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 Twenty4marc (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 29 February 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Linkspreed). 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


February 23

Rapper Chauhan

Rapper Chauhan is a music arist. Nritya02 (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nritya02: that's as may be. Do you have a question you would like to ask related to the AfC process? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Chukwuocha

I’m requesting an assistant for this article, it has been submitted for review and it’s yet to be reviewed, I neee assistance and also improvement for this article. Thank you Chukwuocha (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Socket (rapper) article Chukwuocha (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chukwuocha: you submitted this less than 48 hrs ago. As it says on top of the draft, "This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,864 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient.
In the meantime, if you have specific questions to ask, you may pose them here, but asking for "assistance and also improvement" is rather vague. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Chaialhurriya

Can you please clarify why this article was rejected.....I was told it was because: Fails notability under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E but articles of similar nature have been published see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Hersh_Goldberg-Polin or 

Chaialhurriya (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaialhurriya: it doesn't matter what other articles may exist (see WP:OSE), what matters is whether this draft satisfies the current requirements for publication, which in my view as well as that of the reviewer who actually declined (not 'rejected', which is different) it, this doesn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be interested in this: Killing of Sidra Hassouna Ominateu (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ominateu: okay, so you've created that directly in the article space – what's your point? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant to state that the person who had their draft declined created it anyways. Ominateu (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ominateu: okay, thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Armansalmani

Why is this draft rejected? Armansalmani (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Armansalmani: because the first attempt was reviewed multiple times, and finally rejected as non-notable. There is no point in then creating additional copies of the same, especially to do so without offering any further evidence of notability. We can't keep reviewing the same subject over and over. This is fast becoming tendentious. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the final version has more changes and references than the initial version.  And I tried to have all the phrases with citations. Armansalmani (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Armansalmani I have had a look at the draft and I agree with the Reject. There is no indication this is acceptable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Armansalmani Not only that, just having citations is not important. It's written in a style considered to be advertising and promotional. Articles have to be written in a neutral POV without any errors or promotional content. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Armansalmani: this draft cites two sources, one of which is pretty useless in what comes to establishing notability, and the other is worse than useless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Robert20654

Johannes Maximilinan stated that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." My submission Pentaclub (The Club of Five) has a lot of notes that refer to external third party links where every information can be verified. What should I have to add? Many thanks. Robert20654 Robert20654 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert20654: you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, and Facebook and Instagram are user-generated and therefore not reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: thank you very much. I removed Wikipedia as a source and also FB & IG. Then I've resubmitted the draft. I hope it should be fine. Can you check it please? Thank you again. Robert20654 (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert20654: the ref #1 is still Wikipedia, and #2 is Facebook. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: sorry for that and thank you. I've deleted them. Do you think the page can be moved now? And if yes, can you help me, please? Thank you. Robert20654 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have submitted it and it is pending. Please be patient; reviews are conducted by volunteers. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 23 February 2024 review of submission by CMG95

This submission has been in review since Jan 18, any insight into what may be holding up the review would be appreciated CMG95 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CMG95 Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. As noted on your draft, "This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,853 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:23, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Stefo89

Hi everyone, I'd like some help to understand how this article draft can be improved. What are some examples of concrete changes that can be applied? The user who reviewed the draft wrote that the style looks like a press release rather than an article–probably due to my attempt to maintain neutrality. Also, the references cited are web articles on Google with sources such as TechCrunch that I see mentioned in many other Wikipedia articles about companies, too. Thank you in advance for your feedback. Stefo89 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefo89: the concrete changes you need to make must directly address the decline reason, namely lack of evidence of notability. And if the reviewer has additionally commented on promotional tone and/or content, that needs to be addressed as well. These reviews are not done flippantly, the reviewers have real reasons to say what they say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:43, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Johnnybart2

It's been four months since I resubmitted my article on David T. Adams and I've had no response on its status. Can someone contact me and advise? Johnnybart2 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@johnnybart2: except you haven't resubmitted it. ltbdl (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnnybart2, it looks as though you last submitted it on October 6, and it was declined on November 7, so now it's waiting on you again. After being declined, reviewers don't look at the article again until it gets resubmitted. You should have the button to resubmit if you wish enabled, but have a look at the reviewers' notes and fix the issues mentioned to give your article the best possible chance of being accepted! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

02:19, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Beyond Advice

The cited sources are public and reliable. I need assistance not only for clarification but also for reformulating the text if necessary.

Regards Beyond Advice (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the article is missing inline citations. Youprayteas (t • c) 07:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have written your draft BACKWARDS. You almost certainly need to throw it away and start again. Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:25, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Gosatin2

How to change a title? I have to "Move" option in the Tool menu Gosatin2 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that for now. If and when the draft is accepted, it will be published at an appropriate title. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:28, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Gosatin2

The reviewer asked for more references without specifying what facts are needing that. The original (Italian) version has only those references and already has been accepted. Gosatin2 (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gosatin2: the Italian Wikipedia is a completely separate project from us; what is acceptable there, may not be acceptable here, and vice versa. Content submitted to the English-language Wikipedia must meet our requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is to an interview. The second is a technical spec, which undoubtedly comes from the company. The fourth is evidently a press release (why is it tagged as being in Lithuanian?) Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
So the only source which even might contribute to establishing notability is the third - but it needs analysis to determine how far it is merely repeating what Honda say. In any case, one independent source is not enough. ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:08, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Katsuyorisan

What can I do to improve this article and make it acceptable? Please help me, thanks. Katsuyorisan (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Katsuyorisan: nothing, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to who or which rule? Your answer isn't acceptable to me. I edited the article and fixed all the issues multiple times. Without a logical explanation about why it got rejected, this totally seems like censorship by mini-dictator mods. I've donated to Wikipedia before, and being rejected without proper reasoning is just obnoxious. Katsuyorisan (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is VERY poorly sourced, showing zero evidence of any notability and reads like a hoax. Rejection was the correct result. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that personal attacks are not permitted. Wikipedia is not for telling about something that was created one day. You have no journalistic or academic sources summarized, showing how this meets the definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. Instead of getting a clear answer like this, I get "nothing, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further". Please warn @DoubleGrazing for vague and condescending answers. Katsuyorisan (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was rejected by 3 established editors for lacking in sourcing and presentation. I also review AFC and we are allowed to do that because we have an established and clear record of understanding what an article needs to pass muster. This would appear to be a consensus if we take those responses collectively which I don't think would change. If it was going to change one of the reviewers would have likely approved it. If you have a copy I'd be happy to look and see if I agree. Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 24 February 2024 review of submission by User no wiki

Hi, I am struggling to understand what I need to change to have this listing published. Can I please ask for some assistance?

