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 ScriptKKiddie (talk | contribs) at 04:21, 16 March 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Fraud_Risk_Management). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


March 9

00:53, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Peter Griffin Explains

Why did you decline it? I worked very hard on it. It took me 1 hour to write it Peter Griffin Explains (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't an article, it was an essay. It was "what PGE thinks about this topic". DS (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:07, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Bello aristol

I’m requesting assistance because my article was rejected. Bello aristol (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@bello aristol: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Mode Trevor

How can I fix this error? Mode Trevor (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@mode trevor: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dupe ltbdl (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

09:43, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Mode Trevor

I have changed my article and wish for it to be published. Mode Trevor (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 9 March 2024 review of submission by 2A10:8012:13:BCB4:DB:90A4:9757:57C4

I do not understand why the article was declined for  not  been adequately supported by reliable sources

since it do includes several well known and reliable sources. Regards Igal Stulbach 2A10:8012:13:BCB4:DB:90A4:9757:57C4 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Most of the sources are related to you and/or are not significant coverage of you. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Rcjqffm

It is still not clear to me/us in what way this article seems to be written in the 'style of an advertisement'. There is nothing to sell here. We, the 2 authors, have no personal interest, but want to inform readers about an important amendment of the Council of Europe's CEFR. So may I once again ask for more specific criticism so we can alter those items, parts, passages which seem to be out of line with Wikipedia policies. Thanks! 

Rcjqffm (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say you "want to inform readers about an important amendment of the Council of Europe's CEFR" that sounds precisely like advertising? Theroadislong (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Xeno21x8

New editor so I may need just a bit assistance. Does this article require more suitable references? Should it be expanded as it's too short? Or a combination of both? Just trying to play it safe here haha. Xeno21x8 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that it may not be resubmitted at this time. All the sources provided are about his company(not him personally) or are associated with him; there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I see, would you recommend I create an article about the company on that note? Xeno21x8 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the company receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization, an article may be possible. Sources cannot include brief mentions, staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, or primary sources; sources should provide in depth coverage of what they see as important/significant/influential about the company- not what it might see as important about itself. Please read Your First article. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Akaayu

Please help me or guide me to published this article.I am new here I don't know any guide or policy. Akaayu (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's a good idea to learn some about Wikipedia first, by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, and using the new user tutorial. Diving right in to creating articles often leads to disappointment and frustration. Wikipedia is not a place to just document the existence of something and tell what it does- articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Slasher2point1

Hi,

My page that I am looking to create for the wife of Tommy Nelson was rejected because Imdb is not considered a reliable source for verifying her film and TV roles. Would the Letterboxd work instead as a reliable source?

Thank you! Slasher2point1 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, No. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for editorial control fact-checking. Letterboxd seems to be like GoodReads (and iMDB, and almost all wikis, including Wikipedia) in that its content is user generated. It is therefore not usable as a reliable source. Your absolute first task in creating an article (ideally before you write so much as a single word of it, so as to save you wasted work) is to find several (generally at least 3) sources, each of which meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarity, this is greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slasher2point1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ColinFine (talk), apologies, one more question. What would you suggest for a website then to verify roles as the main ones are IMDb and Letterboxd for actors? With her appearance on the Show High Maitenance, would it work better to site HBO itself (https://www.hbo.com/high-maintenance/season-2/8-ghost) or something from a website like Vulture (https://www.vulture.com/article/high-maintenance-episodes-ranked-worst-best.html). Any help would be greatly appreciated as the previous page I made was for a feature film actor and this is my first time making one with more shorts/television roles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slasher2point1 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Alexjames12

Why is my submission keep getting rejected and the subject am writing about is notable Alexjames12 (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the subject may be in the world, you have consistently failed to show that he meets that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so the draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:42, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Sdsds

The content at Gaganyaan-5 warrants moving it to draftspace. (See also Draft:Gaganyaan-4 and its talk page.) AFCH might allow doing this with appropriate messages posted to user talk pages, etc. Is this currently possible with AFCH, or do other helper scripts do this task? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

01:11, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Emmykeys001

in writing articles Emmykeys001 (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmykeys001, your draft is highly promotional and entirely unreferenced. It is not appropriate for this encyclopedia. Read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:18, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Job R You Tshavis Victorious

The only way I could see the point is to get Job R You Tshavis Victorious (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Job R You Tshavis Victorious: what? ltbdl (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft seems to have no content at all. Please read WP:YFA. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Poplopoa

why?? Poplopoa (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@poplopoa: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. deleting the rejection notice will not change that. ltbdl (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 10 March 2024 review of submission by 219.74.85.151

Hi, our draft has been declined twice and we would really appreciate any advice on this. The feedback given on this article was that it reads as an advertisement. Could you specify in what way does the article appears as so? Is it due to the lack of sources or the general tone of the article? Also, on the matter of sources, we cited from a variety of other sources apart from our own. Hope to hear back soon, thank you! 219.74.85.151 (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in to your account. Who is "we"? If you work for this organization, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure; please also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 10 March 2024 review of submission by RashidB123

I have added several independent sources to confirm the notability of the person, however, the draft has been rejected again. Can you please help me to identify the gaps/redraft to enable me get the approval.

