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 2600:4041:5cb4:d700:542a:746b:730f:80e (talk) at 18:15, 6 October 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:New York Stem Cell Foundation). 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
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


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]
Ok, thanks. So what edits would you suggest making so that the draft has a better chance of being approved? Pull more direct quotes from the sources? Mronzon (talk) 18:50, 3 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]
@ASKanetkar absolutely not. That is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Read WP:NOT. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 3 October 2023 review of submission by EditCloud123

Hi,

Could we have the stop taken off this page please so we can work on revisions? EditCloud123 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EditCloud123: as this has been rejected, you will need to appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer.
Who is "we" in your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EditCloud23 You may make revisions, but the draft will not be considered again until you first appeal to rejecting reviewer, or failing that, convince the community here to allow you to resubmit it(but you would need to demonstrate that the rejecting reviewer made a gross error in policy or judgement). 331dot (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, I have received no appeal. However I take this discussion as an appeal. Since EditCloud123 has been deceived into believing I have solicited money I do not believe it to be appropriate for me to respond, and recuse myself. May I ask you to act as if the appeal were made to you, please?
My rationales are all public on Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "we" refers to the company, i have declared a conflict of interest. The moderator who rejected it was someone who was asking for money to publish it and going back and forth publishing it to show that he could and then deleting it to demand the money, then put a stop on it when we refused. - i do have emails to show this, but its evidenced where you can see the amount of edits "timtrent" has on it EditCloud123 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123: that is a very serious charge, hope you're not making it lightly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123 it is likely you have been contacted by a scam ring who is impersonating @Timtrent. Please see the details of this known scam at WP:SCAM. Qcne (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Impersonation doesn't check out here. The moves to mainspace were not done by Timtrent, as EditCloud123 suggested, and they never said the UPE identified as Timtrent in the emails. They have just referred to the amounts of edits by Timtrent. And somehow they make no comment of the confirmed accounts who _are_ the UPE in contact with EditCloud123. If they think they fell for a scam, they should submit evidence about the confirmed UPE accounts. Anything else suggests bad faith. MarioGom (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TBF, the OP did say explicitly that "The moderator who rejected it was someone who was asking for money", which seems to me like a direct accusation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a direct accusation. My point is that nothing suggests there is evidence backing this accusation, not even off-wiki impersonation, because the UPE this user is in contact with are using other accounts that are not mentioned here. So my claim is that this accusation was not made in good faith or not with enough transparency. MarioGom (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question about "we" wasn't querying your COI, which I could see duly disclosed on your user page, but rather whether there is more than one user accessing that user account? Wikipedia accounts are for use by a single individual only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No the account is only held by myself :)
Please can you advise on next steps, is there somewhere i need to submit the evidence or something i can do in the meantime? EditCloud123 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123 – the next steps are:
  1. Email your evidence of payment demands to the investigations team, as already instructed. It is in everyone's interests, not least @Timtrent's, that this issue is looked into without delay.
  2. Respond to the query on your talk page, which asks you not to edit until you have acknowledged and answered it.
  3. Regarding editing the draft, as 331dot correctly points out you are able to do this, but for now you are unable to resubmit. (We can cross that bridge when we get to it.)
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123 Please submit your evidence at your earliest opportunity. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EditCloud123 Did you personally create and own the copyright to the company logo, and do you really want to make it available to anyone to use for any purpose with attribution? 331dot (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot: Obviously not, and this would require a permission ticket. It should be deleted. MarioGom (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123 That is an extraordinary charge you are making against me. I refute it totally. Please your send evidence to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org as detailed in WP:SCAM.
Never pay money to anybody offering to do anything for you on Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an admin who handles a lot of paid editing cases: whoever is claiming to be Timtrent is almost certainly a scammer and not actually Timtrent. We've seen a major uptick in cases of this sort of impersonation lately, primarily targeting Wikipedians who use real (or real-sounding) names as their usernames. Unless there is extremely convincing evidence submitted by the accuser here, I see no reason to hold Timtrent under any sort of suspicion. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability Impersonation is part of the lot of a reviewer. This is the first time that I know of that it has happened to me, and I suppose that I should wear the badge with pride. However, being accused in public forum is not something I am enjoying.
I have now done all that I am able to do in order to show my bona fides, and put my trust in the underlying processes to sort this nastiness out. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reminded of the heavily aggressive comments by User talk:Ayumu Chizue, editor of Draft:Connex One, blocked, and investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124. There is a huge sock farm at this investigation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False accusations of corruption have been made against a reviewer. Is anyone looking into taking action for the false allegations? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Promnewyork

I am requesting assistance because of the reasons given for rejecting my article... "that it is a research essay Promnewyork (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Promnewyork: what assistance do you need? FWIW, I fully concur that this does look, both in terms of structure and content, very much like an essay, dissertation, or scientific paper of some sort, rather than an encyclopaedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh, and it has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the work to present it as encyclopedia paper and re-summit for review and publication. Cheers! Promnewyork (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Promnewyork: with respect, you haven't; you may have edited the draft, but you haven't fundamentally changed the nature of it.
As this has been rejected, you cannot resubmit it; your only way forward is to appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer, but this would be rather pointless at this time, as the rejection reason still stands. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly NOT acceptable as an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the acceptable format for encyclopedia article pls Promnewyork (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Promnewyork: you can find advice and instructions for article creation at WP:YFA.
You can also see examples of articles rated as 'good' eg. at Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature. It's often useful to read some articles before attempting to write one, so you know roughly what you need to aim for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Hirwa94

I am writing this message to express my disappointment over Wikipedia approval process. Most editors have negative image on Africa and considers everything from there as inferior. This is deeply unfair as our nations also want to be connected.