Thank you User no wiki (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User no wiki: you're being asked to cite your sources inline; currenty ⅔ of them are lumped together at the end where they support nothing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my latest decline comment @User no wiki, you've unfortunately made it worse with your latest edits. Carefully follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if most of the sources are from Stenseth, or from her associates (eg galleries who have shown her work). None of those are relevant to a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Pickerwheel

The rejection reason is not neutral

Please find more details in here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Windawindawinda Pickerwheel (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickerwheel: you're Windawindawinda, then, are you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Pickerwheel (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase: your account is < 3 hrs old, and you've straight away created this draft and found that talk page; what is your involvement in this matter and/or with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking on people is a serious crime @DoubleGrazing
Wikipedia has an option in creating an article that doesn't allow everyone to ask what's their connections with the subject
Options in creating an article:
I'm paid to edit
I'm writing about myself, or a close person/subject
I'm not connected to the subject Pickerwheel (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickerwheel the sources in the draft do not show notability for David Windsor and I therefore agree with the rejection as an uninvolved reviewer. By any chance are you David Windsor? Qcne (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that a Wikipedia user is allowed to ask for the identities of other users. The article show notability based on Wikipedia guidelines. What do you mean it doesn't show notability? Pickerwheel (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Pickerwheel (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, I am absolutely allowed to ask if you are David Windsor - or more generally if you have a conflict of interest. So I ask again: are you David Windsor or do you have a conflict of interest in this article?
The draft does not prove notability under WP:NPEOPLE. Let's go through your sources to understand why:
  1. The Independent: an interview so cannot be used to establish notability.
  2. Variety: A brief mention and so does not provide WP:SIGCOV to establish notability.
  3. emmys.com: an interview so cannot be used to establish notability.
  4. Variety: A brief mention and so does not provide WP:SIGCOV to establish notability.
Then in the external links:
  1. IMDB: Not permitted to use as a source under WP:IMDB.
  2. Rotten Tomatoes: Just a database entry, does not show notability.
Therefore, the draft does not meet our notability standards at this time. Qcne (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't violate your privacy by outing your identity if you haven't done so, and based on off wiki information. We can absolutely ask about conflicts of interest, or if you are the subject you are writing about. If you are paid by David Windsor, the Terms of Use require disclosure. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 24 February 2024 review of submission by 102.89.23.130

Please don't let my Wikipedia page get deleted, let it get approved because this is my first time publishing with my details on Wikipedia 102.89.23.130 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that Nafees meets our special definition of notability, therefore he (you?) does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. You should not be using Wikipedia to promote or advertise a subject. Qcne (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that. like most people who come here and try to create a new article before they have learnt any of the craft of writing Wikipedia articles, you are having a frustrating and disappointing time. Would you try and build a house when you have just started learning to be a builder? Or book a public concert the day after you first picked up a guitar?
In addition, one of the Wikipedia policies that you have not found out about it the one very strongly advises against writing about yourself. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. This means that to write about yourself successfully in Wikipedia, you will need (after finding the independent published sources that are essential), to forget everything you know about yourself, and write only what they say about you. Do you see what that is not encouraged? ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 24 February 2024 review of submission by User no wiki

I am trying to better understand what is missing from this publishing still, but I would greatly appreciate help to find a solution to match Wikipedias demands. Thank you for helping out so quickly! User no wiki (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have left clear instructions @User no wiki on how to reference properly. For the third time, please go to WP:INTREFVE and use in-line citations. Qcne (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Fabrica.de.colores

Please see my reply on the talk page there. Wikipedia has a less general article (Mapheus 5) so I am wondering why the attempt to create a more general one was declined. Fabrica.de.colores (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrica.de.colores I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). 331dot (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Mapheus 5 is a thoroughly inadequate article, and if it were submitted for review now, it would absolutely not be accepted. See WP:OSE. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Siqi Huang

My references are all from reliable offical news websites. My topic is a Chinese railway station, so all references are from China, but they are offical news websites and totally reliable. Siqi Huang (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Panzlms

I am currently eddiding the page as asked and see that LandmarkScout was cut in 2. Probably the autocorrect kicked in. Can you help me with this? In this case it is one word LandmarkScout. Panzlms (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title is not particularly relevant while a draft. You may just leave a note on the talk page for the reviewers, when accepted, it can be placed at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 24 February 2024 review of submission by EdvardsWWE

How could I improve this? EdvardsWWE (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nicely as I can say this, there is no amount of improvement at this point for this to warrant an article. It looks like a personal pet theory or perspective which for us is not a notable subject. Now if it develops into one someday and multiple independent sources write abut it sure. Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:FORUM. ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

06:52, 25 February 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:35:305C:60D2:30FF:FEA4:6866

When will Vignesh Sivajayam page get live? 2409:40F4:35:305C:60D2:30FF:FEA4:6866 (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say never, given that it has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 25 February 2024 review of submission by 46.13.230.117

Hey,

Can you tell me which reliable source else needs to be presented, since I am referring to Newmann's page here on Wiki, which contains info about the novel as well as the classical heroes of the book? 46.13.230.117 (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refererring to a different article is insufficient- if you are copying over information, you need the sources used in that article too. You will also need to offer sources that discuss this book itself in order for it to merit a standalone article. See Referencing for beginners too. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:25, 25 February 2024 review of submission by UC 142

I require assistance for where I need more references (or quality ones) UC 142 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What assistance are you seeking? You will need at least references from independent professional reviewers that review the film. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the question but, by independent professional reviewers, from avid fans of like yaoi who have watched the film> UC 142 (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean professional film critics, people whose job it is to write reviews of films and do so without being prompted or asked- not reviews by fans. Rankings from movie review websites similar to Rotten Tomatoes can also be used. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see.. the drama is on its last episode next week, perhaps I wait then I'll look for reviews? No? And once I do, where do I source them in my article? UC 142 (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You place the sources with the content that they are supporting; see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I probably sound dumb, but is this the reason why my article keeps getting declined? UC 142 (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are happy to answer your good faith questions. Yes, the lack of proper sources is why the draft has been declined. User-generated websites and social media are not acceptable sources, and you don't have acceptable sources that establish that this is notable. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a new article is the most diffcult task to attempt on Wikipedia, if you haven't already, I would suggest reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 25 February 2024 review of submission by Spongy mysophyll productions