Thanks for your help RashidB123 (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected there is nothing further you can do, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 10 March 2024 review of submission by 77.102.77.218

How can we get this draft looked at again for publication? There is a lot more information now 77.102.77.218 (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we'? user accounts are for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected last week. This means the the rejecting reviewer (@331dot) had come to the conclusion that sources sufficient to establish notability simply don't exist.
The sources you have recently added, even if they were properly formatted citations, rather than external links, would do nothing whatever to alter that, since not one of them is indpependent of Quinn.
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) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:55, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Wilfie66

Hi Can you tell me if my article has been submitted for review or do I need to re-submit? I see that a couple of editors made some changes on March 3rd but these don't seem to be reflected in the status of my article. I'm new to all this so would appreciate any help please. Wilfie66 (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you put an IP address where your draft title, Draft:Soulla Petrou should go, but as indicated on the draft, it was successfully submitted. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Snigdhakm

Hello Wikipedia Team. Not only this article, there are many other articles of many other eminent actors of Bengali Film Industry in Wikipedia. They are truly required to be mentioned here. We do need a lot of help of you all to add them up here.

Apart from that I have put all the true and possible references of this article to be established in Wikipedia. Mayukh Mukhrejee is an eminent actor since his childhood and is a multi talented person, whom the Bengali film industry knows well.

Thanks for your kind help in advance. Snigdhakm (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Snigdhakm. You have not demonstrated notability through the use of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Please read WP:NACTOR carefully. Qcne (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

05:01, 11 March 2024 review of submission by ASR.killadi.da

Please approve this article because it is updated to my best of knowledge. ASR.killadi.da (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has not been submitted for review, but it will be declined because it is unsourced with no evidence of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 11 March 2024 review of submission by BrizAlmighty

Not understanding why the reliability of the magazines cited is questionable. BrizAlmighty (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 11 March 2024 review of submission by Vastelian-Chairman

My page was declined with no reason My Wikipedia page for Vastelland was declined. I do not know why, it said that it had issue with getting a reliable source. I don't know what that means as isn't that the point of a Wikipedia page? Vastelland is a country with similar autonomy to Molossia, a micro-nation in Nevada. The main difference between Molossia and Vastelland is popularity. Many people know of Molossia, not many know of Vastelland other than close people (this is due to security issues). Please don't take down my page again, I really want it on here. Thank you - Vastelian Chairman. Vastelian-Chairman (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended(you has a statement there instead). The draft was not declined "for no reason". You have no independent reliable sources to support the content of your draft. A draft about your micronation must summarize what independent sources choose on their own to say about it. If there are no such sources, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. It doesn't matter if that's because you choose not to otherwise publicize your micronation for security reasons. In any event, Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first, Others need to write about your micronation before there can be an article here to summarize what they say. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:38, 11 March 2024 review of submission by Cooldudeseven7

I previously have gotten a notice saying that I do not have a good source, and my article, SuperSKU, got declined. I have added a few sources to resolve this. Is my article worthy of Wikipedia yet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3ASuperSKU Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews. If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer(please also see their note about conflict of interest), you may resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 11 March 2024 review of submission by G.B.A.J.Hudson

Please would you tell me where I have referenced Wikipedia in this submission G.B.A.J.Hudson (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have now removed the references to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 11 March 2024 review of submission by Fellow22

Hello, how can i get a rejected article reviewed again after editing? Fellow22 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fellow22: normally you can't, that's what rejection means – end of the road. If there are sources which weren't considered earlier and which you believe would establish notability, you may however appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay, thanks for your response Fellow22 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:52, 11 March 2024 review of submission by DegenerateCabbage

review of submission by DegenerateCabbage Please review this draft for publication. It was made with the help of the translation tool, but it's my first time using it for translating *to* English, so, help is much appreciated. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Incident_at_the_Quran_and_Etrat_Clinic_in_Qom DegenerateCabbage (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DegenerateCabbage I fixed the header to provide a link to the draft as intended. You will need to read Referencing for beginners. The Persian Wikipedia likely has different requirements than here, we are usually stricter. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the messed up references. When I translate articles using the translation tool, I just drag and drop the references and it works seamlessly. I wonder why it didn't work here... And of course, that is not acceptable. I would've worked on it, if I wasn't already told that it's not in-depth enough. I understand the point, it's a developing situation. I'll wait for more info, thanks. DegenerateCabbage (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 11 March 2024 review of submission by DheimOhss

Need help with declined submission for Radio Wolf draft I am trying to understand why my draft submission was declined and how I can improve it. The article is here - Draft:Radio Wolf

The first claim is that their soundtrack release, PROXIMITY, is covered under the wiki page for the artist that they worked with on the project. I feel like since they shared responsibilities in the production of the soundtrack that it should be included in this new wiki page. In fact, Radio Wolf (the topic of my draft) is the person that was contacted to make the album.