The article African Centre of Excellence in Data Science is all about a non profit, public university. Why would you mark it as advertising or unreliable references? Hirwa94 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hirwa94: it's interesting that straight off the bat you go for some anti-African sentiment and assert that "Most editors have negative image on Africa " etc. – is it not possible that this draft was declined simply because it doesn't meet the relevant standards? In any case, this has been resubmitted and is awaiting review; what, therefore, is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been reviewed and reviewed to the point one editor told me that it is okay. As for Geographical biases, it exists. You guys put your kindergartens on Wikipedia but you can't stand our universities being on it. And then you call yourselves GLOBAL, DEMOCRATIC. The deserved name is HYPOCRITES.
Anyway, the platform is yours. I did my part and if it is not enough, that's it. Hirwa94 (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hirwa94 Sorry you have had a negative experience with the AfC process. As one of the reviewers who declined the article, I want you to understand my reasons for it: at the time of your submission nearly every source was WP:PRIMARY , which meant the centre did not pass the WP:NSCHOOL criteria. This has nothing to do with any kind of geographic bias. I agree that most of the existing school and kindergarten articles on Wikipedia don't meet that criteria and should be removed- we have millions of articles and it is simply that no one has gotten around to nominating them for deletion yet. We're all volunteers. I will note I regularly decline drafts that do not pass WP:NSCHOOL , which are based all across the globe.
Perhaps a solution is to merge the contents of your draft into the [[University of Rwanda]] main article. Qcne (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have no certainty about the race of any user. Your race or nationality is not relevant. I don't see where someone said that articles about topics in Africa are "inferior". That isn't true, if it was said to you. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Hockima

What needs to be done better ? Hockima (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, @Hockima, it has been rejected. Qcne (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 3 October 2023 review of submission by 2A02:CE0:1800:22C9:CD4F:3A91:D444:1112

Requesting kind support to revised my article to be accepted with Wikipedia Policy 2A02:CE0:1800:22C9:CD4F:3A91:D444:1112 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, the draft was rejected in August and you should not have re-submitted it. It has now been rejected again. This is the end of the road, find something else to write about. This will not become an article. Qcne (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:50, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Shahin hossain007

why my article submission was declined Shahin hossain007 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cause it was self-promotion. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Jordandl18

I'm not really familiar with how to get the Wikipedia page approved and I have provided sources for everything but it still gets declined. Jordandl18 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred term is Wikipedia article, not "page" which has a broader meaning. Most of your sources are affiliated with the team- an article about this team should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the team, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You haven't provided sources for everything- the Legacy section is entirely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:30, 3 October 2023 review of submission by 2607:FB91:320:725:B9A8:C6BD:CF57:5185

I have a question if I’m citing the sources correctly. 2607:FB91:320:725:B9A8:C6BD:CF57:5185 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are citing your sources more or less correctly, but you are just not citing good enough sources to have shown that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

02:11, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Wootdee

Hello, I just wanted to query why my article submission has been rejected when I have met the following criteria: 'The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]'. The books are being taught in AT LEAST 10 schools, both private and public and Wikipedia only requires that they be taught in two.

I can see in the editor's rejection that he has discredited the validity of the Echo news paper from my region as a source, but it is basically the last bastion of journalism on the Far North Coast of N.S.W. in Australia.

I realise the article is not of a huge magnitude globally, but it is significant locally. It promotes an awareness for the Nyangbal Aboriginal people and their culture that has largely been wiped out as a result of the British invasion in the Ballina area. I am working hard with the Bundjalung Elders to promote the Nyangbal people's culture and language before it disappears entirely. Wootdee (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wootdee: the draft has been declined (not rejected) due to insufficient referencing which is not enough to establish notability or to support the draft contents. You assert notability on the basis of the being taught at school, but there is no evidence of that, as the claim is unreferenced. (I think we would also need to see some detail of what "being taught" means here: are these books actually being discussed and analysed in some detail, or are they merely on a reading list, or something else?)
I don't think the reviewer "discredited" the Echo, but made the point that local papers obviously have more interest in, and therefore considerably lower publication threshold on, local matters than would a national one. And especially when both references (and in saying that, I am very much discrediting Goodreads as a source) are to the same publication, this doesn't really show that the books have received such attention as would be required for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I should be able to address the first issue with some guidance, I think, if you can advise me on the type of evidence required? I'm an English teacher so I wrote the books to be taught in Stage 3 and 4 of the N.S.W. syllabus. I have orders and tax invoices from the schools, who purchased class sets of 30, or I can contact them for photo evidence or affidavits or something if that would suffice? Any other suggestions? I understand the Goodreads review issue so I can delete those comments entirely as a source. As far as the newspaper source goes, I think my latest book (and maybe this series) is about to be reviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian newspapers, would those reviews be rigorous enough to use? I'll see if I can get some reviews elsewhere to, like the NSW English Teachers' Association, maybe? Do you think that would be okay to use? Any advice or suggestions would be much appreciated. Wootdee (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:23, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Uddhabadhikari

Dear Wikipedia Moderators,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the creation of a Wikipedia page for Mr. Uddhab Adhikari, a notable and influential individual in Nepal. I believe that such a page is essential for authentic documentation and recognition of his contributions in various fields, including beauty pageantry, business, philanthropy, and social impact.

