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 2012shahab (talk | contribs) at 04:41, 23 November 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding why you rejected my Article). 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


November 17

02:00, 17 November 2023 review of submission by ZENG Hao123

how to let this page do not look like a commercial. ZENG Hao123 (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZENG Hao123: I'm not sure why you're asking that, this hasn't been declined for looking like an advertisement; it has been declined for complete lack of any evidence of notability. Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have previously said about a subject, and citing those sources as you go so that readers can see where the information came from. Your draft cites no sources at all, therefore failing the core requirements of not only notability but also basic verifiability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 17 November 2023 review of submission by My Uttarakhand

The article submitted is an experience summary of a writer. As the article is rejected, I am willing to find help in writing the same in an appropriate manner so that the information is added to Wikipedia. The person on whom the article is written is a very well-known writer and I think there is nothing bad in adding a detail on such personality when we already have many such personalities already added in the portal. 

My Uttarakhand (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@My Uttarakhand: do you have a question you would like to ask? This draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my question still remains the same. Coz I know that this article is not submitted as an advertisement, but it is about a personality, who is contributing in India's science and literature cummunity. I added links where it is evident that the writer is genuine, and also he has bagged quite good number of awards by the government as well as by renowned organisations.
Still, as mentioned, how can I add 'evidence of notability' or 'references' to this, which make it more real for wikipedia?
Also, if the added ones are not considered as references, what kind of links I have to add? My Uttarakhand (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article should not merely tell of the existence of someone and describe their accomplishments. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the writer, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 2401:BA80:A10D:8ED0:1798:4B58:1A38:2FE9

I have seen many pages that doesn't have reliable sources and they are published with requesting additional resources. Why can't we do the same for this page? Secondly multiple Admins have multiple opinion. One consider one link as reliable and keep it and other reject that. The other consider another reference as reliable and then third person comes to reject and says it's not acceptable.

In the most recent revision one Admin came and updated the company intro entirely and even removed one service and referenced one link. When added few more links, all links got non reliable. One Admin says reads like an advertisement, which removed and second says non reliable at all. Seems like page is being discriminated and everyone came up with their own conclusion. I understand that Wikipedia is a platform where ALL Collaborate to reach a final conclusion, but what about those pages who are on Wikipedia with no notability and no link whatsoever and here dozens of references were just rejected with one statement that it doesn't meet the requirement.at least the industry market size research and mentioning of the company should have been thoroughly checked before making a final decision.

Please advise, and I would request not to delete this page but at least publish it with requesting additional citations. If English version of Wikipedia has but higher standard, you can move this to any other language where it could meet the requirement to be stayed on the Wikipedia at least. 2401:BA80:A10D:8ED0:1798:4B58:1A38:2FE9 (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's not enough in-depth coverage referenced that isn't written by the company itself. Website profiles and passing mentions aren't enough to support a Wikipedia article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work like that. We don't publish an article on a completely non-notable subject in the hope that someone might one day find some proof of notability. This has been rejected and won't be considered further.
I don't know who you refer to when you say "we", but whoever you are, you clearly have some sort of external relationship with this subject, which hasn't been disclosed anywhere that I could find. As if the situation wasn't bad enough already, COI/UPE editing makes it worse in my book at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. It's likely there are many inappropriate articles that have not yet been addressed by volunteer editors; this cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. If you would like to help us, please identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Rahulsinghnagi

What’s the meaning of noteable on wikipedia  ? You told me secondary sources i added newspaper articles Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your query above, please don't make new topics. The notablility guideline is at WP:NACTRESS. Qcne (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 220.235.238.29

why was it declined? 220.235.238.29 (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Pbritti Qcne (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft wasn't merely declined, it was rejected. The reviewer has concluded that the subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. If you wish to challenge that, you should make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Qcne, DoubleGrazing I've had a look at the drafting think may be borderline notable.
Pbritti I'm going to take the unusual and WP:IAR step undoing your rejection in order to allow a second opinion. A route might be to accept it myself having submitted it and to watch any subsequent deletion process as a neutral observer. I will think on that before taking any action. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel it was borderline. I think perhaps one more source would do it? Qcne (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne I am generally happy to accept borderline drafts. Another source would be welcome, but it could well be added post acceptance. Feel free to accept if you like. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems an uninvolved reviewer felt it to be the right side of the border. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my rejection. The references are lists of locomotives with no depth of coverage. The one article only makes a passing reference to the 1853. There is nothing that I have found to suggest there is any more basis for notability. Based on this IP's persistent REFBOMBing with references sometimes completely unrelated to the subject, I felt rejection ensured an editor who may have passed over this draft without thoroughly reviewing the contents of the sources was the appropriate decision. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its actually unfair 220.235.238.29 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti I think AfD is the correct venue rather than rejection. Thank you for nominating it. This means that the community can reach a consensus based verdict. You have given us further information. I do not intend to take part in the AfD (as stated above). 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has repeatedly engaged in bad-faith and manipulative behavior, detailed at ANI. Anything they submit should be subjected to significant scrutiny, as they have been shown to REFBOMB with sources that have trivial mentions of the subjects at best. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already speedied two of the IPs articles where they've engaged in manipulative behaviour and nominated another to AfD where they've WP:REFBOMB'ed the article to get it past AfC. Anything they submit should be subjected to a high degree of scrutiny. TarnishedPathtalk 04:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:06, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Fmhfms

Hello Fellow Contributors, I wrote this article and I've cited everything literally to make it a perfect article. I don't know it's still not in a position to get published in mainspace? Please do help me out. I don't want to waste my time and effort that I've already put on this article. Fmhfms (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:11, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 93.35.241.248

Hi, we are just trying to translate into English this Italian page: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefano_Caselli_(economista)

Stefano Caselli is the Dean of SDA Bocconi School of Management that is ranked 4th in EU and https://rankings.ft.com/rankings/2943/european-business-school-rankings-2022 Also with an MBA Program ranked 3rd in EU and 6th WW: https://rankings.ft.com/rankings/2909/mba-2023

Can we please understand the reason why this is not worth a eng Wikipedia page? Also seen that all other Deans of Business Schools in EU have one?

Please advise on how we should proceed. Thanks m 93.35.241.248 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"?
Please understand that what is acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, these are separate projects, with their own editors and policies. It does sound like he could be notable, but as reviewers noted you don't have enough independent reliable sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:06, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Rahulbumperkumar

Respected sir Sir this is a personal details which i dont have any source for the information. i think his details are there in linkedin or on wikimedia commons also please go through and please let me publish the paper please sir hoping that you will help me thanking you Rahulbumperkumar (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulbumperkumar: we cannot accept articles without references. Especially in the case of living people (WP:BLP), we require comprehensive inline citations to reliable published sources to support to information. This draft also has no evidence of notability, which is a core requirement for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Drayden475

This is my first fully written article ever on Wikipedia. I will admit that I work closely with Bushfires NT, being a Rural Firefighter. I would like some assistance on rectifying the issues that caused the initial drafts rejection, primarily around citation and making sure the article was up to full standards. I do plan to add photos once i have found some more Drayden475 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drayden475:, thanks for reaching out. Please take a look at the decline notice. Wikipedia articles need in-depth coverage that is not written by, or affiliated with, the article's subject. The draft does not have any independent sources listed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I did not realize when first looking at it that it was a government agency. I don't think that government agencies require the same level of independent sources, though it be very useful. I'm also going to combine the references that all point to the same place. And "my research" is simply not appropriate as a reference and should be dropped.Naraht (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drayden475 As an additional comment. This is a decline notice, *not* a rejection. There is certainly time now to improve the draft and resubmit it. As a government agency, I think there is a good chance that it reaches notability and it isn't hideously written (I know "damning with fair praise"), external references need to be found. Honestly, using news.google and looking for "Brushfires NT" on abc.com.au is likely to give at least a couple of articles that deal with it in a way beyond simply reference (funding issues or even coverage of it fighting fires are probably good enough. I'd suggest continuing to improve the draft on references, there will be time for photos after it is approved for mainspace.Naraht (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 17 November 2023 review of submission by ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th

How can I adjust this page to get it accepted? ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th: you cannot; this has been rejected, and won't be considered further. Please don't create more like this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it rejected?
Could I speak to your manager? Or should I get my lawyer involved.
I'm getting paid $15,000 to right that article. I just wanted the first part to be approved before I right an entire essay. I need to feed my kids please. ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th: I'll give you some free advice:
Do not continue in this vein, as you are likely heading for a block.
Do not make, even jokingly, anything that could be construed as a legal thread, as again that's a reason for a block.
You're welcome. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need my money, If I find a valid source will you accept my post?
Or, can I create another post about another client who I'm getting paid for? ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE MY SON! ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:50, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Likhith NG

