. Mronzon (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted; declined means it may be resubmitted.
The validity or reputability of the sources is not the issue, their content is the issue. The draft must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him; you have largely just documented his activities. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

04:51, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Basava Vinay Vp Writer

Because I am a writer to spread good message to the society Basava Vinay Vp Writer (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Basava Vinay Vp Writer: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If you want to tell the world about yourself, open up a blog or join some social media platform. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Origagari

Hi Greenman how are you? I respect your comment, but this is not a promotional entry. The person concerned only operates in Turkey, but I made an entry in English. This is not for promotional purposes. He is also the brother of the previous finance minister. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nureddin_Nebati) Can you help with publication at this point? Good work. Origagari (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Origagari: there is nothing of encyclopaedic value in this draft, and it all seems to come from you or the subject or some other non-independent party, as opposed to being a summary of reliable published sources. Therefore, I'd say it very much is WP:YESPROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Nook768

A ton of other people using wikipedia made SCP things but mine was deleted? I just dont get it. It was also considered Vandilisim. It was a fictionol SCP character. Please tell me and explain why it was deleted and none other SCP things were deleted Nook768 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@nook768:
A ton of other people using wikipedia made SCP things but mine was deleted?
eh?? what?? where??
and if you want to write scps, go to the scp wiki. ltbdl (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Iohannz

Hello! Could you please explain why my article submission was declined? Iohannz (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a message on the draft as to why it was declined(not only the box at the top, but a message directly underneath it). Please review it carefully. Do you have more specfic questions about it?
Please detail your relationship with Gengiuri; you must have one since you took an image of her. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was needed for a website development I took part Iohannz (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer my question, but if you have an association with her, you need to declare a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:13, 3 October 2023 review of submission by ASKanetkar

For sharing better information on sample cooler 

ASKanetkar (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1178405250"