Here are the reasons why I believe Uddhab Adhikari's Wikipedia page is of significant importance:

Notability: Uddhab Adhikari has played a pivotal role in the beauty pageant industry in Nepal. As the owner of Miss Universe Nepal and Miss Grand Nepal, he has provided a platform for Nepalese women to showcase their talents and advocate for important social causes on the international stage. His influence extends beyond entertainment, making him a notable figure in Nepal.

Philanthropy and Social Impact: Uddhab Adhikari's commitment to philanthropy and social impact initiatives deserves recognition. Through his pageants, he has raised awareness of critical issues and empowered young women to become advocates for positive change. His work in these areas is inspirational and aligns with Wikipedia's mission of providing accurate and verifiable information.

Cultural Significance: Uddhab Adhikari's contributions to Nepalese culture and entertainment have left a lasting impact. A Wikipedia page would serve as a valuable resource for those interested in the cultural and entertainment history of Nepal.

Documentation of Achievements: Creating a Wikipedia page for Uddhab Adhikari would allow for the documentation of his achievements and contributions in a neutral and verifiable manner, ensuring that his legacy is preserved for future generations.

Educational Value: Such a page would provide valuable information for researchers, students, and enthusiasts interested in the fields of beauty pageantry, business, philanthropy, and social impact.

I kindly request your consideration of this request to create a Wikipedia page for Uddhab Adhikari. I am prepared to assist in providing verifiable sources and information to ensure that the page meets Wikipedia's guidelines and standards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your positive response.

Sincerely, Uddhab Adhikari 

Uddhabadhikari (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uddhabadhikari: you may have misunderstood things, we don't create articles here at the help desk, we advise article creators whose drafts are undergoing the AfC review process. Your draft has been deleted as promotional, therefore there isn't much we can help you with at this stage. If you wish to rewrite your draft, you may do so, but please make sure to do it in a factual and neutral manner, and only summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously published about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:10, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Anjakrend

The german wikipedia got accepted about a month ago (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Krendlinger) with the same criteria checked for "significant coverage" and the Name "E. Krendlinger" appears in the article about sugarcane wax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane_wax) aswell. I just translated the article and added links of proof etc. Do the two points mentioned above help with the significants maybe? Anjakrend (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anjakrend: sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, could you rephrase please?
I will just mention, though, that having been accepted into the German Wikipedia means nothing in what comes to being accepted into the English-language one, as each language version is entirely separate with their own requirements and policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah alright, thank you. That basicly answered my question. :) Anjakrend (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 4 October 2023 review of submission by 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73

Hi! I'm not sure why my draft page for Solita (company) was declined due to inadequate sources, could you please help? In my opinion the sources qualify to your criteria, as in the article, we have used multiple different Finnish independent news media articles. The articles in the sources have been written in Finnish as Solita is a Finnish company, but all of the sources excluding Solita's web page (that has not been used that much) are in-depth articles about the company, reliable, secondary and independent. What should I do? 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please highlight three strongest sources in terms of being independent and reliable, and providing significant coverage of this company. Please note that interviews or where someone from the company is commenting on things, routine business reporting (appointments, M&A, financial results, opening of new locations or markets, etc.), and any sort of sponsored content or anything based on press/promo materials does not count. We can then take a look at those three sources; that will be far easier than evaluating 46 (!), which is definitely in the WP:REFBOMB territory.
This draft has various other issues as well, but let's first establish whether it is notable or not. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the quick help! Just to add, I'm not being paid of writing the page, there is already a Finnish page for Solita, and thought it would be important to have also an English one as Solita has grown into a multinational enterprise and helped, for example, by developing an app that was used by 90% of Finns during the COVID pandemic (saw the comment in the draft). I have made the English page according the Finnish one.
Also saw just now, that the editor would like to have the news article headlines to the sources, would that help?
The three strongest sources would perhaps be
1. Tivi: https://www.tivi.fi/uutiset/it-firma-kovassa-kasvussa-henkilosto-26-liikevaihto-35-/9087ed4b-48fa-3ee9-82f1-7e1a785dff12 (headline translated: IT company growing fast - staff +26%, turnover +35%). The article highlights Solita's importance in the Finnish market going through its' business in numbers, without any interviews etc. It also shortly reports the history of the company's numbers.
2. Tivi: https://www.tivi.fi/uutiset/solita-kierratti-johtajiaan-ja-pani-rakenteensa-uusiksi/6fb39b4b-a587-439d-a8b6-366e24c05bbd (headline translated: Solita shuffles its leadership and restructures its business). The article reports about the leadership of the company as well as the business areas on which Solita developed its operations.
3. There is also a few articles about the acquisitions that Solita has made (I've used them to report Solita's history), most important ones are the ones reporting about Solita expanding its business abroad, for example Kauppalehti's article: https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/solita-ostaa-ruotsalaisen-it-talon-ja-laajenee-samalla-tanskaan-ja-belgiaan/ddbe8626-984e-41d2-bafe-2fd3c790fdc3 (headline translated: Solita buys Swedish IT house and expands into Denmark and Belgium).
No interviews in these articles. Some of the articles have interviews with Solita's leadership, but there is no commercial cooperation marked in the articles (Finnish media always tells, if the article has been written as an ad), so I would rely on the thought, that the interviews have been made in order to get more info about the company.
Also, just to clarify: Tivi is a Finnish, independent technology media, which has been written a lot about Solita as Solita's business area is tech. 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks; I'll have a look at those sources, just need to walk our pooch first. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) Just tell if there is some issues with the articles, as they may be behind the paywall 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are exactly the sort of routine business reporting I mentioned: the KL article even says it's based on the company's press release, and I'm pretty sure the two Tivi articles also come from the company one way or another. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also just check something? You said you are not being paid to write this. Do you mean that you do not work for this company, or have any such relationship with it? Or only that you aren't being expressly paid to write this English-language article specifically? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the Finnish Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors and policies, and that what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so although the article is written by the independent choice of the media outlet, I can't use it as a source at all?
I don't work for Solita, or have any other connection to it except that I'm interested in Finnish tech companies and has been following it from the news. Thought it would be a nice touch if Solita would have also an English page since, as I also said before, it is a really nice example of a Finnish tech company that has been able to expand it business (we don't have it a lot here in Finland) :) 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checked also the Tivi articles, there are no mentions of them relying the info on Solita's press release, although it is natural, that they somehow get the info from the company as they are reporting about its numbers, leaders etc.
What kind of sources would you recommend to use then? When writing about a company, the news articles are best that I got, if Solita's web page can't be used that much (which I totally understand). I thought that reliable, independent Finnish media outlets would fit to be used as sources. :) 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources that don't merely discuss the activities of the company- they must go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about the company, not what the company sees as signficant about itself. If you only have sources that discuss the activities of the company, it would not merit an English Wikipedia article, even if it merits a Finnish Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reliable and independent media is what we're looking for. But there's more to it: the media should be writing or broadcasting about the subject of their own volition, not just filling their pages by regurgitating press releases or other materials put out by the company's marketing or comms team. The basic WP:GNG notability standard already requires this, but as WP:ORGCRIT makes clear, in what comes to articles on businesses, the bar is higher still.
This is probably as good a time as any to raise some of the other issues with this draft. I have a feeling that the fi.wiki original has been largely written by editors associated with the business. In doing so, they've presumably written what they or their bosses wanted to write, and then found some sources that may or may not fully support what they've written. That is how you end up with an article that has more marketing blurb and general fluff than actual encyclopaedic content, and that's also why it is then difficult to identify sources that actually establish notability. This is known as WP:BACKWARD editing. What you should do instead is find 3-5 solid sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria, and simply summarise what they have said, citing the sources as you go. That is how you end up with an acceptable article and the necessary referencing.
None of this is a criticism against you, as you haven't (presumably) written the original, only translated it, but by so doing you've become a victim of someone else's mistake (or at least what is considered a mistake here on en.wiki, even if it isn't on fi.wiki). What needs to be done now is, rather than translating the fi.wiki article per se, a new article should be written on this subject in English, following the process I've outlined here. That would have a much better chance of being accepted. Which is probably not at all what you wanted to hear. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidelines! I'll check if I can find sources that you described and edit the draft! Have a great day! 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 4 October 2023 review of submission by AshlyMel