How to edit and save a draft without publishing Spongy mysophyll productions (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spongy mysophyll productions: that's not possible (other than by working locally on your device using a text editor of some sort), because anything you save within Wikipedia, including in the User: and Draft: name spaces, becomes by definition publicly available. That's why "saving" a draft is referred to as "publishing"; it doesn't mean publishing into the main encyclopaedia, it just means creating a publicly-available draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 25 February 2024 review of submission by PlaneCrashKing1264

I dont know whats wrong PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PlaneCrashKing1264: are you referring to  Courtesy link: Draft:Good & The Beautiful?
It has been declined because there is absolutely no evidence of notability, which is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i suck at understanding some words. What does notability mean, exactly? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PlaneCrashKing1264, click the word 'notability' in DoubleGrazing's reply and you'll be taken to the page on notability - you'll find our definition and how to work out whether something will be seen as notable there.
If you have a look at the reviewer's notes (in the big box at the top of your draft) there are some links there as well that will show you what you need to know about writing an article. You might also be interested in clicking this link: Your First Article - some of the information you'll already have seen, but it's a good place to start for a thorough overview. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what's wrong? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only source you have provided is the curriculum itself. Any article about this must summarize what independent reliable sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find one, though. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And i cant find anything about it. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PlaneCrashKing1264, if you can't find reliable sources, then it isn't notable by Wikipedia standards and so an article won't be accepted.
We have already told you what's wrong, and pointed you towards the notability page so you can see what you need to do. Now it is your job to compare what the page lists to what you have. So, for example, the first piece of information on the notability page says "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." You are saying you can't find reliable, independent sources, so already you can see that it can't have a separate article. Maybe someone will write about it in the future, and then you can have another go at writing a draft. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 25 February 2024 review of submission by HCUPa

I was trying to use taxobox for a draft article on the genus Zygopauropus, and I seem to have messed up the template for this genus (I think I deleted some necessary code) and don't know how to fix the problem. HCUPa (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HCUPa: a couple of the earlier revisions have working taxoboxes, can you not copy & paste from them? Eg. this seems at least superficially okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I managed to fix the taxobox template now. HCUPa (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HCUPa You might want to install the WP:Twinkle gadget which makes reverting edits easier along with several other tasks. Another option is to do a restore when multiple edits need to be reverted (click on the last good version from the edit history and use the "restore this verson" link at the top.) S0091 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 25 February 2024 review of submission by BDcelebwiki

what sources should I use? and what can I do to make this article acceptable? BDcelebwiki (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used all the reliable sources available out there BDcelebwiki (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BDcelebwiki, if you have used all the reliable sources available, then it might simply be too soon for this article to exist. Often it takes time for people to become well-known and be written about in reliable sources. Until then, you just have to wait - you can keep improving the draft while you wait, of course, or you can try doing some little edits and getting to know how Wikipedia works. Once your subject has become notable by Wikipedia standards, you can submit a draft article about them again. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 25 February 2024 review of submission by Dishakabra12

Dear friend,

I am curious why you say that the article is not noteworthy? Nan has been recognised by various organisations, people and has had a wide-ranging impact in the whale research and conservation field. Could you please advise on what makes a wikipedia page more meaningful and relevant?

Kind regards Disha Dishakabra12 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are based on what reliable independent sources say about a subject, your draft had NONE of these. Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 25 February 2024 review of submission by Nwachinazo1

My draft continues to receive frequent rejections by reviewers despite my improvement on the references. To some extent, reasons given by these reviewers are contrary among themselves yet I continue to provide explanations on why their reviews were unfair and not thorough enough. Please I seek assistance on the draft above and why it should be accepted, given several reliable, third-party and independent sources that significantly support the subject. Part of Wikipedia's criterion says that a subject's notability does not necessarily need to be main topic of discussion but adequate treatment of the subject. This I have achieved. Nwachinazo1 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rightfully declined and then instead of asking for assistance you then proceeded to continually just submit without any improvement not once but twice. This does nothing but waste more time and lead to rejections like this. I have reviewed the sources and they all seem to be quotes of the subject, mere mentions of the subject or press releases none which meet all of the criteria to satisfy WP:GNG. If you would like to review the links in the decline messages and work on the draft to actually improve it then you can reach out the the last reviewer and ask them to rescind the rejection. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:50, 25 February 2024 review of submission by PomPomLover96

Hello fellow Wikiwriters,

I need some help for Dan Slepian's Wikipedia page for more independent sources to prove notability. Can someone kindly help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Slepian PomPomLover96 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PomPomLover96: in a word, no. We're happy to help answer questions about the AfC process, but the onus is entirely on the draft author to do the necessary research and editing. The way you should go about this is to find some sources which meet the relevant notability guideline, eg. WP:GNG, and summarise what they have said about the subject, citing each source against the information it has provided. If you cannot find sufficient sources to begin with, then you shouldn't even bother writing the draft, because it wouldn't be accepted without evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:03, 25 February 2024 review of submission by Walter Tau

I feel, that the draft is suitable for submission. It meet both Notability and Sufficiency of Disclosure criteria. It can be iproved by other editors once it is posted. Walter Tau (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "Sufficiency of Disclosure" means, or why it might be relevant to evaluating the notability of a draft. Which of your references are in-depth discussions of the case or its outcome by people wholly unconnected with the parties or the case? That is the only kind of source which is relevant. ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

03:41, 26 February 2024 review of submission by MathewArmstrong

I am wanting to get some assistance on this Draft. Sources I have been able to find initially mentioned about the production company he owns, however I was able to find further sources on a show he was on and also notable shows he had produced, which in some regard, I thought may be able to get him over the notable like for Wikipedia. I will be patient however, thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about the company he owns, or about shows he has been on, are not relevant unless they contain significant coverage of him. ColinFine (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MathewArmstrong, you need to find articles (or books, etc) that are just about him. Keep in mind that interviews usually won't be accepted, because those are things he's saying about himself - you want something written by someone else, someone with no connection to him at all, someone who is writing about him because they think who he is and what he's done are important and people need to know about him. If all you can find are mentions of him, then sadly he probably won't meet Wikipedia's very specific standards of notability. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:06, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Shravani Chary

what are the changes i can make in my draft for it to get approved? it's rejected saying that it looks more like an essay. Shravani Chary (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shravani Chary, I'm sorry to say that when a draft is rejected, that means it will not be approved no matter what you do. The reviewer has left you a note (below the big box at the top of the draft) with suggestions for how to make use of some of the information. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:59, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Umepand99