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Likhith NG (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Likhith NG: You've submitted this essay 3 times with no sources and there is nothing on Google when you search for "Eternal Cognition Paradox". No proof of notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Likhith NG: when a draft is rejected (rather than merely declined), that means you should not resubmit it. This has been rejected twice, so you definitely should not resubmit it. I've undone your latest submission. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, if you search this Eternal Cognition Paradox in google, you will find a blogspot called "https://likhithng-paradox-theories.blogspot.com/" it's mine, original article I published if you want more proof please contant. Do you want me to delete the page "https://likhithng-paradox-theories.blogspot.com/"? I got message from Wikipedia that my article is copyrighted but it's mine original. Please understand my concern and reply me soon Likhith NG (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Likhith NG. Wikipedia is not for things that have been made up one day. Your Eternal Cognition Paradox is not suitable for Wikipedia. Do not submit a draft on it again. Qcne (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 2603:7000:9E3F:F6B0:5D09:66B9:398B:F376

I am wondering which sources/if any were approved to be independent. I greatly appreciate any assistance as it will help me find more of these sources. 2603:7000:9E3F:F6B0:5D09:66B9:398B:F376 (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 2603:7000:9E3F:F6B0:5D09:66B9:398B:F376

I am wondering regarding the comment about the independent sources are there specific parts that need to be sourced or just generally? Thanks for assistance. 2603:7000:9E3F:F6B0:5D09:66B9:398B:F376 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at several sources by doing an independent search on Google News and the principal problem I can see is that the references are written by Suzanne Kianpour or are third-party sources quoting things she has written about for the BBC. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of source material actually about her, and without that, we can't write an appropriate article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 17 November 2023 review of submission by JordiLS89

What kind of sources should I use for an article about a moderately successful singer/dancer (if chart positions aren't valuable enough)? And what kind of info is absolutely necessary to include? I thought she already had a Wiki page around 10 years ago (and it was either deleted or I got her mixed up with someone else) that's why I'm creating one now, because another (also moderately successful) singer with the same name has the article instead. JordiLS89 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JordiLS89:, you have to have in-depth coverage, not just passing mentions and chart stats. Not seeing in-depth coverage in the sources currently listed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 134.231.2.81

I'd like some specific feedback about why these sources and this author--of a significant graphic memoir--about a significant topic--postpartum depression--which often overlooked and women are shamed for--is not considered notable. Thank you. 134.231.2.81 (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The litmus test for drafts is if it would survive a deletion debate. I did a Google News search for "Teresa Wong" and it came back with pieces from the New York Times and the Calgary Herald, amongst several others. I'll pass the review in a minute. The article has issues, so I'm going to clean some of the immediate issues up first, but my general view is we will be able to have an article about this person that is verified by high-quality sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 17 November 2023 review of submission by CarlosAlfonzo3531

This is the draft of my article that got rejected:"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Valley_View_Airport". I don't get why it did. I saw other pages of airports in Nevada, and they have the same number and type of references. I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing, so I would like to learn why the article got rejected. Thank you so much.

Best, 

CarlosAlfonzo3531 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Broglio

Hello...can you help me understand what is needed for this post. The comment indicates the need for references outside of the awards, but there are several provided.

Thank you Broglio (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if every single refernce in the draft is from the subject, or an institution that the subject is associated with. Thus not one single independent source is cited. 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) 19:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Amustard

20:04:18, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Amustard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Submission declined on 13 June 2023 by Turnagra (talk). 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 biographic stub has 16 references. Nine of them are official Turkmen news agencies, in some cases repeating government decrees; the others are a mix of private news outlets generally considered reliable. All but two are in Russian, which is one of the two dominant languages of Turkmenistan. This article is part of an effort to create biographies of all heads of the oil and gas industry of Turkmenistan, which possesses the fourth-largest natural gas reserves in the world and is China's largest supplier of natural gas. I do not understand why the article was rejected on the grounds that it is "not adequately supported by reliable sources." The sources are reliable and are cited in other articles about Turkmenistan in Wikipedia. I would like for this article to be reviewed again. Amustard (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amustard As the reviewer noted, there are portions that are not sourced at all. If existing sources cover them, then see referencing for beginners to learn more about how to format references. Articles about living people have stricter requirements. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:52, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Avidworks

I am trying to figure out why submission for Ken Barnes was declined as well as how to amend it to follow the guidelines to be approved. Avidworks (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link to your draft. You only have one source, and much of your draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

00:14, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Masonlaine83

its fye trust Masonlaine83 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:01, 18 November 2023 review of submission by OrdinaryContributor

Several of your editors have been unjustly denying this article submission on completely frivolous grounds. This article has been a painstaking effort at translating the German version of the article and it features the *exact same* references and citations found there. The German version was approved without issue, but because the editors don't speak German (unlike myself, a German citizen), they claim that they can't verify the authenticity of my translation (even though translators exist) and are blocking the approval of the article on that ground, as well as for other absurd reasons like some imaginary requirement for each paragraph to have an in-line citation - which is ridiculous, considering the article is almost a word-for-word paraphrasing of the speech, and the citations literally include primary sources, such as a recording of the speech in question (but because the seemingly-politically-biased English-speaking editors that need to approve this article don't understand the speech and the reference annotation, which are in German, they refuse to recognize any of the sources). If the German article was able to be published just fine with these exact same citations and references, why are they repeatedly rejecting this article without any real grounds? I set out to spend many hours painstakingly translating this article, bit by bit, to allow English speakers to read about arguably the most consequential speech of the 20th Century, which led directly to the meteoric rise of radical Nazi ideology within Germany, and all of the horrible consequences that followed. To censor this article for such an absurd reason is to censor history, at a critical moment in time where we are once again on the precipice, facing the potential emergence of Fascism around the globe, but especially in Anglophone countries like the United States of America. This is a pivotal time in history - we CANNOT censor the past. Please approve this article, as it is an accurate translation and meets all criteria. OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Teahouse - Article Denied For Frivolous Reasons. The objections raised are that the article is poorly referenced, not that the translation is unfaithful. This is a pivotal speech for which there must be any amount of scholarship, none of which has been brought to bear on this essay. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look who joins, one of the biased editors to defend his act of political censorship. It meets the criteria. OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is WP:GNG which calls for WP:RS, which are missing from the article. Until you see that the problem is lack of referencing rather than some dastardly political plot by fifth columnists, you will make no headway. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those exact criteria have been met, and you continue to gaslight and lie. The media will hear about this. OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:GNG
- "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage"
- "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language."
- "addresses the topic directly and in detail"
- "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
- "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
Every single criteria was met. There are three reputable, reliable sources - including primary and secondary. OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OrdinaryContributor, please see WP:MINREF for when inline citations are needed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was referenced. Do you not read citations? OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single quote is clearly sourced in the citations section. Did you even bother translating them, or listening to the speech and realizing it is word-for-word? The sources speak for themselves, yet you continue to censor accurate, well-sourced factual historical information. OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could get past the foot stamping, OrdinaryContributor, and you could do something constructive to move the article forwards? There is right now a single citation, in the form Erschließungstext im Deutschen Rundfunkarchiv dazu: "Adolf Hitler (Reichskanzler): Zum Antrag für das Ermächtigungsgesetz / Der „durch die marxistische Irrlehre systematisch herbeigeführte Zerfall der Nation“ soll verhindert werden / Wiederaufbau etc etc. It seems that each section of that, denoted by the forward slashes, is to a section of the speech as recorded in Deutschen Rundfunkarchiv 2590218. The single monolithic citation could be broken into its sections, and each could be linked to the pretinent part of the article. Each, too, could be translated for the English language reader. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:02, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Ethel Del

Hello there, my question is regarding why the submission was declined for "WUDPAC"? The reviewer's note said "lack of reliable sources," however the two sources given: 1). comes from The American Institute for Conservation and the Foundation for Advancement in Conservation (which are the professional associations in cultural heritage in the U.S.); and 2). comes from the programs' website (which is an accredited American university, the current U.S. president attended this university).