Please help to improve the article AshlyMel (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no. you improve it. ltbdl (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AshlyMel: just to unpack ltbdl's crisp reply, that's not the way the system works. We are not here to co-create/-edit articles, we're here to advise on the creation especially in what comes to getting the draft through the AfC review process. You submitted the draft, and it was declined. It is now your job to address the reasons for that decline, and then resubmit the improved draft, at which point a reviewer will again take a look at it and determine whether it can be accepted or not. This is true of any editor submitting drafts for review, and none more so than an editor who is actually paid to write their draft (unlike us here at the help desk who are all unpaid volunteers). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:46, 4 October 2023 review of submission by 80.155.22.6

I am part of the communications and PR Department of Neumann Gruppe GmbH and my target is to translate the German Wikipedia article about the group in English. I do not understand why you don´t accept the article and why our own website isn´t a valid source since there almost does not exist other sources and the German article is accepted since years. 80.155.22.6 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the German Wikipedia has accepted an article on this subject is irrelevant. Each language version is a completely separate project. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we have our own policies and requirements, which you need to comply with for your draft to be accepted here.
Your company website is a valid source for verifying completely non-contentious facts (eg. location of your HQ, the names of your senior management team, etc.), but it contributes nothing towards notability, which is the reason why this draft was first declined and then rejected. We need to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the business, and if, as you say, such sources do not exist, then the subject is by definition not notable enough for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the English version of the German Wikipedia. This is the completely independent English Wikipedia, with its own policies and guidelines. Acceptable English language Wikipedia articles about businesses are based on summarizing references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the business. I recommend that you open an account and immediately comply with WP:PAID. Doing so would be a sign of good faith, and would facilitate collaboration with English Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion I used all other sources existing about facts that are non contentious. For other facts I used newsletter or press articles especially talking about the critics. Is there anything I could do? 80.155.22.6 (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Origagari

Hi again,

Seyidullah Nebati is a known and loved businessman. It is quite normal for their information to be on Wikipedia and it has nothing to do with advertising or promotion. I truly and wholeheartedly convey to you that this article is not for advertising or promotional purposes. Can you help get it published?