Could you please guide me on how to publish this draft version of the modification? As they are also a CCaaS provider! Umepand99 (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Umepand99: this draft was rejected (a year ago!) and will therefore not be considered further. In any case, it consists of nothing more than a list of redlinks, which does not add up to a viable article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how to merge article with other articles Shravani Chary (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shravani,
Thank you for message.
They have developed an impressive LLM model and offer their CCaaS platform to telecom companies. Their expertise in the domain and AI innovation prompt me to reconsider the request. However, it's challenging as I've included all referenced online articles, which I believe are crucial for establishing the brand and company name for approval.
Could you please provide guidance on what specific information is needed for approval? This company's innovative work deserves recognition. Umepand99 (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which article does this message refers to? Shravani Chary (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Contact_Center_as_a_Service_(CCaaS) Umepand99 (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its a deleted article Shravani Chary (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not intended as a form of recognition or honor- our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet the notability criteria. If you have
You seem to have written about your company(as well as another draft about yourself)- you must declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID, and read conflict of interest. The text of Draft:StarTele Logic was highly promotional and the sources provided merely documented the routine business activities of the company- they did not summarize what they see as important/significant/influential about the company- what makes it a notable company. We don't want to know merely what the company does or what it thinks about itself. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Hrtacp

This page has been rejected by a bot, please help in regards to this Hrtacp (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected by an experienced reviewer User:Usedtobecool I concur that there is nothing notable about you, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious as to how you own the copyright to the image of yourself, which is not a selfie and appears to be professionally taken. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 49.229.136.124

May I know what additional infos and references should I add in? Thanks. 49.229.136.124 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Any article about this person(is it yourself?) should summarize what independent reliable sources say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you have such sources, please discuss it with the reviewer directly first. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been rejected, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms, the draft will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:27, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Rj8

This is a local movie with limited coverage or source citation like journals. I have cited the necessary articles to confirm its a real film. why cant it be published? Rj8 (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rj8: because there is no evidence that the subject is notable, either by WP:GNG or WP:NFILM standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said it is not real. Wikipedia is not a mere database of things that exist. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's literally hundreds of articles about different movies, tv shows, etc. There's already precedence for articles like this. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See other stuff exists for that argument. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong so y'all are going to delete the thousands of articles that exist on the genre? Sounds like a group of editors actively trying to ruin a once great website. Stuff like this is LITERALLY what the website was created for. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@12DionneJ, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - are you old enough to have grown up with Encyclopedia Britannica, either as a book or the exciting new technology of CDs? (I had the CD version and it was amazing). If so, you'll probably remember that a lot of things were covered, but not everything. Even with a website it's simply not possible to cover everything, especially if we want the information to be correct and up-to-date - there's only so many volunteers, and only so much time, so we have to find a way to limit the information. This does include deleting and rejecting articles - it always has, even from the very beginning.
Over time, Wikipedia has settled on certain standards for what we can and cannot cover. Sadly, it seems the movie you want to write about may not meet those standards. You can always keep looking for sources. If it's a local movie, perhaps it's been covered in local newspapers? Not everything is online, and we do accept offline sources if they can be verified. You are unlikely to be able to change the standards, which have been developed by thousands of people over more than two decades - but you can see if it's possible for this article to meet them. I genuinely wish you the best of luck in researching! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I grew up with hard copies. Like 26 books. Then Encyclopedia Brittanica on CD-ROM. Also, I merely commented on this. I'm not the one writing an article about a movie. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@12DionneJ My apologies, I should have double-checked. StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 193.187.220.2

Please support, this is supposed to be just basic info about that company, what needs to be adjusted and I will, thx tom 193.187.220.2 (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is insufficiently referenced, and the sources do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has zero interest in basic information about that company, Wikipedia reports what reliable independent sources say about a topic, also see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 122.161.242.21

why my article was rejected? 

122.161.242.21 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for self-promotion. You want a social media or blogging platform, rather. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 12DionneJ

Simply continuing work that has been done regarding the topic of Toyota Transmissions that has been done over the past 2 decades here on wikipedia. Please approve this article as well as the other 3 I have created regarding these transmission series. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Kevin-Luv

This About The Famous Artist Lil 2jay I Work With Him Can You Please Out This On His Google thank You Kevin-Luv (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin-Luv: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Bettylella

Hello, as you can see from the talks we have modified the page multiple times, can you help me figure out what could be keeping it from being published? It seems to me that it respects the criteria of notability Thanks in advance Bettylella (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bettylella: what's currently keeping it from being published is that it hasn't been resubmitted for another review. If you feel that you have sufficiently addressed the previous decline reasons, click on that blue 'resubmit' button and a reviewer will take a look at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick glance suggests that some of the sources do not mention him and others are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I think that the problem is, that I'm not use to work on the English wiki. In the reference 9 you have put "failed verification" because I have referenced the web link instead the report but, if you open the report, at 39 page Annexe I, you have the name of Mr Leclercq as one of 39 members of the High Level Expert Group of the European Commission. I apologize for all these problems and thank you so much for you time and help. Bettylella (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettylella: yes, you should wherever technically possible point to the specific URL that contains the source which directly supports the given statement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the EN wikipedia is different from the italian and french ones with which I am used to work and it seems I cannot reference PDF files. Can one of you make it or tel me how to do it? Bettylella (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettylella: citing a PDF should work the same as citing any other online resource, just by pointing to the PDF's URL. But yeah, I'll take a look at it shortly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your answer. Bettylella (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:04, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Siqi Huang

What should I do to improve my reference? Siqi Huang (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Siqi Huang: I don't know, and I can't read the sources; pinging Johannes Maximilian who was the last reviewer to decline this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please improve the citation style. Bare links or a set of characters aren't very useful; please use a common citation style, e.g., author, title, work, date, access-date for online sources. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Wowlastic10