The second claim was a bit odd as I referenced 12 other artists that Radio Wolf has worked with in major capacity, such as being producer, on various albums, as well as listed many of his own personal works, so the claim that he isn't separate enough from Parallels is strange. DheimOhss (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DheimOhss I fixed the header to provide a link to your draft as intended. He doesn't seem to meet the definition of a notable musician as an individual. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the solution then be to provide better citations for his work? DheimOhss (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need citations that show he meets the notability definition as an individual. Paul McCartney merits a standalone article due to his notable solo career, not because he was part of The Beatles. Which aspect or aspects of the notable musician definition do you claim he meets? 331dot (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help on this, btw. :)
I think the claims I would make are:
- That he is referenced on the IMDB for the soundtrack https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8718300/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cl_sm as an original song writer, and the album itself won Best Song by the LA Film Awards (which I cited in my original draft). I believe that would be #9 and #10 on the "notable musician" page as it won first place and "performance in a television show or notable film", which the movie is.
- He also satisfies #10 by having his remix of Miss Deringer's "Black Tears" featured in the American TV series, 'How I met Your Mother' DheimOhss (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see (but I may have missed it) an article about something called the "LA Film Awards", so that wouldn't contribute to notability.
10 also says "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article."
Even his songwriting (which would fall under WP:COMPOSER) seems to be as part of a team/collaborative effort. I'm not seeing how he is notable as an individual. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Film Awards are in my citations as #3, here - https://www.lafilmawards.net/single-post/january-2021 That counts as #9 I believe. While #10 does say "if this is the only claim", I think it isn't his only claim as the LA Film Awards satisfies #9 and then #10, either by itself or partially, by the movie soundtrack and the song in a TV series. DheimOhss (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DheimOhss, the LA Film Awards is a non-notable and overtly promotional "pay to play" award business with pretty much no credibility in Hollywood. The filmmakers nominate themselves and pay non-refundable fees to be considered. They give out dozens of these awards every month. Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

01:36, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 2409:4070:4401:C5C9:4D2E:2CA1:57F0:D080

Please tell me how to improve article. please describe this! 2409:4070:4401:C5C9:4D2E:2CA1:57F0:D080 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you're talking about Draft:Chandu Kanuri, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:00, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 218.145.201.226

I would like to know if the way references and external links are written is the correct form,or not. I would appreciate any advice or help I could get. Thank you. 218.145.201.226 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sixteen numbered references are all formatted incorrectly. If done correctly, they should display full bibliographic details, instead of just a number in square brackets. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if the referencing and citations are good with this last changes.

06:17, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Hamster1215

Why my article cannot being posted public ？ Is there any Missing information ，i just need to Create a Article about for Information about my Local Community Radio Station Hamster1215 (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamster1215, your draft lacks references to significant coverage of this radio station in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the radio station. Please read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Habnster1215, please understand 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) 10:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:29, 12 March 2024 review of submission by RandalKeithNorton

What changes do I need to make? I've presented sources of the phrase being used in various contexts. RandalKeithNorton (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RandalKeithNorton, please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Hkc345

I'm just wondering whether or not the use of the subject's own website as a reference for the information on the subject's Wikipedia Page is acceptable. Similarly, would using photos and images as references be acceptable? Thank you Hkc345 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hkc345: you're really not asking the right questions. You should be asking how to demonstrate that the person is notable by Wikipedia standards, and how to reference the information so that it is verifiable from reliable sources. Not to mention, how to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner, and without copypasting content from external sources.
But yes, you can cite the subject's own website as a source, for very limited and entirely non-contentious information such as date and place of birth.
As for images, they have no bearing on anything at this stage, and are in that sense largely useless. BTW, you've marked the images as your 'own work', which implies a connection with this subject. Please disclose that, in the same manner as you have disclosed another paid-editing relationship on your user page. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkc345, an acceptable Wikipedia article about a person almost entirely summarizes the significant coverage that published reliable sources independent of the person devote to the person. Your draft lacks any such references to independent sources and is not acceptable for that reason. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the replies.
When I mentioned images, I was referring to images and scans of newspapers and published sources. The sources for the information on the subject is not very readily available online.
And for information about his life and careers, does the same procedure applies?
Thank you Hkc345 (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, sources do not need to be online: they only need to be published. A reader may have to visit a Library or Archive to access the sources, but this is okay. You shouldn't scan in and upload any sources as this might breach copyright, just ensure the reference is formatted correctly to allow a reader to find the offline source if they so wish. Qcne (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Mohamedmarzz

I want to resubmit the article. I edited it and the article has no advertising tone to it, it's just stating facts! Mohamedmarzz (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.
To quote @DoubleGrazing further up this page: "If there are sources which weren't considered earlier and which you believe would establish notability, you may however appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft". But if you are going to do this, you had better be very sure that the new sources you are citing meet the criteria in WP:42, otherwise you are likely to annoy the reviewer by wasting their time. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Renas Osman

So far I have double checked the sources twice, they were reliable, even some of them from Apple, Yahoo News, and other international organization, but it got rejected

Thanks for responses Renas Osman (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is only one of the criteria applied to sources to establish notability. Another is indepedence. Basically, 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.
I haven't looked closely at them, but it is clear from the titles that most of your sources are not independent of Najm: they are either based on interviews, or on information he has provided.
To establish notability, you should look at every one of your sources critically, to check that it meets all the criteria in golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 42.108.124.108

Help me to publish this article. 42.108.124.108 (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What help are you seeking? Have you seen the messages left by reviewers? 331dot (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb, Google search, YouTube, Wikipedia and Commons are not independent reliable sources I’m afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Elina Lovtsova