Good Work. Origagari (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@origagari:
this is 100% promotional.
here's your lead paragraph:

Since 2000, he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of B&G Store, which has made its name known to the masses in the field of modern children's clothing and is the address of quality in the children's clothing sector today.

ltbdl (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Origagari What is your connection with him- which you must have since you took a picture of him? 331dot (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Origagari you completely ignored our strict requirements to use in-line citations? I declined the draft three times because you failed to do this. Qcne (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Tod888

I have recently written an article about this company, but it was declined due to lack of sources and not being encyclopedic. I have done research on Google and used every source there was regarding the company and also mentioned their 0% commission policy, if this was the reason that it got declined I removed that part and re-submitted the article, also I checked similar articles on wikipedia, I couldn't spot any difference regarding the tone of articles, if there is anything else need to be done, I'll be happy to know, cause I also want to add couple more articles from the food industry. many thanks Tod888 (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tod888: I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, exactly, but this draft was declined as there is no evidence whatsoever that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can we make it notable? if you check on google I believe there are enough sources regarding the company, and also there are no claims about anything regarding the company, the article only contains information about the company and that's all, here is the additional info about the company: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC705051 Tod888 (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888 your usage of the word "We" suggests to me you are employed by Mealzo. You have been asked twice on your User Talk page to make a paid editing disclosure. You must do this immediately. Failure to do so will result in your account being blocked. See WP:PAID.
Note, companies house pages do nothing to establish notability. Qcne (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
by WE I mean YOU & I Tod888 (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888 you still have not confirmed if you are employed by the company or not. Please do this now. Qcne (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not employed by this company, I used to work in food industry for many years Tod888 (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming. Qcne (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't 'make' a subject notable; notability either is there, in which case this needs to be demonstrated through sourcing; or it isn't, in which case no amount of editing can magic it out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tod888. Of your three sources, two were sponsored by the company and one is probably sponsored. That means there isn't enough to establish notability under WP:NORG. Qcne (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do you recommend?
as I said I tried to check other related articles to make sure I'm not violating any rules & etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodhub
like what is the difference with this article? I'm asking just to know what needs to be done to make it valid Tod888 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888: drafts are assessed with reference to the relevant guidelines and policies, not by comparing to other articles that may exist out there (possibly with problems of their own). See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comparison is to know what is the issue with the article, if my article is almost same with the an already verified article, then it must have a reason, either they paid you to verify it or it's written by someone with authority to publish it by themselves. Tod888 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have millions of articles, many are unfortunately of poor quality and should have been deleted years ago. But we are volunteers, with limited amount of time to check every single article. Wikipedia content guidelines have also gotten tighter over the years, so what might have been acceptable in 2008 is no longer acceptable in 2023.
If you do want to compare to an existing article, choose an article from WP:GOOD.
Please answer if you are employed by Mealzo or not. Qcne (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not employed by this company, I used to work in food industry for many years
so long story's short if an article has more text it's considered as good article?
I can somehow agree with that, but when talk about a company, I don't think it's possible to write a large article about it, as It's not a person.
but if we get back to know the whole purpose of wikipedia, it's about a free information about stuff right? what is wrong to have an article about an information for a company? as there are many companies I know is not on wikipedia, like Order YOYO, What the fork & etc... I don't know why? Tod888 (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a business directory nor an indiscriminate collection of all the information in the world. Please have a read of WP:NOT. Articles about companies should only exist if there is evidence the company passes the WP:NORG criteria. So far, your sources in your draft do not prove how the company passes that criteria. It's as simple as that. Qcne (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888: the Foodhub article has much better sources than your draft; it demonstrates notability, whereas yours does not. That is the difference. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with respect, that's your opinion, check the sources:
https://techround.co.uk/news/touch2success-announces-big-foodie-acquisition-in-multi-million-pound-deal/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/shopping-deals/heres-how-free-takeaway-meal-22520910
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/how-two-school-friends-stoke-4553363
as both of these companies are part of the food industry, that's the only place you can find about them, NEWS, don't expect to find a an article on other sources? like where you want to find a source? president Biden's speech?
I know we are not going anywhere with talking here, but this kind of treatment is very suspicious in my opinion, your point is not valid Tod888 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NORG guideline genuinely explains what sources must exist to show if a company is "notable" by our standards. If the only sources you can find for Mealzo are sponsored, primary, or trivial mentions then there is not enough out there to warrant an article about this business. Perhaps there will be in the future if it expands and has more stuff written about it, but for now there is no evidence of notability.
The FoodHub article sources all contain significant coverage which are not sponsored by the company itself, unlike your two sources which were. I don't actually think the sources are great on the FoodHub article either- they're borderline - as some are PR statements or interviews with thee founders. But the key thing is that they weren't directly sponsored by the company. Two of your three sources are literally adverts masquerading as articles. Qcne (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I didn't notice the sponsored content on articles, I'll remove the sponsored links from the article and I'll add new information if there was any, appreciate your help Tod888 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888: you've now accused me twice, first of accepting payments, and now saying there is something "very suspicious" about my behaviour. Present your evidence, or withdraw the accusations, please. And either way, let that be the end of this line of personal attacks.
If you don't think the Foodhub article's sources demonstrate notability, feel free to propose that it is deleted. After all, that is no more, no less than what would happen to your draft if it were to be accepted in its current state. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody accused you for anything, I only raised my concern about the absence of clarity on your explanation, I won't propose to delete the article of Foodhub as I'm against censoring the so called startup companies.
Your judgement to not have these companies on wikipedia is questionable, and defeats the whole purpose of wikipedia. Tod888 (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you are mistaken. DoubleGrazing is an incredibly experienced reviewer who has a very good grasp on the guidelines that set out notability for topics on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888 I have left a warning on your talk page about your issuing of personal attacks. This behaviour must cease.
If you have any evidence to back uo your accusation "either they paid you to verify it" then present it by email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org without delay. The community takes a very jaundiced view of people who make false accusations.
It is in your interest and that of DoubleGrazing that you either present your evidence any once, or that you withdraw your accusation, ideally apologising. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Ajayksfg