User:Zoglophie This article is different from Laccadive Islands but it assists in gaining knowledge of islands present in Lakshadweep, so it would be helpful if you move it to the main article page. Thanks!! Wowlastic10 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wowlastic10: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. The last reviewer suggested incorporating the salient new content (appropriately supported) into the existing Laccadive Islands article instead. Feel free to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 26 February 2024 review of submission by James.mcgilfoy203

The rejection issue was "not reliable sources". I was wondering while writing the article if citing the primary sources for app store links was incorrect. However, it has sources from large publications as theverge.com. I'm a bit unsure if they are not considered "reliable", but based on the article linked it was a secondary source reviewing the original article. Would it help if I removed the primary source app store links from the sources list, and only used them in the external links section? Any help appreciated. I'm trying to get into Wikipedia editing. James.mcgilfoy203 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the core question is complying with WP:Notability, which here boils down to finding a couple of independent published sources that cover the topic in depth. The closest thing you have to those is three websites each of which reviewed ~5 of this type of product and an interview of the creator in a web site. IMO this puts you in "edge case" territory". There are also some minuses which maybe technically shouldn't matter but give it a bad look. Some of your "sources" besides being "primary" are really not sources.....sales type pages on web sites. Also the article is written like a self-description. My advice:
  • Find and add another independent source which cover it in depth
  • Re-write it like you are and editor trying to inform your readers about this product
  • Take out some of those listings that aren't even sources. Don't even put them into external links (although it is OK to put the supplier's main website in as an external link.)
I'm guessing that the above would make it fly. Or, if you do all of the above ping me and I'll review it. Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

00:19, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Boxinglove

This is an event as a boxing lover we need to know about any upcoming boxing event and its always in media and its official, not promoting its just for information for our boxing fans. Boxinglove (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

advice all how can i fix this. Boxinglove (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have little more than announcements of the fight as sources. For this fight to merit an article before it occurs, you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the fight and how it is notable. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:23, 27 February 2024 review of submission by AWolfSpider

I'm confused as to why this was rejected. These sources are both about as reputable as they get in terms of spiders and there is no information in the stub I wrote that isn't verified in one if not both of the sources. AWolfSpider (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given for the rejection was a WP:Notability criteria one. Prima facie this requires in-depth coverage by confirmed WP:RS's. This article falls short in both the "in depth" part and the wp:RS part, the latter being due to just mentioning on 2 web sites vs some authoritative published publication. (BTW, there are more species on the planet than there are articles in the entire Wikipedia, so vetting of some type is needed) IMO the common practice for a species article is that when there is a confirmed reliable source that says that the species exists with some content to put into the article, and the editor takes the time to write more than a stub on it, that the "in depth" coverage-in-sources criteria gets relaxed. My advice is to find and add a published confirmed-reliable source and build the article a bit more. If you wish to do that and ping me I'd be happy to take a look at it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:26, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Designedits

The decision that this figure is not notable, is entirely subjective and by virtue of the fact that this designer works in the public sphere at an International and domestic level on projects of significant public and private significance is pedantically short-sighted and completely inconsistent with the existence of other Australian figures in this industry who currently have live wikipedia articles. These call on far inferior references and are outdated or not even correctly attributed. (see links at the base of this entry to two examples).

How is it that the importance of the 20 year career of an award-winning, author, internationally published and actively working Australian designer isn't deemed notable? The superficial and subjective nature of this review by user Xegma - a self-professed resident of Kolkata, India, whose special interests are Indian television - demonstrates little understanding of the place this individual holds in this industry - locally or abroad. How is this not peer reviewed, in the context of other articles that have been approved for Wikipedia. It makes very little sense.

James Treble Greg Natale Designedits (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Designedits I fixed your link, the "Draft:" needs to be included. We don't need the whole url when linking to an article or page on Wikipedia, just place the title in double brackets, as I've done here.
That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. These other articles could themselves be problematic and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing based on a misunderstanding of WP:Notability. The most viable route of the the two possibilities is to meet WP:GNG which means to argue that there is in depth coverage of him in independent WP:RS's. BTW IMO this criteria has been met in the sources provided in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable" is perhaps an unfortunate word. What it means in Wikipedia speak is none of "important" or "influential", or "famous", or "popular", or even "significant"; it means "there is enough reliable independent material published about the subject to base an article on" - remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:56, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Rafaelquint99

Requesting a review of the cuisine section to make it more encyclopedic. Added references to section and rephrased part of the section otherwise. Rafaelquint99 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelquint99: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have successfully submitted the draft, and a reviewer will assess it at some point; please be patient.
Do you have a connection with this business, by any chance? If so, it needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:23, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Manonmission1970

Hi, Last week, I created article shell for Post Disaster Management Australia, in my sandbox. ... I am working with Dr. Pau Steinfort to co-create this page. There is NO other page on this topic. He brings over 47 years experience in this area, has a PHD and order of Australia, and I have over 20 years in post disaster and community projects, and over 30 year in general program management. I'm really struggling to understand why the core index which i have created in my sandbox was not approved. We are aiming to populate this article, but if Wikipedia doesn't approve the core skeleton of the article, it is not possible to populate the rest of the contents. we have decades of experience in this area, and the materials being consolidated does not existing in a single location. Last week, we were asked again to provide inputs into post disaster recovery, which could easily be put in wikipedia. How can we move this forward. Paul Manonmission1970 (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manonmission1970: you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. We publish encyclopaedic articles on subjects which are deemed notable. They are written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, and those sources must be cited both to verify the information and to establish notability. Your draft was unreferenced, and therefore had no evidence of notability. You and your co-author may well be eminent subject matter experts capable of writing about this topic knowledgeably, but that's not what we want; we instead want to see a summary of published information, appropriately referenced, as explained above. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An index will not be approved as an article. An article must do as DoubleGrazing states.
Wikipedia is not a free webhost for you to host information for a "target audience". This is an encyclopedia, typically written by lay people for all lay people. Please see WP:EXPERT. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:46, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Mustafdesam

The article Draft:Chaman_Chakko is about a notable and upcoming film editor in Indian films.  Mustafdesam (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mustafdesam: "notable" and "upcoming" are pretty much mutually exclusive. In any case, this draft has been rejected for lack of evident notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 27 February 2024 review of submission by JoeManMac