I'm not sure how these sources are "unreliable." Ethel Del (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethel Del Sorry, that decline is a bit unhelpfully worded. What the reviewer means is that there are not enough reliable, independent sources to show that the article topic meets notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:11, 18 November 2023 review of submission by 110.151.68.10

Hi, I'd like to know specifically why this submission is declined, with some examples if you can. Thanks. 110.151.68.10 (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that you have read both decline notices. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes I have read both decline notes. However I'm unsure as to specifically why the article is declined on notability given the film's wide release, starring of well known cast with notable media coverage from well known established media outlets. 110.151.68.10 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:38, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Piusmoney

I'm writing to inform you that my account has been put in draft Piusmoney (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:03, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Tarkik Bhawsar vevo

I am a professional musician . I have two YouTube channels, 1 with more than 2.5k subscribers & other with more than 5k subscribers. Please help me to publish this draft. If you want, you can search about me

Thanks. Tarkik Bhawsar vevo (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Your draft has no sources. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:20, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Citizenzen

I have a question about "significant coverage". The Wikipedia page that explains notability describes what "significant coverage" is, but is short on details about what the discovery process of "significant coverage". In the case of an article like this one, about the Malaysian entrepreneur Emmanuel Daniel (not the Nigerian footballer Emmanuel Daniel), how do administrators go about determining "significant coverage"? Citizenzen (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. I haven't opened all the refs in your draft but Youtube does not count and judging by the titles of the other sources, there doesn't appear to be independent, significant coverage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the role of admininistrator is not to judge articles- administrators have no more authority than any other editor. The community as a whole examines articles. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:52, 18 November 2023 review of submission by 14.143.225.250

I want to know how exactly can I make a page for myself 14.143.225.250 (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can make a page for yourself on social media or a personal website. If you want to write an article about yourself here, thst is highly discouraged, though not forbidden. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. Please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 18 November 2023 review of submission by SHTIB

Would anyone be able to help me improve it? SHTIB (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SHTIB: doubtful; we don't normally get involved in co-editing, here at the help desk. Your best bet is probably to ask at some of the relevant Wikiprojects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh or Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals. Otherwise, the responsibility for editing largely rests with the draft creator. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Dubaiali

Ali Zulfikar Zahedi is a famouse film director and producer. Also a Lyricist. Would i request how to add this article?? In any search engine there is many news and source exist if anyone search with this name. Advice me please Dubaiali (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dubaiali: this draft has been rejected for lack of evident notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Pedantic Aristotle

At the moment, the main article Javier Milei has grown very large and disorganized. There is an attempt to clean-up the article, and create two spin-off articles instead, for public image and political positions.

The comment for rejection was "it contained too much information on himself rather than just his public image". I'm confused, since the only content that was copied from the main article, was the content related to public image, including media perception, academic analysis etc. I agree the content is not particularly neutral, but the previous attempt to create the other spin-off article as neutral Political views of Javier Milei was sabotaged, and criticized for not starting with the content of the main article first. The idea this time was to start with the content from the main article, then iterate on it.

Which parts of the article does not relate to his public image? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the discussions following Political views of Javier Milei here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_views_of_Javier_Milei Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Drayden475

I would like assistance in making my article up to scratch for Wikipedia. I attempted and thought i had corrected everything that was initially brought up, but would like some more assistance in where I went wrong so I can improve the article :) Drayden475 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Jojherman

This is my first ever article and I need assistance in ensuring it meets Wikipedia standards in terms of the tone, reader voice etc Jojherman (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jojherman: It kind of reads like an ad: "To support the commitment to environmental conservation". It's not that bad though. I'm almost inclined to accept it. Looks notable. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Yoeltkd617

I am having difficulty editing a specific article on Wikipedia. I've tried making changes, but there seem to be some inconsistencies or formatting issues. I would like to request assistance in improving the structure and writing style of the article. Are there any specific guidelines or advice that can help me in making effective edits? Thank you. Yoeltkd617 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After three declines, this submisttion has been rejected, and will not be considered further. You should stop trying to work on it, as you will be wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:22, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Ronev

Please could anyone help me with this? I received the feedback: "Please remove the external links from the body" and the submission was declined because of this. Which part of the body section should I remove the links from? The links are necessary as sources after all, to verify what is written in the entry. Thank you. Ronev (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ronev:, the only external link I see in the body is "Heresia". ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, thanks! --Ronev (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:43, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Kayennepepper

My article was rejected but I'm not sure why. I used reputable news articles and used multiple sources. I covered the case fully and did not use any biased language, and only stated facts. Furthermore, Anthony Robinson was notable in the United States. He had significant coverage, even some from the UK. Thanks for your time! Kayennepepper (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kayennepepper: did you look at the decline notice? There are some unsourced statements. Everything in a WP:BLP needs to be sourced. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only unsourced claim I could find about him is his birthday, which can be removed in this article as it is not very relevant. Can you point to other things that need sources? Once again, thanks Kayennepepper (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of paragraphs that don't end with citations. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Sylvan1971

I would like to appeal the non-accpetance of the current draft. The subject of the proposed article has created and had published a sustained and substantial body of work related the the specific genre of urban matters writ large. She is considered to be an expert in this genre and, as documented in the draft, is sought out for her expertise by radio, conferences, television and print. She has written and had published at least 100 more stories than I have cited. The subject appears to meet Wikipedia's criteria for Creative Professionals.

With all due respect to the reviewer, I think they may have overlooked notability standards for Creative Professionals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)). I also find no requirement for the reviewer's ostensible requirement of "in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject." There are thousands of wikipedia biographies that do not meet this standard. Perhaps the wrong criteria were applied by this reviewer.

Finally, I note that the review was completed in 4 minutes. Sylvan1971 (talk) Sylvan1971 (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sylvan1971 are there any sources that are not what she has written, speaking engagements or interviews with her? Being an important figure or widely cited means others have written about what a person has written/said with sources explaining why they are an important figure. Participating in discussions, speaking engagements or being interviewed does not meet that bar. I will also note the reviewer is correct in that three sources with in-depth coverage is often the measurement editors use to determine notability (see also WP:THREE). Some of that depends on the source and depth of coverage and also be mindful WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, meaning there are tons of articles that do not meet today's notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have missed the part of WP:NCREATIVE that says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. ... conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
Meeting the criteria means that it is likely that suitable sources exist. This does not absolve the article writer from having to find those suitable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sylvan! The fact the reviewer made an edit, then declined four minutes later, isn't really significant in any way. They could have been reading through the draft for hours before making their first edit, for all anyone knows.
I've opened a section at the draft talk page and pinged you there to discuss notability. Valereee (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

02:18, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Santouche2

Hi, just wondering when this page will be reviewed. Thanks. Santouche2 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Santouche2: looks like it was reviewed months ago. You have to resubmit it but it would not be approved in its current state. Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:55, 19 November 2023 review of submission by 2409:40E6:39:D52E:F4CD:C3FF:FE26:633B

I need help for this article for citation and references. Ànd please help to write a better article theri respectful 2409:40E6:39:D52E:F4CD:C3FF:FE26:633B (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really get involved in editing here at the help desk, but you're welcome to ask specific questions regarding the drafting and review process.
As a general comment, you need to be summarising what reliable published sources have said about the subject, and then citing those sources so that readers can see where the information came from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Tushareu

references Tushareu (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Akhtar98

Really contant Akhtar98 (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know what that is, but it is absolutely not acceptable for wikipedia. ltbdl (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 19 November 2023 review of submission by 2409:40E5:C:508C:25A7:9D78:D36B:1985

Why was this page of mine removed 2409:40E5:C:508C:25A7:9D78:D36B:1985 (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For multiple reasons. First, you need more than one source. Also, did you look at it before you submitted? The first paragraph isn't formatted right. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Itrk70

How i get reference for my topic? Itrk70 (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Itrk70: what do you mean; can you rephrase, please? Your draft does have references (not very good ones, but still). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You look for places where people wholly unconnected with the series (or its writers or producers) have chosen to write about it at length, and been published in reliable sources. This probably means either articles in major newspapers or magazines about the making of the series (but make sure that these are not simply regurgitated press releases) or extended reviews in major newspapers or magazines. Ignore anything written or published by the producers or their associates, and anything on social media.
If you can't find such sources, then give up, as there is literally nothing you can validly write about the series in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Cindyflower96

I'm writing about the subject(Art, Mighty Bolton) and you guys keep rejecting the wikipedia page and it makes no sense. This is the message I keep getting; "the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing"mentions) about the subject in published".

I did my research and It is not passing mentions because the subject(Mighty Bolton) is 'The Art of Dialogue'.

The YouTube channel is named after him and Art is his nickname and if you look up his trademark paper work online which is available to the Public. You will discover the subject(Art, Mighty Bolton) I'm writing about owns the 'The Art of Dialogue' trademark which means he owns the name and rights to the brand 100 percent.

This is no different then DJ Vlad, Adam 22, DJ Akadimics who are in the same field of the subject I'm writing about. The subject I'm writing about is a YouTuber so that's why I provide YouTube reference to verify his subscriber count and YouTube views views. I did my research, who ever wrote DJ Vlad page and other YouTubers did the same thing by providing YouTube references on their Wikipedia pages and you guys accepted their Wikipedia article.