Not approve Ajayksfg (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajayksfg are you talking about Draft:Suraj_Kumar_Maurya? You have failed to submit it for review.
But there's no point in submitting it for review, as it would be declined. There is no evidence of notability. Qcne (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Ajayksfg

How much take time for approval Ajayksfg (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajayksfg There are no drafts under your account. If you mean Draft:Suraj_Kumar_Maurya then you have failed to submit it for review. But there's no point in submitting it for review, as it would be declined. There is no evidence of notability. Qcne (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajayksfg: Draft:Suraj Kumar Maurya has not been submitted for review, so it is impossible to say how long this would take - forever? There is not much point in submitting it as it stands, either, as it would only be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Lndnfr

Hi = I"m trying to edit this draft now - to start to correct citation issues as pointed out by Qcne etc = but I'm not seeing an option to Edit at the top of the window as is listed - please can you advise? Or am I completly missing it - I can see Edit Source only... or Read. Thank you Lndnfr (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"edit source" is what you need to click in order to edit the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Charlie Rosenbaum

Hi, Hope you are doing well. I submitted an article about my biography. But the article was rejected because of the person is not notable. I am not sure how to write the article right way. Please help me write the article. Kindly, Charlie Rosenbaum Charlie Rosenbaum (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlie Rosenbaum: can I please just refer you to my earlier reply, above. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it for speedy deletion it is full of ridiculous puffery “has tirelessly worked”, “dedication to advocating for fairness and justice”, “Inspired by the wisdom and insights”’ “his remarkable achievements”, “an accomplished engineer”, ”Striving to make a difference in the lives of others”, “distinctive personal touch”, and more and more! Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left him my usual deletion notice. (The thing read like a campaign brochure.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Doodle inc.

It was rejected Doodle inc. (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct it is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Fadinoja

It's a theory i have and will be adding more details over time. Fadinoja (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for posting our personal theories, sorry. When independent reliable sources write about your theories, let us know.
d 331dot (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:36, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Lw4bdi

Draft for new page Draft:Jennie Hudson was declined and clear reasons given. I wanted to reach out for advice on how to improve this for resubmission, if at all possible. When preparing this, I was referring to an existing Wikipedia page as a guide (a page of another academic who works with this person) - this page had only two sources and they were both affiliated with the subject directly. Can anyone shed light as to why a page like that was approved whereas the draft I submitted with a range of many sources is still insufficient? I understand I need more third-party sources, but I had gone out of my way to obtain what I thought were examples of this (mentions on government websites and other organisations, rather than just her current and previous employer). I have got a news article I could cite, but it's not anything in-depth as the feedback suggests I should find. Most news articles that refer to this person are just brief quotes and mentions about her role. I may be able to find something more in-depth to resubmit, but in any case, I am curious to understand where the line is drawn given that I was being guided by existing approved pages. Lw4bdi (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lw4bdi I fixed your link in the header for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:"). We don't need the whole url as well.
Please see other stuff exists. That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. The submission process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and it's not required of everyone. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about, which with millions of articles can be challenging. If you would like to help us, you can identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help.
The article you used as a model was frankly a poor choice if it only has two sources that are affiliated with the subject.
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. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. Thanks so much for clarifying. I will have a look at the good ones and see if there is anything to be done. Lw4bdi (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

04:09, 5 October 2023 review of submission by 197.157.18.102

Am stuck here 197.157.18.102 (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:43, 5 October 2023 review of submission by 70.52.166.160

I met Matti Charlton only briefly at a Town Hall they were attending and speaking at and I was moved by their struggle and creative work, so I approached them afterwards and asked if I could write a wikipedia entry about them since I use wikipedia religiously. They said that was fine, It's my first article but can you please check if there's anything more I need to do to get it accepted? I have tried to follow all the requirements but have been having some trouble. 70.52.166.160 (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. We don't provide on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk, so you will have to wait until a reviewer picks up and assesses the draft. If you have a specific question you wish to ask, you may do so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:14, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Uniting Arts

Hello!

I have created a page for a Romanian singer. Although I have added external sources written by various people and the artist has million of views all together on different youtube and facebook accounts owned by various people, the submission team declined it.

I have removed the youtube and facebook links most watched because I understood that Wikipedia doesn't accept them. How can I prove that this singer is worth having a wiki page?

Thank you Uniting Arts (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uniting Arts. You need to read WP:NSINGER and prove to us that she meets those criteria set out in that guideline. Qcne (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 5 October 2023 review of submission by 105.112.109.175

How can i successfully sumit my draft without being declined 105.112.109.175 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is completely unsourced. Any draft about this topic must summarize what independent reliable sources say about this topic. If you have no such sources, the topic does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 5 October 2023 review of submission by PreethaK2023

I've made the advised changes, kindly need help reviewing the page. PreethaK2023 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending. Please be patient, there is a large number of drafts awaiting review. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:07, 5 October 2023 review of draft by Tinfoilhat8001

I created a page as part of an established wikipedia project (U.S. Supreme Court Cases), and I am having trouble adding the tag for the WikiProject in order to perhaps expedite review Tinfoilhat8001 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? I'm not sure the tags really speed it up much. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Golf-ulk

It seems to me, that the crucial question is whether Louis Sucheston deserves an article in Wikipedia. His best known result is the "Prophet inequality". This has been called "famous" and "classical", and, in fact, there is by now an enormous number of publications, which mention the prophet inequaliy even in the title. There are now connections to many different subjects , and various applications. The topic has been taught not only in probabiliy courses but also in computer science. The other work of Louis Sucheston is interesting but less spectacular. He has been honored by the Humboldt prize, and he solved some problems mentioned in the literature, but no problems of central significance. My impression is, that in the German Wikipedia, the standards are less strict, but he is an American mathematician. One of his results will last forever, but is this sufficient? 