I am the staff of Multiable Company and I would like to create a page for the term "Multiable". I am stuck with the reference links since Multiable does not have much qualify reference links. What can I do to create the Multiable page successfully? JoeManMac (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeManMac: the very first thing you need to do is to formally disclose your paid-editing status; I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions.
As for your draft, Wikipedia articles are mostly written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. If you cannot find such sources, then it may not be possible to write an article on your employer at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoeManMac What you are essentially asking is "I want to build a house, but I don't have land, the permits, or the materials, so how can I build a house successfully?". If you don't have appropriate sources, there cannot be an article about your employer. Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist, nor is it a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 27 February 2024 review of submission by সফিউল ইসলাম

Do you think this article is like a promotion? সফিউল ইসলাম (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuous submission without improvement constituted WP:DE, which also shows that your intent is not about any value addition to Wikipedia, instead about just having an article by any means. Also your previous creation draft:Safiul Islam (Researcher), which is the translation of your name in Bengali shows that you are here only to promote yourself and related others. zoglophie•talk• 10:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:14, 27 February 2024 review of submission by SejalMedia

Why Rejected Articles? SejalMedia (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:17, 27 February 2024 review of submission by SejalMedia

I created article Saurabh Sudam Tamhane, Saurabh is indian actor, There is NO other page on this topic. SejalMedia (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 27 February 2024 review of submission by 102.220.41.253

I don't have enough experience in editing article in Wikipedia, kindly help me, need for support in submision of this article 102.220.41.253 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. I have rejected your article draft as not being notable enough for inclusion in the project. There is no indication Ayub meets our criteria for inclusion, sorry. Qcne (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will help you by advising you to not even try the challenging task of creating a new article until you have spent at least a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles. When you have an understanding of notability, reliable sources and neutral point of view, you may be ready to read your first article and have a go at creating an article. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Yoleeth

Hi! I used another wikipedia page as an example when writing this one, as they are similar in company type, and also lists some of the product produced. I also used independent, reliable, unbiased sources. Other feedback on why this submission was declined would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Yoleeth (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! Forgot to include the example I used, Adafruit Industries. Yoleeth (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoleeth: modelling your draft on an existing article is risky (unless, perhaps, the article is rated good, which the Adafruit one isn't), as the article may have issues that haven't been picked up yet, and which you won't want to replicate in your draft.
Your primary objective is to find sources that clearly satisfy the WP:NCORP standard for notability, summarise what they have said about the subject, and cite each source against the information it has provided. No additional 'spin' or promotional content should be included. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your posting above, translated into housebuilding terms, is something like "I tried to build a house that looks like that one", when you don't know anything about surveying, construction methods, or legal requirements for housebuilding in your area. The crucial part of the work (finding suitable sources) needs to be done before writing a single word, because otherwise you risk all you work being wasted if you can't find the sources (in my analogy, the site not being suitable for building on). ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 27 February 2024 review of submission by JackMorley23

Good Afternoon, please advise me on why this isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia? Alex Blake is an world famous actor appearing in some biggest and best selling series of the century. JackMorley23 (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackMorley23: the sources simply aren't sufficient to establish notability. (Not to mention that this is very promotional throughout.) Anyway, the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Double Grazing, can you please explain how the sources are sufficient enough. IMBD is probably one of the biggest platforms for actors in the world (This is the main source). In terms of it been very promotional I would strongly disagree and align that this is the same as any other actor on WIKI. Please advise if this can be reviewed again. JackMorley23 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is user-editable and as such is unacceptable as a source here. If there are other articles that are similar to this draft, please identify them so we can take action. Other poor articles cannot justify adding more poor articles, see Other stuff exists. Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors have come to the consensus that IMDB is not a reliable source, see WP:IMDB. Qcne (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:38, 27 February 2024 review of submission by 31.4.159.31

If Gibraltar Wave FC were a men`s football club there would be no doubts. Being a women`s team......what a pity guys 31.4.159.31 (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking a question? The rejection has absolutely zero to do with the fact that this is a women's team. As a reviewer stated "A new football club with no participation in notable events. Records section is also unsourced." 331dot (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:58, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Sojijos

How can I create relevant articles that will not get rejected? Sojijos (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to your user page, but are you referring to Draft:Advenser? It was declined, not rejected. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By understanding Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Hewer7

Hi. This draft article was declined due to needing more published sources. I have included the following: a published article in a peer reviewed scientific journal; a link to a article by UPI - United Press International, and a recent book written by experts in the field, which covers the idea, showing that it has gained at least some acceptance. I don't understand why more sources should be needed. Could someone expand on what exactly is needed and why please? Hewer7 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hewer7 I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. You have described their theory, but not offered sources that discuss what makes it important, or notable. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the book I referenced explains why it is notable. It is an alternative idea that fits within general relativity and produces a universe that is “looks essentially identical to the aftermath of the big bang” according to big bang supporting cosmologists Barnes and Lewis. Geraint Lewis, according to his Wikipedia page is " a Professor of Astrophysics (Teaching and Research) at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, part of the University of Sydney's School of Physics. He is head of the Gravitational Astrophysics Group. He was previously the Associate Head for Research at the School of Physics, and held an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship between 2011 and 2015. Lewis won the 2016 Walter Boas Medal in recognition of excellence in research in Physics. In 2021, he was awarded the David Allen Prize of the Astronomical Society of Australia for exceptional achievement in astronomy communication." Hewer7 (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Hewer7

Hi. The draft article was declined due to needing more or better sources. However I have included references to: a well respected peer reviewed science journal; an article published by United Press International; a book written by experts in the field around 17 years after the initial scientific paper. I felt that these should be enough. Could you please explain what more is required, if so, and why? Hewer7 (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore please, duplicate Hewer7 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Founderofthecity1234

Please help me fix this draft, I do not know and understand why it keeps getting rejected when it is done in the same tone and context as other pages in the same field Founderofthecity1234 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has many big problems but IMO the article could be passed anyway. The key thing is meeting wp:notability and I took the time to go though that mess of a "reference" section (which is really set up as just a list of external links) and found sources that provide the requisite coverage. Hypothetically you could resubmit for review and ping me and I'd pass it but why not fix up some of the severe problems and have some fun and learn first? Start by learning the basic way on how to do references and citations in Wikipedia and then put n references and cites to them into the article. Also convert those two in-line external links into cites to references. The tone isn't too bad but you can improve it by finding the sources (in your list) that provide in depth coverage of the topic and put some material from them into the article, cited to that reference. Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 27 February 2024 review of submission by RRCC6200