I provided better and more valid references than DJ Vlad and other YouTubers Wikipedia pages which got accepted but you keep rejecting the Wikipedia Article I wrote about Art(Mighty Bolton) . What you are claiming is not true. Can you accept the Wikipedia article, so I can move on.

Most of the references I provided for the subject I'm writing about are accepted references on other Wikipedia articles that are already approved. Cindyflower96 (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked in detail at the draft (which I see you have resubmitted without making any changes: do not do this). But I notice a number of peacock words, like "insightful" and "notable". No Wikipedia article should ever describe anything in such terms, except in a direct quotation from a reliable independent source.
Many of the paragraphs in the "Career" section are problematic beyond the choice of words. Looking, for example, at the paragraph about Keefe D, it begins with Mighty Bolton, has facilitated numerous insightful interviews over the years, uncovering layers of complexity within the hip-hop community. Which independent reliable source says this? (The source cited at the end of the paragraph does not make such a claim). Without a source for this specific claim, it is original research and should be removed. In fact the citation has only a passing mention of Art of Dialogue, and 1) contributes nothing to Bolton's notability, and 2) does not justify anything like the amount of detail in the paragraph in an article about Bolton (it might do so in an article about Keefe or Wright). That paragraph should be replaced by, at most, one sentence.
And that is one paragraph. I suspect that most of the "career" section is similarly unsourced and/or original research.
With regard to what you have writen above: "notable" in Wikipedialand has a precise meaning, which is different from any of "important", "popular", "famous" or "influential": it basically means "enough independent material has been reliably published about this subject to base an article on". Unfortunately, some classes of subject (such as YouTubers) don't tend to get written about much, so articles about them are not always possible. If secondary sources exist, and an article can be written based on them, then information such us YouTube count can be added, and referenced to non-independent sources; but such information cannot contribute to notability in Wikipedia's sense.
Finally, the existence of another article does not necessarily imply that it was ever "accepted". Many thousands of seriously deficient articles were written in an earlier age, when we were not so careful about standards: in many cases their continued existence means either that nobody who cares about our standards has looked at them, or that nobody has wanted to put the possibly substantial effort into either improving them or demonstrating that they should be deleted. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Cd634011

[I previously posted the following to the Help Desk on November 10th, and one person responded saying they were not an expert on "Academic and technical books" and to repost on the Help Desk. They also mentioned that the rationale looks promising below regarding establishing notability for this "Academic and technical book". Can I please get some help/feedback from someone who is knowledgeable on approving/establishing notability for "Academic and technical books"?]

Hello! This Wikipedia article has now been rejected two times, very quickly, by two separate reviewers on Wikipedia. This is an academic book that has different standards for notability than other types of books, but it appears the reviewers are using notability standards for other kinds of books (fiction, mainstream press). I followed the guidelines for "Academic and technical books" (see below), and based on these guidelines, this book meets the standards for notability.

This is a highly specialized academic book, so I used those guidelines for notability per the "Academic and technical books" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books). The book was published in Routledge's Scientific Psychology series, which is a prestigious series that includes books by well-known and respected figures in mathematical psychology, such as Duncan Luce and Louis Narens. Books in this series normally undergo multiple levels of peer review. The following quote comes straight from the page regarding using academic presses as a source of determining notability for an academic and technical book: "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.”

The audience for this book is relatively narrow, as mathematical psychology is not a large field. As a tenured professor in Experimental Psychology, I believe it to be an important contribution and have used Chapters from the book in my graduate seminar in Cognitive Psychology. Indeed, as also referenced on the notability page: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material."

I have made edits to include over a dozen additional secondary references from sources that are independent of the book's author. These include references to textbooks, other academic books, and papers from other fields (e.g., neuroscience, education, economics) that use work featured in the book.

Please also note that while many of the original references are connected to the book's author, they are all from peer-reviewed journals and thus have undergone review by other experts in the field. These references are not independent of the subject, but they are in-depth and reliable, and they are important to demonstrating how the work in the book has been scientifically validated. Cd634011 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cd634011 You declared a COI with regards to this book, what is the general nature of your COI?
You have no sources that discuss the importance or significance of this book- most of it summarizes the chapters and studies that corroborate its findings(I think). The chapter summary should be slimmed down significantly- it describes the chapter contents and what they show but nothing about what makes it important or significant or influential. This book may be notable, but you need sources demonstrating that. Note that writing for Wikipedia is different than academic or scholarly writing- Wikipedia articles should be written intended for lay people. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply! The conflict of interest relates to the fact that the author was my doctoral thesis advisor and is currently a research colleague. I am happy to revise the page by trimming significantly the chapter summary and making it more "friendly" for lay people. There are numerous sources that show its application and that report on empirical findings that supports its ideas, but, as mentioned below, these sources are not required to establish notability for "Academic and technical books".
I appreciate your asking for more information to establish notability, but, according to the standards set by Wikipedia for establishing notability: "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:" The criteria that should be used for this book are in the section for "Academic and technical books" and the book verifiably meets the criteria of being published by a scientific press w/multiple rounds of peer review and it has been required reading in one or more reputable educational institutions (I have used it in a graduate-level seminar at Marietta College). Both of the above are criteria to establish notability for "Academic and technical books".
At the beginning of the Academic and technical books" subsection, it reads: "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice." Unfortunately, the criteria you mention of "they show but nothing about what makes it important or significant or influential" is not applicable to this type of book. The above mentioned criteria that are met are sufficient to establish notability for this book.
Again, thank you for your prompt response and for the helpful suggestions. Cd634011 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this comment. From reading the lead I'm not actually sure what the thesis or conclusion of the work is. Even if there isn't a "conclusion" as such in the work because it's advancing a novel theory, I'd still expect that the book gives some suggestions for how the theory could be used. I should know at least a general answer to "so what?" by the end of the lead. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cd634011, the standards for academic books and fiction books are more or less the same: significant coverage in reliable sources. This is typically pretty easy for academic books, because if they are of note, they tend to be reviewed at some length in journals in their field. I don't see any reviews in the footnotes, but there are a lot of footnotes here, so maybe I missed them? It would be odd for a book to be cited frequently and yet never be reviewed. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Within the "Academic and technical books" section of the Notability wikipedia page it states, "In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media..." Regarding this last point, there is a footnote that states, "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material." This book is very specialized/mathematical that it satisfies this condition that there are very few people in the world (experts) that would be "situated to understand and comment on the material". Therefore, it is not surprising that this book has yet to have a book review. But, according to the standards set forth for establishing notability for "Academic and technical books" this is not a problem - as this book meets several other criteria such as being published by an academic press and it being used in one or more reputable educational institutions. I guess, I am confused why these other criteria for establishing notability are being used instead of the ones that I have identified - particularly when the Wikipedia page on notability states that at least one criteria has to be met (and there are no required criteria). In other words, I am not seeing that it is a condition to establish notability that I have to meet the particular criteria the reviewer states and decides to comment on. I am not trying to be argumentative, I am trying to rectify what I see in the notability page to the reviewer comments that I have received thus far (many of which have seemed to ignore the criteria that I have put forth as establishing notability). Any clarification/help is greatly appreciated. Cd634011 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do remain surprised that it has not had a book review; most academic books are for experts, and at any rate most academic book reviews are written by experts. The experts in my own tiny subfield can all fit in a single room, but that doesn't mean none of us ever get book reviews. For context, what that paragraph you're quoting from is mostly trying to head off is editors trying to say something like "but it only sold 1000 copies, how can it be notable!?" when 1000 copies would be a pretty impressive print run for a lot of academic books. That paragraph is reminding editors to use some common sense. As far as satisfying the criteria, I really still don't see it. Here is, as far as I can tell, the only statement in your draft that suggests notability: The book content has been recognized by experts in the field of Cognitive Science and has been incorporated into other Academic books. There isn't anything in the article that explains how or why it's been recognized, so if I want to verify this claim and establish that it is indeed enough to meet notability guidelines, I'm going to have to just... read all four of the citations? That's over 60 pages and an entire book. Please, we're volunteers! I have a lot of patience and I'm willing to spend time on AfC reviews on esoteric topics, but I'm not going to sift through that many pages for a chance a book might be notable. Make it easier on us and give us more to go on. Recognized how? Stuartyeates's comment still applies. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:56, 19 November 2023 review of submission by James Abloh