Golf-ulk (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Golf-ulk. Firstly, yes, the German and English Wikipedias are two different projects with different policies and guidelines. Just because there is an article about him on de. does not mean there can automatically be one on en.
The problems with your draft are two-fold:
1) It has improper in-line citations. Biographies should have proper in-line citations for each statement. Currently you just have plain-text citation numbers, instead of dynamic references with an automatically-generated reference list. I would recommend turning on the Visual Editor and following the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE which may be easier for you to follow.
2) Some of your sources are invalid: you can't use geni.com as it is generally an unreliable source. You can't source Wikipedia articles, but you can wikilink them instead.
Louis may indeed pass WP:NACADEMIC but, you need to fix the above issues first.
Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 5 October 2023 review of submission by PixelThePro

My page about Moroccan meat cigars has been drafted because of “no mentions”. Not to be rude but it’s literally just 2-3 paragraphs of info and a picture WHICH I REFERENCED. I don’t understand why it needs more references! I did all I could, all the info is there. and yet I need more ? it’s 2 paragraphs of text! please help!! PixelThePro (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PixelThePro, your second source is to Reddit which is an improper source as it is WP:USERGENERATED. Please remove it. Your other two sources just look to be recipe blogs? They aren't great for establishing "notability" either. Are there any sources that discuss this dish from reputable, reliable places? Academic journals, news articles, published books, etc. Qcne (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m so sorry, I searched everywhere I still don’t know when the dish was created, also the references are from where I got the text and also the pics PixelThePro (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no more sources to be found, then I am afraid this dish does not quality for a Wikipedia article at this time. Sorry. It does look delicious though.
Please also do not steal images you have no rights to and use them on Wikipedia. That is against our Terms of Service. We have very strict rules regarding images: WP:IMAGEPOL. Qcne (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
im sorry i just dont know the copyright stuff and it doesnt even say it on the websites 😔
I’ll just delete the page, im done with editing and creating here PixelThePro (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Uortdr

Master SEO with our easy-to-understand guide. Gain the edge in digital marketing by learning SEO basics, techniques & strategies in a simple way. Uortdr (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Uortdr

Master SEO with our easy-to-understand guide. Gain the edge in digital marketing by learning SEO basics, techniques & strategies in a simple way. Uortdr (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to ARV as clearly just here to promote. Qcne (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 5 October 2023 review of submission by RajeshKumarRajan7492

Can you specify what is the real problem? RajeshKumarRajan7492 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on my Talk Page. Qcne (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Oequihua

Hello! I need help making this draft "reliable", it was declined as it did not have reliable sources, but I am working with the subject of this article (Dr. Goh). Oequihua (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oequihua. Firstly, are you getting paid by Dr Goh to write this article? If so you must immediately make a paid editing disclosure by following the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so is a breach of Wikimedia Foundation Terms and Conditions.
Thank you for making a conflict of interest disclosure already.
The problem with your draft is that it relies on a single source, which is just a paper that Dr Goh has written. This is not enough sources to establish if Dr Goh meets our WP:NACADEMIC people, or even our WP:NBASIC criteria. Articles must have have sources that show the subject has been covered in multiple published independent and reliable sources.
Let us know if you have specific questions. Qcne (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been deleted by Whpq as a copyright violation of [2]. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 22:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 5 October 2023 review of submission by 2020coolguy2

I don't know why my draft got declined and I need help getting it off of drafts and onto the website. 2020coolguy2 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2020coolguy2 it has been rejected and won't be considered further. Your draft was incoherent and not suitable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is it the topic or the writing 2020coolguy2 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Please carefully read WP:YFA. Qcne (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Lily and me

Please tell me why my submission was rejected. Than k you Lily and me (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lily and me Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, that's what social media is for. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it's me? I know him. He deserves the mention. He's notable. He's the CEO of Newsweek. Doesn't that qualify? If not, why not? Thank you. Lily and me (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You tripped some self-promotion filters, but if you say you aren't him, okay. However, you do have a conflict of interest to disclose.
You draft was deleted as blatant promotion; it was poorly sourced and used promotional language like "visionary", "digital powerhouse". Articles must be written very dryly, in a neutral point of view. If sources describe him as a "visionary", those need to be cited. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Everything in my submission is completely straight-forward, factual and with footnotes. What's a conflict of interest in that context? As I said, I know him, and I believe he's worthy of inclusion, purely on merit. He's the CEO of Newsweek. full stop. Please post it. Thank you! Lily and me (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

07:02, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 105.113.68.134

Hi, can I get a list of acceptable submissions references? 105.113.68.134 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure quite what you mean. If you go to WP:YFA, you should find pretty much everything you need there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I fixed the link to your(now deleted) draft, it was lacking the "Draft:"); the bigger problem you have is that the draft was deleted as blatant promotion. Articles must be written in a neutral point of view, summarizing what independent reliable sorces choose on their own to say about a person, showing how they are notable as Wikipedia defines it.
There is no list of acceptable references, but a list of commonly discussed sources may be found at WP:RSP; this should give you an idea of what makes a source acceptable(and not). 331dot (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Kueth nyanuor

dear Editors kindly review my recent edition of the article on my Sandbox and please looking forward to Advises. Kueth nyanuor (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kueth nyanuor your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It's completely unacceptable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Giftntreat4u

Why Showing Spam. Giftntreat4u (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:52, 6 October 2023 review of submission by ShearwaterNY

My first article was rejected. Is it redeemable or should I give up? I suspect that maybe my sources are not solid enough to get it over the line, but if it's possible to amend it and get it approved I'd very much like to try!