Good afternoon, please tell me what’s wrong with the sources, which ones should be added? Elina Lovtsova (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elina Lovtsova: without putting too fine a point on it, the sources are rubbish. All churnalism (or worse) and primary sources, not one of them contributes towards notability per WP:NCORP.
As for what sources should you add, I don't know. I don't know where you got all this information from (although I could hazard a wild guess...), but that's what you should cite as your sources.
BTW, what is your relationship with this subject? I will post a message on your talk page regarding paid editing; please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not show that the company meets the special Wikipedia defition of a notable company and do not provide significant coverage of the company. The draft does little more than tell of the existence of the company and its routine activities; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the company and what makes it important/significant/influential as a company- not what the company may see as important about itself.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if you add a link to the official website, won’t that be enough? Elina Lovtsova (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elina Lovtsova: enough for what, to establish notability? No. Primary sources, especially ones close to the subject, don't even contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Yevrowl

Greetings! Please, if possible, help with advice. Are there any other sentences that may not correspond to the encyclopedic style? And if so, which ones exactly? Thanks a lot. Yevrowl (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yevrowl, I can see you've put effort into improving the overall quality of the submission, which is commendable. However, there are still some areas that need attention. When reading through, some sentences give the impression of promoting him. Take for instance, "Since 2017, he has focused on the digitalization of Kyiv and the implementation of blockchain technologies at the state level (Kyiv Smart City [uk], state registers, state procurement, and the like)." Also, I noticed that you've included every detail about him. Please consider removing any unnecessary sentences that lack support from sources or are simply not necessary. Additionally, it would be beneficial to trim down unnecessary references to avoid citation clutter. I hope this helps. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer:, thanks very much for help! I removed unnecessary (unconfirmed, additional and clarifying) information, and also checked the supporting links for uniqueness. Yevrowl (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Corporationstation

This seems to meet criteria for creation, though I'd love some feedback from others. Corporationstation (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Corporationstation: evidently not, since it has been rejected as non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 2406:7400:51:EDE8:5472:B902:1AEC:222C

Please publish this article as it is legitimate content to publish as he is upcoming producer in Karnataka please any one review and publish 2406:7400:51:EDE8:5472:B902:1AEC:222C (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't properly linked to the draft, and your IP has no other edits- remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Sri Hari has been rejected, and will not be considered further. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Omadacycline

Can help me to reference and cite it? Omadacycline (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find references for you, but you may see Referencing for Beginners for advice on writing references. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:12, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Zebes94

The email paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org is not working, I got this message back: Address not found Your message wasn't delivered to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.

Is there any other way to report a user trying to sell me a service to publish my article? Zebes94 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zebes94 email arbcom-enwikimedia.org and let them also know about this issues you encountered using paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org. S0091 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Primefac so he is aware and might be able to provide additional guidance given he is on the the WP:ARBCOM committee. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @S0091 Thanks for the prompt response! I have sent the email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org including my issue with the paid-en-wp email like you mentioned.
Thanks for all the help :) Zebes94 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @S0091 I sent my email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org and someone replied to me saying that the correct email to send these kinds of issues is paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. I orignially sent my issue to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org because that's the email stated in the warning section of the Articles for Creation wikipedia page: Wikipedia:Articles for creation Any idea on how to tell someone from AfC to fix that? I tried to do it myself but don't have permission. Zebes94 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zebes94 thanks raising the issue! S0091 (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error message when submitting

Hello,

I am trying to submit my article for review, but whenever I do I get this error message: "An error occurred (TypeError: undefined is not an object (evaluating 'json.query.pages')). Please try again or refer to the help desk." Why might this be, and what should I do? Thanks, Slamforeman (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slamforeman you do no identify which draft but Draft:Glenn Postolski is pending review. S0091 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 12 March 2024 review of submission by LivingWellat50

I keep getting declined. I DO NOT KNOW WHY. PLEASE HELP LivingWellat50 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that the draft should properly be titled Draft:2026 Oregon gubernatorial election, all of the provided references concern the 2022 election, while none address the 2026 election. Obviously there will eventually be an article on this race, but unless you find some more forward-looking references, perhaps it is simply too soon for it at the moment. --Finngall talk 21:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 12 March 2024 review of submission by DerekMuttley

Hello, Perhaps someone would point me in the right direction for this.. I have been assiduously attempting to provide citations for the page I created "Wilsons Tales of the Borders" , but my data entry skills, and multiple word processor skills seem to have been defeated by the citation editor.

Could you tell me where to look, or how to overcome the logical impasse presented by an item which is intending to provide contextual material about a publication which does not exist on the internet? - Even the Newspaper archive only has a reference to a parent journal. When I attempt to provide a citation to the main printed book dealing with the topic, the citation edit input panel accepts data, and apparently closes normally, yet has neither accepted the entry or returned a validation error.

IS there, perhaps, some non-intuitive validation going on, or something as simple as 'there must be an entry in every box' which is not being indicated as an error?

- Using Safari 17.2.

Apologies if these kind of queries should go elsewhere. I shall take no offence if you tell me to just go away..