Hey, I’m new to Wikipedia. Can you give me some details on why my article submission (Draft: Ilkin Mammadov) was declined and what I should do for it to pass? Ilkin Mammadov is a highly-ranked government official in Azerbaijan and is the Head of the International Relations Department of the Milli Majlis of Azerbaijan. Thank you, James Abloh (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:". 331dot (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have documented his accomplishments and he seems to meet the notability definition, but you don't have much in the way of independent reliable sources with significant coverage- coverage that goes into detail about his importance. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:37, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Gurdas Singh atwal

check the article again and please tell me that now the format is correct Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:03, 19 November 2023 review of submission by Iss246

Occupational Health Science (journal). The last time I put in considerable work on this entry was about two years ago, although the entry was deleted in March 2023. My work on the entry got criticized because the (a) impact factor was missing and (b) the journal was indexed in non-prominent indexes. That has changed. Now I have the impact factor for 2021-2022. It is 3.1, which is good for a new journal. The 5-year impact factor is 3.1, which shows that the journal is holding its own. The journal is only six years old. The impact factor of Psychosomatic Medicine is about 4 but the journal was started in 1939. I also established that the journal is indexed by the important indexing organizations and referenced those facts. I can build the entry over time. But I want to start with a foundation entry. I think I have. I think my fellow editors should allow the journal to exist on Wikipedia. Iss246 (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iss246, "good for a new journal" isn't what we're after - we want "good for a journal in this field". Wikipedia isn't in the business of advertising academic journals. Please have another look at DoubleGrazing's comment and resubmit once you've fixed those issues. If it has a decent impact factor and is indexed in scopus that should be enough to get an acceptance at AfC, though I can't promise it won't be taken to AfD and be deleted again. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@userAsilvering, I am not advertising. And the journal isn't so new any more. It is six years old. I am familiar with the journal and know that the papers it publishes meet high standards. There are quality journals in WP with lower impact factors. OHES has been accepted for indexing by PubMed/Medline and PsycInfo. I hope that WP editors don't move the goalposts as I get close to having a WP entry accepted. I am adding to the entry this evening. Iss246 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

01:35, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Nmotamedi

Hi!

I may not be understanding the notability aspect of the feedback I have received on this page. I have tried to update the references to include more reliable articles, books, and interviews that seem to show notability (one reviewer even said I was getting very close). Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I start my journey into page creation. Nmotamedi (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:44, 20 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:2981:4450:98AE:4F8E:1B77:EA5A

Why was the submission for this page declined? Any specific reason? How can it be fixed? 2600:1700:2981:4450:98AE:4F8E:1B77:EA5A (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given in the grey box in the decline message on the draft. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:16, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Drayden475

Just looking for help regarding why my article was declined again. I believe I had rectified all issues present, and any help is greatly appreciated. Drayden475 (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drayden475 many of the sources presented are primary sources, which do not help establish notability. Others are only tangentially related, such as the news pieces on the wildfire, which aren't significant coverage and don't help establish notability either. You might want to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:02, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Newtatoryd222

I’d like to know how I can improve the article. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newtatoryd222: this draft (not yet 'article') has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:22, 20 November 2023 review of submission by 2806:1016:D:3B0B:208A:DE4B:CE2:FCBE

Why not use another wiki dedicated for lost media or something 2806:1016:D:3B0B:208A:DE4B:CE2:FCBE (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might be okay. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:14, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Gurdas Singh atwal

i have done changed as mentioned by the staff . but their is no submit option available Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's no "staff" here and second, no you didn't. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:27, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Tungmatthew14

Hi there, I drafted an article about an athlete and submitted for publication. I was denied due to this reason: 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 for sports persons and athletes). 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.

Can someone elaborate on what makes an athlete notable? The athlete I wrote about had many articles written about her from various sources, including the South China Morning Post, the Hong Kong Tennis Association, and various universities. Further, the athlete has international medal results from well-recognized major games events and has matchups with other notable tennis players. If anyone can give advice on things to add to re-submit. Thank you very much. Tungmatthew14 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tungmatthew14: regardless of the topic, meeting the WP:GNG standard will establish notability. Tennis players can also be notable by satisfying WP:NTENNIS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Bigbossdol

Hi there I have included a number of references and sources and am confused as to why my page has been rejected again, can someone please give me some tips as to how I can improve my draft. I believe it is well referenced and in a very similar format to similar pages on the same subject please see Craigkelly transmitting station

Would including the "Television transmitter and major relay sites in the United Kingdom" template count as a reference? (Its at the bottom of the Craigkelly page). The Knock More transmitting station is actually listed on this template as a page that does not yet exist, which is why I have attempted to create it Bigbossdol (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bigbossdol Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. We don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia article, simply place the title of the target article in double brackets, as I've done here.
Beware in citing other articles that themselves may be problematic, which you might not be aware of- see WP:OSE.
Most of your sources seem to be related to the owner of the tower or the government. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:33, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Kissable54

Hi

Playwrights' studio was declined. They are of course notable enough for a page of their own. 


Kissable54 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kissable54: and the evidence for that is where? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


@DoubleGrazing: Hello, and thank you. Comments were iteratively resolved, In depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent, refbombing. It is not presumed, Playwrights' Studio is as significant/notable as the many very talented writers (and actors) with pages of their own. ie founder Tom McGraph, who come through their doors as students or early in their career. They have offices on Glasgow's main thoroughfare, a short walk from The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, an internationally recognised school of music and drama, and have worked with many if not all of the best known actors, and published writers for theatre of our generation at all stages of their careers.

For our international readers, since the 1707 act of union of Scotland and England, a situation that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future despite much wrangling, Scotland is a small country encompassing approximately the northern 3rd of the United Kingdom. Scotland may not be notable in the broader sense but within Scotland the Playwrights Studio is as significant as The Royal Opera House next door, especially within the acting/drama world of Glasgow, and the capital Edinburgh. Writers coming through the studio have had work performed all over the world, from the Edinburgh International Festival of Theatre to London, New York and Berlin.

How do I publish? the resubmit link has gone.
I am unconnected with the subject/genre, and all of the above is verifiable from primary and secondary sources but not directly relevant to the article.Kissable54 (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kissable54: I was more looking for numbers, as in – which of the (numbered) sources in your opinion demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. If you list the three strongest ones, in your opinion, I'm happy to have a look-see.
The "resubmit link has gone", because this draft has been rejected, not merely declined. After five previous declines the last reviewer must have concluded that no evidence of notability was likely to be forthcoming. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: 1,2, and 3 should do the trick. I didnt notice a previous edit broke no 2, an important one, so i have fixed it. Checking the others now. Kissable54 (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kissable54: 1, 2 and 3 are all primary sources. We need instead to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio programmes, etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kissable54 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingApologies I misunderstood primary as no 8, the organisations official website. I have added references from The Scotsman, Herald, and Guardian, that independently support the facts from the other references. A few of the other reference also got broken and I am fixing them now. Kissable54 (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kissable54: the Scotsman and Guardian articles provide only passing mentions. The Herald piece is a bit better, but still essentially someone from the organisation talking about it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I fixed the other references. I also added a few more references from newspapers.
References 1ish, 11, 19, 20, 21, and 16 are good secondary sources from The Performing arts Network Japan, The BBC, The Stage, and The Herald that explore the subject with some depth, and validate most of the statements on the official website,
no 8. 25, 29, and 32 from The Stage, and The Herald provide additional information specific to the subject that is not a passing mention.
No 6 is a single sentance from The Guardian, but an important reference regarding the involvement of the founder.
No 7 from the Guardian is also a brief mention but highlights the sheer scale of the organisations work, 189 new writers, for one staff member.
I am aware it is beginning to look like a ref bomb again and am not a writer so appreciate any advice getting the article published as there is no question the subject is notable enough.
They were founded in 2004 so much of the press surrounding their incorporation has long since been removed, and the majority of current articles discuss individual projects, or writers, not the organisation. Kissable54 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m the sixth editor to assess the article as not not notable. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Unfortunately some topics just aren’t suitable for Wikipedia no matter how much the author wants them to be. Please accept the decision and move on. Six experienced editors of the project do not all come to the same conclusions without reason. Organisations and companies have a very high bar for acceptance. This one doesn’t meet that bar. Please move on. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta With all due respect I believe you have made a mistake.
I agree the bar is high, as is the standard of Scotlands Playwrights.
My own abilities on the other hand... I have resolved the previous editors comments.
Can you check just two of the references. 20 and 21.
You will see names that might mean nothing to you but are giants of Scottish literature. You must have heard of Liz Lochead and possibly David Greig (dramatist) to name but two.
If better references are still required or there are too many primary references I can work on the article but I don't think it should be rejected. Kissable54 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kissable54, "notability" in the way Wikipedia uses it, essentially comes down to "is there enough independent reliably sourced material published to base an article on?", bearing in mind 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.
Names of people who have been associated with it contribute zero to this, as notability is not inherited. ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is surprisingly sparse coverage but enough, Check references 20 and 21 first, both independent and reliable, so notable in the way Wikipedia uses it. And notable as working with internationally recognised writers.
I have spoken with a colleague User: Not Even a Mother who will be taking things from here. I have nothing further to add but there are more references, I just don't have the time for this.
Thank you to all the editors who contributed for their kind words and advice. Kissable54 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Stephen Gauci