Please 

tell me what I did wrong in creating the River Ridge Commerce Center page RRCC6200 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too many serious problems to try to cover here. BTW including copyvio. Suggest not pursuing trying to create this at this time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked. Also, renamed to Robinlee6200.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 27 February 2024 review of submission by RRCC6200

Can I keep the name and change the content to abide by the rules of Wikipedia? RRCC6200 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RRCC6200 this is likely to be deleted for violating Wikipedia's rules against promotion but you are welcome to recreate a draft that is within policies and guidelines. See Your first article for guidance along with WP:BACKWARD and avoid WP:PEACOCK terms (i.e. start with what reputable sources that have no affiliation with the topic have about written it and work from there). S0091 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Artisticresearch

Jason Pine is a Berlin Prize-winning writer and anthropologist, and serves as a full professor at the State University of New York. His distinguished career and contributions to the field of anthropology are well-documented through numerous secondary sources, underlining his fulfillment of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Pine's work, which spans ethnography, cultural analysis, and the study of socio-economic dynamics, has garnered recognition for its depth and impact. Artistic Research (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? I have declined your draft because the tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. For example it is littered with ridiculous, inappropriate puffery and unsourced content “Pine’s work eschews the use of ethnographic research for transcendental theory-making” “He immerses readers directly into the environments he studies,” “Pine's work demonstrates a commitment to making scholarly research accessible to a wider audience through careful attention to the art of writing and reading” etc etc etc it will need a complete re-write.Theroadislong (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now rejected this draft, @Artisticresearch, as you submitted it again with promotional language throughout. Either read and understand WP:NPOV or don't waste any more volunteer time. Thanks. Qcne (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


February 28

00:02, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Franciscoevan

Dear Wikipedia Expert Editors,

I am resubmitting my draft article on Mahavatar Swami Bhai after carefully implementing revisions based on the feedback provided from Vgbyp during his previous review. Here's how I've addressed the key suggestions:

Notability: I've incorporated additional secondary sources, including news features and published works.

Neutrality: I've revised the language to eliminate any promotional tone.

Secondary Sources: I've made an effort to prioritize secondary sources.

I would be grateful for any further guidance you could provide to make this article even more aligned with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for the support.

Note: I have fixed the link to the draft as a courtesy to responders; Franciscoevan is the draft creator. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Franciscoevan: the draft has been submitted (for rather than by you, but still), and a reviewer will take a look at it at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 28 February 2024 review of submission by M.Shaseeb

Hello,

I am trying to create a page on the Law Reform Commission of Mauritius and every time, the article is being rejected upon review for the reason that it infringes the copyright policy of wikipedia. You may wish to note that the articles which Wikipedia found to have been copied are the works of the Commission. I have pointed out this issue at the beginning. Grateful if you can enlighten me of how to proceed with the creation of the page as I have tight deadline to complete this task.

Thanks and kind regards,

Shaseeb 

M.Shaseeb (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@m.shaseeb: don't copy anything. ltbdl (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Shaseeb: you say they are "the works of the Commission", as if that is a defence – that is precisely the problem. If the original author has released the content under a compatible licence, or it has otherwise entered into the public domain, we need to see evidence of that. Anything that is explicitly under copyright cannot be used, and anything where copyright status is unclear or implied must be assumed to be under copyright also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Cagnotti

Hello!

I am in charge of communication at IRSOL and have created a Wikipedia page in English.

To create it, I used the Italian page, which already exists: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRSOL I used the same links and references.

Yet my draft was rejected.

Please, can you help me to make it suitable for publication?

Thank you in advance.

Marco Cagnotti Cagnotti (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cagnotti: the different language versions of Wikipedia are entirely separate projects with their own policies and guidelines; what is acceptable in the Italian version may not be acceptable here, and vice versa. Here we need the subject to demonstrate notability, which in the case of organisations requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites two papers, neither of which meets this standard.
It is also unclear where the information in the draft comes from, as it has only two citations, both in the 'Instrumentation' section, with the rest of the content unreferenced.
Your draft was not 'rejected', only declined, meaning you are welcome to resubmit it once you have addressed the decline reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply.
I have added some independent and reliable references. Can you please check if everything is OK now?
Thank you in advance.
M.C. Cagnotti (talk) 09:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:26, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Artisticresearch

Please help to re-write this entry with more a neutral tone - thanks. Artistic Research (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artisticresearch: this draft has been rejected already.
In any case, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk.
Please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the existing one. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Justice11590

i don't know why you have deleted it . I want to know the reason Justice11590 (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Justice11590: it hasn't been deleted yet, although it soon will be. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free hosting provider for your (?) poems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Do you also operate the Lucifer115 account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 28 February 2024 review of submission by EnesYila

Hi, I submitted a draft on Mikko Tolonen. On the topic, I could find only these sources: uni web page for Tolonen, a few news, some biographical information from a few foundations, and a blog page on Mikko Tolonen. I wonder whether the uni web page on Tolonen is considered as a secondary source or not. Also, what would you recommend me to solve the current issues further? EnesYila (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EnesYila: no, his own university page is primary, as well as being close to him (ie. not independent). It can be used to verify non-contentious facts, but not much beyond that.
Your primary aim here is to consider whether he meets one or more of the criteria enumerated in WP:NACADEMIC, and to reliable provide evidence to back up any such claim. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. Now it has more detail on the number of publications, awards, academic projects funded by Academy of Finland, and collaborations with more diverse sources. I primarily aimed to show
"his impact in the field" with independent and reliable sources such as news,
"awards" he has been given by respective institutions such as Ministry of Education of Finland (related to criterion 2),
and being in the executive board of EADH (related to criterion 6).
I hope now the text meets one or more of the criteria. Feel free to correct me if further edit is needed. EnesYila (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:42, 28 February 2024 review of submission by SportsSquareEditor

Can somebody help me with my article? Pleaseeeeee SportsSquareEditor (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that your newsletter is notable, I have tagged it fro speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 28 February 2024 review of submission by 209.96.100.32