R DerekMuttley (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DerekMuttley the draft has no references and some of the content appears to to be original research. Please see Your first article for guidance. S0091 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
That makes sense, according to what can be seen on the page. However, I provided links to different sources, and have spent far too much time wrestling with the idiosyncrasies of the citation panel to try and provide a reference to the major book, published on 2018, from which some of the passages are drawn. Even quoting an ISBN, publisher, author, page numbers, doesn't appear to work. My 40 years in IT design says that either you accept the user's input, or you provide an error message explaining why it is refused. Neither of these things happened, which I regard as a failing in the software. Given that the book has no web presence, but it must appear in Nielson's ISBN catalogue for UK publications I'm at a bit of a loss.
I HAVE read the help pages on inserting a citation.
Oh, one other minor point - the Publication I am providing background for is mentioned in several other pages relating to the creator - JM Wilson, and to editors -Alexander Leighton etc. Given that WikiP is already quoting it, it seemed trivial, when I started, to make a page that the existing articles could link to which gave a bit of background to the publication that is already described.
Despite it's huge circulation and popularity in the mid nineteenth century there are no digital copies of the publication, though plenty of reprints of selected content. It deserves a bit of background and amplification if only to supplement the existing author's pages.
So to return to the plot. If I alter links to web references, does that satisfy the criteria? Reference to anything on the internet could be held to be ephemeral though. My problem seems to be that I am attempting to provide a description and definition of a work which exists in reprint form in thousands of libraries yet has no digitised original copies. A catch-22 ?
R DerekMuttley (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerekMuttley use the Visual Editor. When in edit mode over the right there is a pencil icon where you can switch between Source editor or Visual. Select Visual then click on the double quotes icon (next to the link icon). Automatic works for most websites, Google Books and WorldCat links and sometimes ISBNs. If the ISBN does not work and it's not available on Google Books or WorldCat, then select the manual tab>book and fill out pertinent details. See also WP:INTREFVE. I can't say the sources are enough because they have not yet been cited and I agree, Wikipedia does not make generating citations easy especially if they are not online. S0091 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. I'm relieved that it isn't just me then.
If I may (mis)interprete what you say - use the markup language!
I'm happy with that. Have to brush up on the SGML derivative / syntax etc.
And I'll revisit my critique about data entry validation if I can find the right gateway for making change suggestions.
Many thanks for your help. Much appreciated.
R DerekMuttley (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

00:10, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Heartleap

Hello everyone! I was wondering if anyone could help me understand why my article was declined? I believe the submission's references do show that the subject qualifies for an article. Would it help to label the article a "stub," similar to this one for musician Gobbinjr? Thank you very much in advance for your help, I really appreciate it! Heartleap (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear how they pass WP:NSINGER? Theroadislong (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Hello! Thank you for looking over the draft! I believe the subject fulfills criteria 1 for musicians and ensembles (WP:NSINGER), but I understand that term "multiple" (in reference to the number of articles pertaining to the subject) is vague/subjective, so people could have differing opinions on what qualifies. Heartleap (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:12, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Journorc

I am wondering if you can link the form I have to sign since I know the person I am writing a wikipedia article about personally please Journorc (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@journorc: you don't sign a form, you declare it publicly. see here. ltbdl (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:19, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Klamakin

Hello, my newly created article just got rejected after many weeks of waiting to be reviewed. I'm new to Wikipedia and will appreciate any guidance on what should be corrected to make it pass. Thank you so much. Klamakin (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that resubmission is not possible at this time. You had no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her, just sources documenting her results. If you can find sources with significant coverage of her, you may first appeal to the rejecting reviewer. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a draft without first finding reliable independent sources (ones that meet WP:42) is like building a house without first surveying the site or checking local building regulations. At best, it is likely to require rebuilding (rewriting what you have written); and often it will be a complete waste of time, because the house cannot be built (your article cannot be accepted because the subject fails to pass Wikipedia's criteria for notability). ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:12, 13 March 2024 review of submission by WriterPankajRai

Yes, the writer is connected to the topic/subject. But still the content of the page is neutral and not promotional or biased.

Do let me know how to make it more neutral or what changes I should do to make it live. WriterPankajRai (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still have work to do to make it less promotional. On Wikipedia, there is no difference between "informational" and "promotional". Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You might have that, but you need to remove the promotional language and make sure the company is talked about in a very dry manner. As advised, see WP:SOLUTIONS.
You declared a connection; as you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that you make the stricter paid editing disclosure. You should do this on your user page and the draft talk page(not the draft itself, I will move it). 331dot (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:28, 13 March 2024 review of submission by 2003:EC:A70A:7701:50D:851E:4683:959A

Thanks for the review and feedback. I was wondering what kind of sources do you refer to base your rejection on, as the draft has more than 10 sources and all of them are from viable resources like official university websites or newspapers, and all are explicitly expressing the information cited about the person. I would like to improve the draft. 2003:EC:A70A:7701:50D:851E:4683:959A (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are by Buehler. 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.
See WP:42 for the kind of sources which are not just preferred, but required, in order to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. I reviewed the attached pages. I understand, however, please check the mentioned sources again. Of the 13 sources at the moment, there are 2 which could be directly related to the person (his website and a google scholar page). All other are as mentioned independent newspapers or official university websites. I will adapt the two sources in the draft. 2003:EC:A70A:7701:9C26:4306:3EDA:5686 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 13 March 2024 review of submission by 45.242.213.33

و 45.242.213.33 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Arabic Wikipedia- drafts must be in English. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how bout you upload it to arabic wikipedia you meanies 2601:8C:417E:D6A0:D7C6:547D:EB6C:E33E (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Thisasia

Hello everyone, i want to ask about the review situation about this article since it has been pending for an approval for many days now. I have provided every requirements that i was asked to do by the previous reviewer, including all Rs. Please may I know the review situation so far? Please do let me know if there is still any thing I haven't done yet. Thanks Thisasia (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The review situation is simply as stated on the draft, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,021 pending submissions waiting for review." There is nothing more you need to do other than be patient- there is no way to guarantee a speedy review. Reviews are conducted by volunteers, choosing drafts to review in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oow got it, Thanks for your time. Thisasia (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Ronin408

My submission was declined recently for Draft:Ranil Piyaratna. I'm hoping to improve the draft and get it ready for resubmission.