Offer Gilboa is the owner of the Challenge Group, an international air cargo group consisting of eight organisations, three of which are airlines. This contribution should help in sharing more information about his career and his achievements. Stephen Gauci (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gauci The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft since the rejection, such as new sources the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer.
If you are connected to Mr. Gilboa(you seem to be since you took a picture of him and he posed for you), that must be disclosed, see WP:COI. If you work for him or are otherwise compensated by him, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Catherine Lemieux

Hi, I need help, please, with this page. There are two major medias only about Rampelotto (ORF and Der Standard) plus one article only about Rampelotto in a reference book by Thames and Hudson. Why isn't that enough to show reliable sources or suitability or notability? Thanks in advance for any kind of help. Catherine Lemieux (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Rampelotto in the "Chair Anatomy" book by Thames and Hudson, about "A comprehensive design resource that reveals how the iconic chairs of the 20th and 21st centurieshave been designed for mass production" written by Orrom Professor for Product and Furniture Design at the Rosenheim University of Applied Sciences in Germany, does not show "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." ? Catherine Lemieux (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ss to wikipedias criterias for notability, Rampelotto has them all. He was b. part of a major exhibition (had a solo show at the MAK in 2012, and was part of the major yearly exhibition of 2022), c. won critical attention (he has won a design price just last year) and d. he is in the permanent collection of the MAK and hofmobilien Depot). I put the linik to these collections, that are transparently displayed online, but the first reviewer would not accept a main museum's page as a source. Catherine Lemieux (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 20 November 2023 review of submission by 2620:0:1040:20:CD8:8CEA:9C18:7F98

Hi there,

I got this feedback on an article I wrote "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 for sports persons and athletes)".

The article was based on other existing players and team members that are already on Wikipedia, and for some of them there is even less coverage, so I'm confused as to why this article isn't suitable. Any insights would be useful to help improve? Here are some examples I mimicked; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_McKenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emer_Lucey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobel_Joyce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecelia_Joyce 2620:0:1040:20:CD8:8CEA:9C18:7F98 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, and neither should you, as they may have problems of their own. (You should feel free to improve any sub-standard articles you find, or else nominate them for deletion.) We instead go by the currently applicable policies and guidelines. In this case, the relevant guideline is the general notability one WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 20 November 2023 review of submission by 68.4.88.199

Plz accept my draft 68.4.88.199 (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not waste other editors' time and and effort with this nonsense. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 20 November 2023 review of submission by TinyPardus

Rejected for lack of sources when many other lower level Norwegian football clubs have the same and are approved. What specifically is it that I need? Examples: [1], [2], [3] TinyPardus (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined NOT rejected, which means that reviewers think it is likely notable with better sources and see other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alright TinyPardus (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Seanhearne001

There is not enough specific information given as to why this posting is being rejected. I need to specifically understand which area is not being addressed. Also, I used the other facilities Wikipedia entries funded by the US government along with this facility as templates for this entry, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_Foundry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Nanoscale_Materials. Their pages appear to be acceptable. Is there a different template that I should use? Seanhearne001 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seanhearne001: did you actually read the decline notice, including what's behind each of the links it is pointing to? This draft has been declined (not rejected) for failing to demonstrate that the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. Per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. This draft cites only primary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 20 November 2023 review of submission by 178.204.250.28

Why are the sources in the article not suitable? The article refers to Radlov, Bunge, Boronin, Lipovtsev. 178.204.250.28 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really comment, and don't want to start working through a large number of sources in a language that I don't read; perhaps you could ask the last reviewer directly what their reasons were? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can I do this? 178.204.250.28 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On top of the most recent decline notice is shown the name of the reviewer, and next to it is a (talk) link to their talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Crouch214

I'm just trying to get some clarification on why my article was denied articles for creation - I'm new to this so I don't really understand much, and I want to get this page published, I just may need some guidance on how to do so. Thank you! Crouch214 (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch214 I fixed your link, it needs the "Draft:". Are you associated with the judge? You don't seem to have independent sources with significant coverage of the judge or what makes him important. You make claims about his innovations, but what makes them innovative is lacking. For more clarification, you may ask the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 21

00:14, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Ch4mpezz

I do not think there is anything wrong with the references because personally i got it all from that website. I put the reference that shows the exact part of the site where i wrote the paragraphs about! Ch4mpezz (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ch4mpezz: Your article has to be in English. And those sources do not show why the subject is notable. Please read the advice in the decline notice. You need in-depth secondary sources. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got it all from that website is precisely the problem. 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.
You need to find independent sources, and base the article almost entirely on them. The school's own website cannot contribute anything at all to establishing that the school meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:19, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Mohammad Husen

I am a contributor of Wikipedia, I have working in many Articles. It's one of the draft article by me. Please work here to improve it. Mohammad Husen (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammad Husen: this draft has been each time declined for lack of evidence of notability; that is basically an issue with the sources, which aren't sufficient to demonstrate that the subject is notable. It is up to you to find and cite adequate sources, we can't do that for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:43, 21 November 2023 review of submission by JamesTheOrganGeek

Why is it not>? JamesTheOrganGeek (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesTheOrganGeek: "why is it not" what? This draft was rejected and has subsequently been deleted, apparently at your own request. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:07, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Drgoel007

why my article was declined as per best of my knowledge i added reliable refereces which can be cross verified from your side and there is nothig against wiki policies. Drgoel007 (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drgoel007: it was declined because the sources are not sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG; with the exception of the Express article, they are all either primary or passing mentions.
If this is yourself that you're writing about, then please be aware that you shouldn't; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 21 November 2023 review of submission by BVECJordan

please help me to create this new articles BVECJordan (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BVECJordan: you're swearing on your talk page at everyone and everything, and you're removing the AfC templates from this draft although I asked you not to... yet now you want help?
Okay, one more time: "Tourist attraction place" is not something that is inherently notable, so you need to either reframe this as a natural feature, or establish notability by citing sources which satisfy the WP:GNG guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
☺️🙏🙏😆😆😆😆
I don't care what u say respected senior writer.
I respect u but this time i want not to .
It's just I want to publish this article very badly
U can do whatever ever u want
I am just notorious writer.
You can block or report my account
U can block my ip address.
I don't care.
It's just I follows Wikipedia guidelines hardly.
Anyone follow hardly this days BVECJordan (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Josammy777

I edited my draft with many reliable sources from Congo my native country. We have 12 publications on my work, Bibliography, Books, foundation, Patents, and the impact of my work in 3 reliable source such as: HorizonAfricain, la depeche de Brazzaville, La semaine Africaine. They displayed all informations with about 10 publication. However, the draft was declined why ? and we should improve the work Josammy777 (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Josammy777: as it says in the decline notice and adjoining comment, this draft is completely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. You need to find multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG guideline and summarise what they say about the subject, citing them as you go. See WP:YFA for advice on article creation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Johnmark2384

Hello , I made an initial submission of the above article related to Ravindu Nawanjana ( Draft:Ravindu Nawanjana ) on Nov 15th , and since then I made a few additions to his portfolio and resubmitted it today and was declined. Was the article declined because the data about the candidate is not enough or is it because of the less references made by external sources?

I have also seen many stubs with relatively less information approved by wiki.

Also , any guidance on getting the article accepted would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You Johnmark2384 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnmark2384 That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone, please see other stuff exists. These articles you have seen could also be inappropriate and simply not addressed yet by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible in many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify the addition of more inapprpropriate content. If you would like to help us, you can work to identify other inappropriate articles for possible action. We need the help.
Wikipedia is not a a place to just tell about someone and what they do- you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about this person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. What do sources say is important/significant/influential about this man? (not what he or his associates thinks is important about himself) That's what Wikipedia wants to know. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use other articles as an example or model, use those classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:20, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Rayhanulhaque1

Why my article has been rejuct Rayhanulhaque1 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayhanulhaque1: because this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about yourself, unless you're notable, and even then you should leave it to others to write about you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Pratik.S2005

Pls make the page more reliable for that It can be published as soon as possible. ... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005: the two sources are not sufficient to establish notability; we usually need 3+, and they should provide significant coverage of the subject, whereas at least one of these is just routine business reporting.
There is no rush to publish this, as Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline. Take your time to find solid sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Alucard F Tepes

Hello, I am trying to publish my first article regarding World Fisheries Day. I noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia page some months ago but didn't think much of it; today, however, I decided to search extensively and confirmed there isn't a Wikipedia article yet.