How to get accepted 209.96.100.32 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find and include two published independent sources that cover him in depth. I'm guessing that those don't exist in which case I'd suggest not trying to make a Wikipedia article on him. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Nightwish1239

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for Beginners. Thank you. I receive this how to make it right Nightwish1239 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightwish1239: I'm assuming you're referring to  Courtesy link: Draft:Mariana Ilieva? It is completely unreferenced, and was simultaneously declined for both lack of reliable sources and lack of inline citations. You need to provide referencing, to tell us where all this information is coming from, and you need to do this specifically by way of inline citations, so that it is clear which source has provided which bit of the information. See WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I delete it.
Example: Andrea Bocceli I removed to cite to his wikipedia page Nightwish1239 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Wikinoobrider

This is my first article need help or assistance in writing it Wikinoobrider (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:12, 28 February 2024 review of submission by Urps5

Hi can you help me to make Anvay Saxena better. Urps5 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 29

00:36, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Ppotatoman

WHY WAS IT DECLINED??????? Ppotatoman (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ppotatoman I fixed your link so we can look at the draft. It was not only declined, itnwas rejected, as you provided no summary of independent reliable sources that discuss this Sims character and why it is notable If you just want to tell the world about it, you should use social media, or perhaps a wiki type project on Fandom. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, thank you for your patience. Please note on their talk page that I blocked a few accounts. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:08, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Erm1bas

I finished adding properly references and citations. Could you please check improved version I have made. I don’t think anyone would be able to do this informations except me. If you have more questions about source please ask me. I think there is now enough informations and it is worth for Wikipedia. If you want to publish it yourself please do it with informations I included myself. Thank you very much Erm1bas (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was rejected, it won't be considered further, please use social media to promote yourself, not Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not promoting my self. I have right to write this article as I am most skilled to write it. Someone else wrote description and I just transferred it to Wikipedia. I think I deserve consideration for article to be accepted. I am not the only one who did it this way and it isn’t against rules. I only needed time to do it properly as this is first time that I wrote article. Please read it again and try to consider it to be accepted. Thanks Erm1bas (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erm1bas: of course it is promotion, you are 'telling the world' about yourself and your books; that is pretty much the definition of promotion, see WP:YESPROMO. Besides, there is no evidence that you are notable by Wikipedia standards.
In any case, I have rejected this draft, and it will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone else try to do same article about Ermin Basic then it wouldn’t be promoting and it would be accepted. Is it what you are saying? Erm1bas (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the draft was rejected because it had zero evidence of you passing WP:GNG it doesn't matter who writes it, if there are no independent, reliable sources it will not be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. This is good experience for me where I learned little bit about your rules and the way how it is working for someone biography to be published in Wikipedia. So in the future I will have more experience about writing articles in Wikipedia as this is really for me respectable organisation. I hope in the future someone else will be able to write proper Ermin Basic biography on Wikipedia and that it will be accepted.All the best for you who contributed to my experience on Wikipedia 😊🙏❤️
Thanks Erm1bas (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:06, 29 February 2024 review of submission by MintSpiral

The reviewer just left the comment “Charts?”. I’ve added some information regarding the artist’s radio chart positions (Billboard Pop Airplay and Mediabase Top 40/Hot AC) for their most popular song. I don’t believe any of their other songs have entered charts. I believe the artist should already meet notability guidelines (as they have 2 albums published with a large record label), but I want to check that this will now be sufficient with this additional information. Also, have I provided this chart information in the correct place within the article? MintSpiral (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that interviews are not considered to be reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Africatalyst

Hello there.

I need assistance with this draft. It states that it has not been written in a neutral perspective and it has peacock terms on it. Apart from that it also has references which are not enough to warrant a wikipage for the person in the topic. Please help me with this. Africatalyst (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have eleven paragraphs which are unsourced. The review says to avoid peacock terms, that is not a big issue with your draft, just the lack of references. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Kalamkh

Can you help to put in a proper Biopic page template? Kalamkh (talk) 08:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Wikinoobrider

Have a doubt. I was told IMDB is not a genuine website. I have added links from journalists who have written articles and some are government oriented so are these links not genuine for referencing as well ??? Wikinoobrider (talk) 08:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikinoobrider: there appear to be at least a couple of user-generated sources, which are not considered reliable. Whether the others are suitable for verification and/or notability purposes, I don't know without doing a proper review. You will get more thorough feedback if and when you resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 29 February 2024 review of submission by 118.200.218.124

Hi, this page is on Robert Zhao, who is a well-known Singaporean artist representing Singapore at the Venice Biennale in 2024. Majority of the references in the article are from credible third party sources, such as overseas museums (eg. Tate), institutions and foundations (Kadist), as well as publications. We hope to have this page up and running for the public urgently as the Venice Biennale opens very soon, in April, so would really appreciate it if you could advise further, on what we can do to get this page approved. Thank you very much. 118.200.218.124 (talk) 09:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you are TRAhgnahs, please log into your account when editing.
Secondly, who is "we" in "We hope to have this page up and running for the public urgently"?
Thirdly, while you may be in a hurry to publicise this subject, we are not: Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline, and in any case we have no interest in promoting this or any other subject; for that, you need to find different marketing channels.
And finally, this draft was declined on November 5, and has not been resubmitted since. Therefore it is currently not on track to be reviewed, let alone published. If you feel that you have sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reasons, feel free to resubmit and a reviewer will get around to assessing it sooner or later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that museums that are exhibiting or have exhibited the subject's work are not generally independent sources: they can only be cited for limited purposes, and do not contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Rajadeshwal611

how can i write full topic Rajadeshwal611 (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 29 February 2024 review of submission by TheRealDogND

I do not understand why my draft was declined. My draft is in depth and has lots of information on the subject. My draft is reliable and I have a source from the original Pokémon company. I also did not copy and paste information from the source. I rephrased everything. And I am not the Pokémon company. TheRealDogND (talk) 13:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Spheal has zero independent sources, we have no interest in what the Pokemon company says. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Youngjimmymusic88

We don’t require any assistance, we Will wait for further developments in the coming months a let someone without a COI write this article. Thanks. Youngjimmymusic88 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been rejected so will not be considered further? Qcne (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 29 February 2024 review of submission by Twenty4marc

There is nióthung wrong with my last submission, is it? Twenty4marc (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1211080043"