From the decline notice, I understand that the draft requires more significant coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm currently gathering more reliable resources for notability.

In the meantime, are there any other aspects of the draft that need improvement beyond citations, like the structure, neutrality, or formatting? It would be really helpful if you could provide any specific feedback on what areas need the most work. Thank you. Ronin408 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
Much of your draft is unsourced; every substantive piece of information in an article about a living person must be sourced, see WP:BLP.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments; articles about people must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the person, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person- what makes them important/significant/influential according to sources(not according to the person themselves or their associates). 331dot (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 13 March 2024 review of submission by SamNCL

Hi, The article to which I'm referencing is the page title. I followed the same style and types of references used in the similar pharmaceutical companies such as Cambrex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrex_Corporation) and Lonza Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonza_Group) but my article was rejected for bad sourcing (not in-depth, reliable, secondary or strictly independent). I think they are secondary, independent and reliable, depth is more personal judgement. Could any give any guidance or advice on this please? Either I'm missing something very obvious but I would argue the article I have submitted is more in-line with Wikipedia's guidelines than the two articles linked above, this just seems really inconsistent. SamNCL (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists, Cambrex Corporation should probably be deleted it has no independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually a poor idea to use other random articles as a model, as those too could be problematic and you would be unaware of this. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SamNCL You don't need the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article or page; simply place the target page title in double brackets, like this, [[Joe Biden]] appears as Joe Biden.
You actually have too many sources, and most of those sources document the routine business activities of the company- Wikipedia is looking for what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a company and what makes it important/significant/influential as the sources see it- what we call the definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 13 March 2024 review of submission by TCWJ

Hi! I have been working and revising a draft for an article on a living person which was rejected again today. I have some questions concerning the reason, as I have a hard time understanding the evaluation of the sources and literature used in the articel. The reviewer contends that the "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." The article has 9 different sources listed - 4 of these are in depth articles or reviews published in either peer-reviewed journal ('Research on Steiner Education') or as feature articles in journals and magazines with (non-academic) editorial processes ('Being Human' is a magazine covering all of the North-American anthroposophical scene; 'Zeitschrift Gegenwart' is a well established German magazine running since 1939 growing out of the political movement of 'Dreigliederung'). 4 other sources are from well established academic publishers (University of California Press; Palgrave Macmillian; State University of New York Press; Berliner Wissenshafts Verlag). These sources treat the subject of the article not exclusively, but as part of a discussion, however - as I also indirectly show by the quotations - the subject is not just mentioned in passing but referred to by claims and statements that import significance to the subject. In addition there is one interview published in Goetheanum, which is the worldwide publication for anthroposophy. I would like to ask someone to evaluate the sources and be specific about how this article draft does not fulfill the criteria for Wikipedia. In my experience with academic peer-review processes, rejections should be understandable in relation to the criteria set for publication. I have benefitted a lot from the earlier stages of this draft article where wiki-reviewers have pointed out weaknesses and lacks of the text. However, at the present stage I have a hard time understanding the evaluation and decision. Might there have been a lack of rigour in reviewing these sources? Thank you! TCWJ (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TCWJ: have you asked the reviewer who most recently declined this to elaborate? It would seem that's the easiest way forward, given that they've analysed the sources already (to the extent that this is possible, given that most of them are offline and the way some of them are cited) whereas we here at the help desk would have to carry out a whole new review. Bear in mind that anything written or said by the subject (including interviews) do not normally count towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you for reply and suggestion. About interview as source of notability I understand, this is obvious. However, when it comes to personal facts, such as where the subject grew up and what education he/she has, can an interview published in a public magazine then count as source? I have assumed that (but maybe wrongly...?) TCWJ (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TCWJ: yes, close primary sources (which includes interviews) can be used to support non-contentious information like place and date of birth. Something like education is a bit trickier... if the person says they lived in Springfield and went to the local school, that's fine. Whereas if they say they read maths at Cambridge and finished at the age of 16 as the Senior Wrangler, I think we'll need to see independent verification of that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, this makes sense. Thank you. TCWJ (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Lakestein

i tried uploading club logo that was created by the owner SGFC Athletics but i kept getting it removed. . also the clubs photograph at the stadium during its activities were also removed as being copyrighted.

I will highly appreciate it if i get help and lead to get the logo added. Can anyone come to my aid Lakestein (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lakestein: this draft was accepted a month ago, so any further editing isn't an AfC matter anymore. You may wish to ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Olilke

This is my first article on Wikipedia. I don't have much of information, as he's a not well-know, yet very talented artist. As I learn more, I'll be updating it. Is it possible to do it this way? The information I have so far is accurate. Also, I'd like to add a self portrait of the painter the article is about. When I try to do that, I'm asked to verify that this is my own work. It is not, but it has no copywrite. How do I get around it? I have other questions, but let me start with these two. Thank you in advance, Olga. Olilke (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Olilke: may I ask a question in turn: where does the information in your draft come from, is it all from the one source you've listed (although not cited) at the bottom? While it isn't a requirement, per se, it would be a very good habit to get into for you to cite your sources inline, see WP:REFB / WP:ILC.
For this draft to be accepted, you will need to either cite sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, or else demonstrate that this person meets the special WP:ARTIST guideline. The single source currently shown is insufficient to do either.
As for the image, I would just leave it out for now, as it has no bearing on whether this draft will be accepted or not. (BTW, you say the image is not under copyright – how do you know that?)
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that, like nearly everybody who tries to write a Wikipedia article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS.
First find several independent reliable sources about the subject (see WP:42). Then, forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC for Draft:Li Ziting (Mimi Lee)