So I wrote this today. I added a lot of references at first, but that seemed to trigger a refusal; therefore, I removed references that seemed unnecessary and only kept what I considered noteworthy. Can someone check if there's anything wrong with the article, please? I lack experience as this is the first time I've done it. Thanks in advance. Alucard F Tepes (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alucard F Tepes: the draft is promotional in tone; Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral, factual manner.
It only cites two sources, one of which is YouTube. (It also lists, without citing, several sources, but that's not very useful as it isn't clear why they're there since they're not being cited. And not all of them are reliable.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your comment. I changed the entirety of the draft and tried to change the tone to be neutral. I removed YouTube sources and added better references, such as official reports and event announcements, while also citing them. Is there anything else I should change, add, or do? I would like any recommendations so I can improve, please. Alucard F Tepes (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alucard F Tepes: you need to show that the subject is notable per WP:GNG, which the currently cited sources don't achieve.
Also, there are still those six external links listed in the 'References' section without them being actually cited anywhere. Why are they there? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From those 6 external links, 5 are cited in the draft as reference for something that I wrote, or to show where it came from. I am unsure if there is a mistake in the format I used since the links appear twice in references, but 5 of the 6 are cited.
I am also going to research more in order to show what you are mentioning "notable per WP:GNG" I'll give an update when I do Alucard F Tepes (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 21 November 2023 review of submission by 178.165.181.175

Hi, I experienced a third negative review of my draft. The last reviewer didn’t leave any comment and did not reply to my questions. I am wondering, since my subject does meet four criteria of notability, why my draft still needs additional sources. It is very difficult to know how many references are enough. Also some references I used were flagged as unreliable but they do appear on another serious Wikipedia page ( on th Museum of Applied Arts of Vienna) so I don’t understand why they are not accepted on my draft. Could you please help me with this issue? I have a ph.D. and I am used to very strict, clear and transparent rules for sources reliability. Here, I feel left in the dark. Especially, I feel that the books quoted (not available online) are not considered as reliable. Although they are actually more serious sources. Thank you very much for your help, Catherine Lemieux 178.165.181.175 (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Catherine Lemieux another editor has responded on the draft's talk page (Draft talk:Patrick Rampelotto) so please respond there. S0091 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Catherine Lemieux (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Tomtomwaran

Hi, I received a message that the proposed topic does not qualify for the notability standards of Wikipedia. I went through the criteria in the article here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) . Which of the notability criteria is most problematic? Would it make sense if I provided other sources? Or should I edit the text and in what direction? Thank you. Your help would be much appreciated because I would like to edit and re-submit my proposal. Tomtomwaran (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are writing about a broad field, not a specific company, so the general notability criteria are what applies. You need to summarize independent reliable sources that discuss this field in depth. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Russell Bassett

Hey why'd you decline it, may i have a reason please? Russell Bassett (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not only declined, it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The reviewer left a reason at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Balalaka21

Hello. Which kind of problems should I fix, before resubmitting draft? Balalaka21 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you should find references according to the decline message. Ca talk to me! 13:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been accepted. (Happened while I was trying to decline it.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have declined this too as not notable and advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Bigbossdol

I need some help making my submission suitable, as I feel I have already included reliable references and sources. I have used government websites, industry information websites as well as long standing and respected hobbyist websites on the subject matter. A similar page already exists which uses exactly the same sources Craigkelly transmitting station and I believe my submission is comparable with this, please can I get some support with what I should do ? Bigbossdol (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigbossdol: there is unreferenced content (several small paragraphs without any citations), and the lead section is supported by search engine results which are not valid sources. To avoid original research or synthesis, please only summarise what reliable published sources have said about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 21 November 2023 review of submission by 2603:300C:196D:300:59B8:D54A:2237:CBA3

how do i get my real micronation that i established and gave ownership to burger king on wikipedia 

2603:300C:196D:300:59B8:D54A:2237:CBA3 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 21 November 2023 review of submission by EdwinThornton75

What is wrong with this article? It is all properly sourced about a small artist online. EdwinThornton75 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EdwinThornton75: what's wrong is that there is no evidence that the subject is notable, either by the WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are zero independent reliable sources and Zero indication of passing WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 21 November 2023 review of submission by GAALIIAV

Hi, i know there is a problem with the references i'm using in this page, but i can't find others references. There are some tools i can use to find new references? GAALIIAV (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot find other references, this team likely does not merit an article. You have gone about this backwards, you should first gather sources before writing the draft. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Malexof

I need help with this article. The problem is in reliable sources. But I have used Boxrec as a reliable source and saw the Boxrec as a source on the pages of other sportsmen. I filled this page by analogy with other pages already published in Wikipedia. For example, here: Iago Kiladze Why is this article approved (they used the same link on Boxrec), but mine is not? Malexof (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malexof That another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. You should avoid using random articles as a model that themselves could be inappropriate, and you would be unaware of it. See other stuff exists. Use good articles as a model.331dot (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Malexof: the Kiladze article was published eight years ago and never went through the AfC review process, so it wasn't "approved" in the same way. In any case, you shouldn't model your articles on existing articles, which may well have their own problems, but should instead follow the relevant guidelines applicable today.
We need to see multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria. A single source isn't enough, either to establish notability or to reliably support the contents.
Alternatively, if you can prove (using reliable sources) that the subject meets WP:NBOXING, then that would be an alternative approach. It doesn't look like it, though? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:21, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Kimbamy

Hi, I would like to find a talk page to discuss about this draft : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carmelo_Pipitone thank you in advance 

Kimbamy (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kimbamy, feel free to ask any questions you may have here? Qcne (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you! I have made this draft. I think the coverage is enough. can you help me understanding what is missing exactly. I am not an expert. I have read the rules but I cannot fix it. thank you in advance. Kimbamy (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing @Kimbamy. Let me go through your references one by one. Note that musical artists need to pass the WP:NMUSICIAN criteria, this means finding multiple secondary sources that are independent of Carmelo (not interviews), and provide significant coverage with discussion/debate/analysis:
  1. An interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
  2. An interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
  3. This works as a source.
  4. This works as a source.
  5. This is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Carmelo.
  6. This is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Carmelo.
  7. This works as a source.
  8. This is about the album, not Carmelo- it can be used to source the album but not establish notability.
  9. Not significant coverage.
I think you are close to proving notability under WP:NMUSICIAN, but not quite there. If you could find a couple more independent secondary sources that discuss Carmelo I think it would get over teh line.
My other advice is to format your sources proper, so they include the full URL, access date, author, etc. See the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Also your External Links section is too big, only include a max of two external links. See the policy at WP:EXTERNAL. The Discography is also unsourced, but you can use a primary source for this. The Insound Award award is also unsourced?
Let me know if you can fix all that, by pinging me here or my User talk page, and I will have another look.
Hope that helps. Qcne (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are very kind @Qcne. and your answer is very detailed.
I'll try to get through. Thank you! Kimbamy (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:29, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Architect encyclopedia

I published before I had written the article and it has been rejected Architect encyclopedia (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can let the reviewer know that it was not complete when you submitted it, they may reconsider.
Note that you cannot use Wikipedia articles as a references for other Wikipedia articles, see WP:CIRCULAR. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9: Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed the rejection. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pinging Architect encyclopedia in case they aren't following this discussion. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 22

00:56, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Dbolwerk rec

Can you please elaborate exactly what is wrong with this article? I've removed all external links except for one to Dairyland's website which, based on other pages similar to ours that have been published, is acceptable. I've tightened it up so there is no editorializing. I appreciate any additional insight to making this suitable for publication per Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you, in advance. Dbolwerk rec (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbolwerk rec: please understand that we don't catalogue every business and other entity that exists, merely because they exist; we publish articles on subjects with notability and encyclopaedic value. There is very little of that even suggested in this draft, and even less evidenced; hence this has been now declined three times for lack of notability. That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with this.
You also appear to have an external relationship with the subject, which needs to be disclosed. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions.
And please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single individual only. I mention that since you imply there may be more than one of you involved in editing this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dbolwerk rec. You did not even bother to wikilink to Touchstone Energy Cooperative, which might have offered readers some context. But far more important is that vast swathes of your draft are entirely unreferenced, violating the core content policies of Verifiability and No original research. Do you expect readers to read and believe what you wrote just because you say so? A high quality encyclopedia does not work that way. Cullen328 (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:42, 22 November 2023 review of submission by 5.179.86.61

Let me publish pls. The site is just as relevant as everything else on the platform 5.179.86.61 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An entirely unreferenced draft is a policy violation. All such drafts are rejected on sight. Cullen328 (talk)

09:57, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Giltedged

Hi there,

This article was quite involved and quite time consuming to collect detailed reference material on,

Can someone please provide some input as to why this submission needs improvement?