Thanks! ShearwaterNY (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ShearwaterNY I fixed your post so the link is properly displayed. We don't need the url.
If you are associated with this company, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. An 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. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Curious curious7

I was applying my article about FS Group multiple times and all of them were rejected due to "marketing" reasons. The frustration of multiple rejections is compounded by the fact that the review process has dragged on for nearly one month. With every passing day, my enthusiasm for using Wikipedia continues to wane.I need to re-consider it urgently and I require detailed explanation what exact text didn't pass your filters in the previous version. The last one I tried to make as much neutral as possible. Thank you. Curious curious7 (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Curious curious7: I haven't looked at the sources yet to see if they establish notability, but I've scanned through the text and I was left with the distinct impression that this is a rather ROTM company that does some stuff and collaborates with others and services some clients. Can you tell me why an article on this business should be included in a global encyclopaedia? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers, doing what they can when they can. As stated on the draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,550 pending submissions waiting for review."
Do you have a connection to FS Group? 331dot (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 41.13.104.85

i was trying to add some information about Agnes Pareyio 41.13.104.85 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you title the draft Draft:Bishop Thembani Mukoki??? Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Flagship1537

Hello. I drafted this article two months ago. An editor refused to allow it to be published as it used a blog on Irish aviation for some references. However, I have sources other local printed newspaper references to improve the article. These are not available online however, but I am looking to get permission to upload scans of these to Wikimedia, and link them from there. But all of the other current references I have used in the drat are linked to credible sources or civil record documentation. How can I move this on so this article (my first) can be published. Thank you for your advice. Flagship1537 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Flagship1537: you shouldn't be uploading scans of anything, as a) there is a risk of copyright violation, and b) we do not need to see scans of offline publications, you simply cite them as described in WP:OFFLINE.
This draft has been resubmitted and will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up, which could take days, weeks or even months; please be patient. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Rathorenareshrathore

when can I submit draft of Adel Rahman. Rathorenareshrathore (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathorenareshrathore: given the fact that this draft was rejected, and given the comments about why, I'd say only when something has fundamentally changed and there is a reasonable prospect of the subject being genuinely notable. (And then you need to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected this latest draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Rafiul Officail

Sir This is The Original Article Of RAFIUL ISLAM SAGOR Rafiul Officail 16:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafiul Officail: a) that's not a question; b) this draft has been rejected; and c) what is your relationship with the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 6 October 2023 review of submission by TheShubh77

Hi,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently submitted a Wikipedia draft for "ZongMu Technology," and I received notification of its rejection. I understand and appreciate the rigorous standards and guidelines that Wikipedia upholds to maintain the quality and accuracy of its content. However, I believe that the ZongMu Technology article has valuable information to offer and should be included on Wikipedia.

I would like to request a reconsideration of my draft for inclusion on Wikipedia. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and am willing to make any necessary changes to ensure the article meets the community's standards. Furthermore, I plan to expand the article by adding more comprehensive and well-referenced information to make it a valuable resource for Wikipedia users.

ZongMu Technology is a significant entity in its field, and I believe that having an article about it on Wikipedia would be beneficial to the community. It can serve as a reliable source of information for those seeking to learn more about the company's history, products, innovations, and contributions to the industry.

I kindly request that you reconsider the ZongMu Technology draft for inclusion on Wikipedia. I am committed to collaborating with the Wikipedia community to ensure that the article meets all necessary criteria and contributes positively to the platform's content.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to work together to make this article a valuable addition to Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Shubham Bhamare TheShubh77 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheShubh77: this draft was not rejected, only declined; that means that you can resubmit it for "reconsideration", once you have addressed the reason(s) for declining. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I resubmitted the draft after doing necessary changes. TheShubh77 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:25, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Rafiul Officail

Sorry Sir We Have Mistake Rafiul Officail 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafiul Officail: that's still not a question; did you have one in mind you would like to ask? And please don't start a new thread each time, you can just reply to your earlier thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Ahmed.bn.hossain

Please help me understand the reason for the rejection of the draft that you edited.

I've added sources from reliable sites and I don't know the reason for the rejection. Ahmed.bn.hossain (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Dheyaa al-din saad, then that has not been rejected, only declined. And it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice – have you read them? In any case, this has been resubmitted and is awaiting a new review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 2600:4041:5CB4:D700:542A:746B:730F:80E

Hi there, a few editors have made changes and weighed in on the draft which I really appreciate. My question is if the copyright violations still exist? and for which text? If I'm interpreting the edits correctly, I believe the submission was cleaned of the noted copyright violation.

I would also love more clarity on making the draft less 'singing own praises' per Utopes editor comment. The mission statement is a legal requirement of nonprofits, and I completely understand this organization's mission seems very lofty, but I can't change it since it is what it is. I'm happy to leave it off of the page per the editor's removal but wanted as much clarity as possible and to share that is why it was included in the first place! 2600:4041:5CB4:D700:542A:746B:730F:80E (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1178920716"