Draft:Li Ziting (Mimi Lee) Previously declined by @DoubleGrazing, Broc

Please i want to say that this declined submission this time probably have all reliable source needed for an article, The reviewer declined it just because of few English source that was used to reference her music work. Of which I do provided more than two source for her music. All her music has many Rs when you search them in chinese rather than English. The Baidu was never used to Cite for her bio but only used as an external links for chinese companies profile or description that was not on Wikipedia.

I provided lots of source for her Biography both in local news and independent source, all both in chinese and thai and not English hence a clear translation is required for clear understanding.

Sometimes when talking about source, I will probably say that Draft:Li Ziting (Mimi Lee) has more better sources than most of the countless artist celebrity article i have seen on Wikipedia, she got better source more than most of her Rocket Girls 101 colleagues articles on Wikipedia. She probably got better sources than this actress Wang Churan article. Thanks Thisasia (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered this on your talk page where you pinged me, but I guess you either didn't read my answer or didn't like it. Okay, let's wait for someone else to respond, so you at least get a second opinion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is not appropriate fan cruft fluff includes “astounded and impressed the audience when she melodically sang the songs” “Ziting triumphed “ “her first public recognition and dreams coming true” “Li Ziting's father has always loved his motherland” “Ziting have always loved both Thai and chinese culture regardless as she adores both culture and speaks both language effortlessly.” “Ziting's favorite pet dog called 'Melody' suddenly died” “a trending hashtag #JusticeForMimi” Please remove. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting, i will do the needful. Thisasia (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Ashishtheblogger

My article was rejected Ashishtheblogger (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashishtheblogger: your draft (not article) was declined (not rejected), because it is effectively unreferenced with no evidence of notability. Now, did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Hkc345

Hi, I just want to know if sources and references in different language than the Wikipedia page okay to use? And what is the general guideline on press reviews and critics opinions (with sources)? Thank you Hkc345 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. How would one cite a CD that has been published? Hkc345 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, non-English sources are acceptable, provided they meet the criteria in WP:42, and there are not better-quality English sources.
And reviews are often among the best sources, with a couple of provisos:
  1. They must be reliably published: a review in a user-contributed site like Goodreads or Amazon should not be cited.
  2. They need to contain significant coverage of the subject. A review of a book or album will often be valuable for an article about that book or album; but whether or not it is useful for an article about the writer or musician depends on how much it says about them as opposed to the particular work.
ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:51, 13 March 2024 review of submission by 2601:8C:417E:D6A0:D7C6:547D:EB6C:E33E

can someone fix this page and make the page good just let this on wikipedia. 2601:8C:417E:D6A0:D7C6:547D:EB6C:E33E (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is No. If you want to create an article, my advice is always to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our existing articles; then read your first article for how to proceed. Note that absolutely the first task in writing an encyclopaedia article is finding the sources, because that's what the article must be based on. Beginning writing an article without first finding sources is like starting to build a house without levelling the ground or checking local building regulations. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:34, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Thevalleyoft

I am trying to make the company more recognized, but the request to create the page was rejected. There is no intention of an advertisement. Thevalleyoft (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and its offerings. That is considered promotional here. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chose on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"To make the company more recognized" is another way of saying "to promote the company". That is forbidden on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

00:51, 14 March 2024 review of submission by 2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D

Can you please explain why my publications and accolades are not suffice to create a wikipedia page. A number of my fellow poets and writers all have pages but I am unable to. 2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles as part of the encyclopedia, not "pages" which has a broader meaning. Wikipedia articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. While not forbidden, writing autobiographical articles is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. Beware in using other articles as a guide, these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves and their work; articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. If you have independent reliable sources that chose on their own to give you significant coverage and tell what makes you important/significant/influential as a writer or person, that's what we need summarized- we don't just want sources documeting your work. Please see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, which violates the core content policy Verifiability. Wikipedia is uninterested in what you know about yourself. Over 99% of efforts to write an autobiography end up as frustrating failures. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 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) 17:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Tamillifehacking

I Submitted My Article but the article was declined, anyone can help me, please? I don't what the problem anyone help to improve my article. Tamillifehacking (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB, YouTube, Wiki Commons and Wikipedia, your own website and Google search are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Venkatesh Pechetti

I am writing my own biography..in sandbox.. For that what type of references should i have to include.. if not have reference then what is the process... please help me.. thank you Venkatesh Pechetti (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself. If you truly meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, someone will eventually take note of coverage of you in independent sources and choose to write about you. Keep in mind that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Peppa pig e minha fds