If it is minor, maybe chip in and help finish the article?

Thanks!! Giltedged (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left a message about the concerns at the top of the draft. We're not here to be co-authors, but you may find a relevant WikiProject that may have editors willing to assist. This individual seems to own a bar and be in the news, but it's not clear how they are notable. They seem to be New Zealand's version of Lauren Boebert(who owned a bar by the same name) though they don't hold public office. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Randommuzik

I'm an artist, randommuzik on all platforms, I'm trying to write a few about me here and its has frustrating doing that. Randommuzik (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Randommuzik. Only musicians who pass our strict WP:NMUSIC criteria may have articles written about them. You have done nothing to prove you meet that criteria. Qcne (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've a few of this WP:NMUSIC criteria, i thought I was the one who would write about me, until now. please if you can assist me in anyway I would really appreciate thank you. Randommuzik (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you become notable enough to pass our criteria, then eventually someone will write a Wikipedia article about you. As it stands your draft had zero sources so does not prove notability. Qcne (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not know what I should write on my draft for me to be notable, if you can tell what to do I'll really appreciate, being able to text someone here is a relief, because I be feeling like I was coding when I created an account with you guys. Randommuzik (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randommuzik writing a Wikipedia article for the first time is one of the most difficult tasks a new editor can do. I would suggest you are not yet notable by our standards and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article at this time. Qcne (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay thank you. Randommuzik (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randommuzik (ec) You placed your text within coding to conceal its display(though it still appears in the edit window). I removed this, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state about musicians that meet our notability criteria, Wikipedia is not interested in what people say about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:16, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Manojwiki2021

please help to get my article published, the person is a Sahitya Akademi Award winners for Assamese in 2022 Manojwiki2021 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please choose the three (and only three) best sources that prove notability under WP:NAUTHOR. The sources must be:
- independent (not interviews)
- reliable (not Facebook)
- secondary (not primary) Qcne (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manojwiki2021: so far you haven't presented sufficient evidence that the person is notable. In any case, this won't be accepted unless you resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 22 November 2023 review of submission by 5.195.211.73

I'm trying to create a page for tamanna.com it's a well known business in Kuwait 5.195.211.73 (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been deleted as promotional. It may be a well-known business, but that is no licence to use Wikipedia as a marketing channel.
If you have a registered user account (such as Mnabilmohamed001), please make sure to log into it when editing.
And if you have a relationship with this business, you need to disclose it: see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 22 November 2023 review of submission by VZs76

Dear Editors,

I have recently created an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:M%C3%A1rton_Nagy), which was declined, with the editor noting (after the second submission attempt) that the article still needs further incline citations.

However, parts of the article ("Early career" and "Deputy Governor of the Hungarian National Bank") are based on the official CV of the politician, available on the official website of the European Investment Bank (https://www01.eib.org/attachments/documents/cv-marton-nagy-en.pdf). If there are no other sources to support the information (other than the info provided in the CV), what steps should I take?

Regards, VZs76 (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VZs76: it may well be that everything you state is supported by one or another of the cited sources, but if you don't tell us (by way of citations) which source it is, that doesn't really help the reader verify the information, as they would need to check each of the sources for each of the statements. As a bare minimum, each paragraph should have at least one citation, as otherwise it is unsupported, and a long paragraph almost certainly should have more than one. The reader should never need to ask "where did that information come from?"
If you use the same source more than once, you should ideally use named references, to avoid inflating the 'References' section unnecessarily; see WP:NAMEDREFS for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the tip, the article has been recently published! VZs76 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 22 November 2023 review of submission by GertrudKahl

Dear Help desk, my article on Alfons Zeileis was declined saying it contained not sufficient secondary sources. In fact I cited a lot of independent newspapers with reviews on exhibitions in which Alfons Zeileis is reviewed alone or alongside other painters. Why are independent newspapers not secondary sources? To make it clear, that the references are not just archived material of Alfons Zeileis but secondary sources about him, I added the explanation to the sources. Will this be sufficient? There are many more references about Alfons Zeileis as about for example his fellow student Giorgio de Chirico. I will be grateful for any hint. GertrudKahl (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GertrudKahl: it may be that there are sufficient secondary sources included, but if so, they are quite well masked. For example, ref #12 reads

Review of the exhibition with mention of Alfons Zeileis in the newspaper Der Rheinpfälzer 18 October 1927 and Landauer Anzeiger 21 October 1927 both in reviews about artists: Newspaper clippings ordered together by Karl Graf, Pfälzer Landesbibliothek Speyer.

You have to read all of that to realise that it mentions a newspaper called Der Rheinpfälzer. It should be formatted using the correct template, {{cite news}} or {{cite magazine}}.
And even then, it doesn't really provide sufficient detail to allow the precise source to be identified; please see WP:OFFLINE for advice on correctly citing offline sources.
And yes, some of the sources clearly aren't published secondary sources, eg. #38 and #40.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that "An exchange of letters" is NOT a suitable source neither is " List by Anneliese Zeileis, the daughter of Alfons Zeileis." sources need to be published. Theroadislong (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Alexandrsashin

Could anybody explain me the issues with references in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luna_Sabella  ?

> 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. 

Alexandrsashin (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The style of writing is NOT encyclopaedic and more suited to a magazine article. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What can I change to make it more encyclopedic? Alexandrsashin (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her father is of Italian descent: Which independent source is cited for this information.
which is why Luna loves everything to do with Italy: 1) non sequitur. 2) Which independent source is cited for this information? 3)Why does it belong in an encyclopaedia article about her?
She is keen on music, dance and show business: Which independent source is cited for this information? 2) Why does it use the colloquial "keen on" rather than a more formal phrase. ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a right question. There is an answer - such information is from https://www.esc-plus.com/downloads/handbook-jesc-2022.pdf and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WySij6WyPus. If I add these references to several paragraphs then I duplicate them in the reference list. Alexandrsashin (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her father is of Italian descent and this influenced her preferences in life and creativity.
Is it better?
I'd like to save this connection because of it relates to "La Festa" and "Pico Bello" songs. Alexandrsashin (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Rahmanibnusaid

It's a Professional Football Club from India,and why can't create a page. Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahmanibnusaid: because there is no evidence that the club is notable, which is why this draft has been rejected. Not only that, but the subject has gone through no fewer than three AfD discussions, so you would need to make a particularly compelling case for an article to be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Sir,How can you say the club doesn't exist. That Club currently plays in our State League and I provided it's website and else details, How much more should I need to provide, can u explain how is it possible. Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rahmanibnusaid No one has said that the club does not exist. Not everything that exists merits a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist, there are criteria for inclusion. As noted, there has been three deletion discussions regarding articles about this club, so you will have to build a very good case that the notability criteria for organizations has been met. You haven't done that here. You'll need to move on from this topic. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway i haven't expected this much quick reply from your side, appreciating Wikipedia Staffs alot🤍 Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no staff, we are volunteers from around tbe world. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just meaned you guys. Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 22 November 2023 review of submission by SparrowsQuest

Can you point me to information on how to cite post-graduate degrees. Thank you for your assistance. SparrowsQuest (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SparrowsQuest: what do you mean by that? If the person has postgrad qualifications, you cite any reliable source that states that, usually the one where you discovered the said fact. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SparrowsQuest the easiest way would be to find and cite the thesis for which they received the degree. -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:07, 22 November 2023 review of submission by AJIT30071990

hi needs support AJIT30071990 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft consists of a single sentence "Ajit Kumar singh is an Indian born 30 july 1990" there is zero evidence that you are notable so minimal chance of the draft being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 22 November 2023 review of submission by 193.207.113.152

I've added all info and reliable sources I could find. They are sufficient for her notability. 193.207.113.152 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've requested here, you can immediately delete it. 193.207.113.152 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Place a {{db-g7}} tag to delete the article Mach61 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 23

00:56, 23 November 2023 review of submission by JasonPererafit

Is there anything i can do for this? this person is an actor JasonPererafit (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Not all actors merit Wikipedia articles, see the criteria. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 23 November 2023 review of submission by 2012shahab

Kyrgyz International University NRZ is a private university and approved by minstry of science and education kyrgyzstan. 2012shahab (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1186443405"