I was declined for a unfair reason, i clearly did what was asked and was still declined Peppa pig e minha fds (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of your sources have to do with the cat, and those that do are inappropriate(mostly social media). The draft was correctly declined. Any draft about this cat must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage like news reports say about it.
I get the sense that this could be your cat. If so, you need to declare a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peppa pig e minha fds, I have had a look at your draft and noticed quite a few grammar mistakes that need fixing. Additionally, I didn't see any wikilinks included, it might be a good idea to add some. The main issue with your draft is the lack of reliable sources backing up what you've written. It's important to include sources that give significant coverage of the topic and support your points. Also, you've included a lot of details about the subject, so perhaps it's a good idea to trim some of the unnecessary ones. Regarding reference numbers 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 15, it would be wise to replace them with more reliable sources. I wanted to provide you with some detailed feedback. I hope this helps. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 14 March 2024 review of submission by RAGYoung2024

Good morning, is there somone that can give me assistnance in setting up my Wikipedia page. RAGYoung2024 (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RAGYoung2024: what do you mean by "my Wikipedia page"? Your user page? See WP:UP. Your first article? See WP:YFA. An article about you? Don't. See WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to setting up the article. RAGYoung2024 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The article"? Still not sure what you mean, but one of the links I provided should give you the answer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your phrase "setting up my Wikipedia page" suggests that, like many people, you are confusing Wikipedia with social media.
This is an encyclopaedia. We don't "set up pages" here: we write articles, which are neutrally-written summaries of what reliable indepenent sources have published about a subject. 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) 17:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 14 March 2024 review of submission by MobeenYounasDigitalCreator

Which type of reference do I have to use in the article, & How can I improve the article? MobeenYounasDigitalCreator (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source because it is user edited, so that one needs to go. Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MobeenYounasDigitalCreator I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). You have no sources that indicate this person meets WP:NACTOR. Assassination requires a political motivation for an attack, and I see no sources that describe shooting at this person as an assassination.
You identify yourself as a digital creator. If you are compensated for this, the terms of use require you to disclose that, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no option to select MobeenYounas as a username, so I have to keep my username as mobeenyounasdigitalcreator. Now, tell me a way how to change the username. MobeenYounasDigitalCreator (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to change your username; you need to comply with WP:PAID per the terms of use if your job is a content creator or marketer. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They would probably be best advised to change their user name, as a quick Google search shows this is a business name. Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name is fine as they seem to be Mr. Younas. They need to make the paid disclosure, though. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not paid content and tell me how to improve this article? Help me to rewrite it so i can understand what mistake i have done. MobeenYounasDigitalCreator (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your job is a digital content creator, you are a paid editor, you do not need to be specifically paid to make edits. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is rife with Name-dropping. A person does not become notable by associating with other notable people. Cullen328 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Rizzler29

hey man, where do you think i can get references that solidify my article? If i cant find anything does that just mean this shouldnt be a wikipedia article in the first place? I wanted to make this as a way to follow and update people I know on the football club in question. Thanks, Onni Rizzler29 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. As you did not provide any such sources, the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizzler29: I rejected this as not only did you not provide any meaningful sources to establish notability, I couldn't find any when I searched myself (nothing at all for 'Steamy Football Club', and only a few useless hits for 'Steamy FC'), which is not surprising as I doubt there are any for a club of this calibre. If the team is part of Laajasalon Palloseura, you may be able to include a mention of it in that article, but only if supported by reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:14, 14 March 2024 review of submission by 2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF

I'm not sure how to do this. The page title should be my professional name, Paula Maya. But the sandbox didn't let me add the title. So it's under Burleyhr sandbox. Is that the reason why it was declined? Should I create an account with my artistic name Paula Maya?

Thanks! 2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into your account before posting. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link Draft:Paula Maya which has one unsourced sentence and nothing else. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no connection between the name of an account, and the name of any article that account creates or edits. But writing about yourself is strongly discouraged: see autobiography.
Writing a Wikipedia article is a challenging task for an inexperienced editors, and even more if they have a conflict of interest. I advise not trying it at all until you have spent several months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have learnt about reliable sources, verifiability, neutral point of view, and notability, you can read your first article, and decide whether or not your subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That draft bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Thibaukes

I want to make a page for my friend. Could i get any tips? Thibaukes (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your friend. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources like the news say about people that are notable as Wikipedia defines the term. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...don't. Theroadislong (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thibaukes, here is my tip. Go write about your friend on your favorite social media platform, not here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles about notable topics. An ordinary 13 year old child is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Radha krishna 123

Please help in adding reference 

Radha krishna 123 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Radha krishna 123: this draft has been rejected (twice), and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Klamakin

Dear Help Desk,

Reaching out for help with the article (my first on Wikipedia) that got rejected. Any guidance for the suggested edits will be very much appreciated.

Thank you. Klamakin (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that it won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for getting back to me. Is there anything I can do in the article for the reject status to be re-considered? Klamakin (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That question was answered yesterday, at #03:19, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Klamakin. If you manage to find suitable sources (each one of which meets the criteria in WP:42) and write an acceptable draft, then you can contact the reviewer who rejected it and ask them to reconsider. Please don't waste their time (or your own) unless you have found such sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:29, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Eggs111

I'm not mad, but I would like to know the reason for this rejection.I want to know how I could improve next time. Thanks. Eggs111 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know why it got declined now. Thanks Eggs111 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 14 March 2024 review of submission by IgalSX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Igal_Stulbach. << declined because not supported by reliable source...I think it includes several known and reliable sources What should I do to approve the page? IgalSX (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered at the Teahouse. Please don't post questions in multiple places. ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Chennaiwiki20

got error : John Ahiya Naan: Directed by Appu k Sami. With Arul Anbalahan, Nakshatra Rao, Nizhalgal Ravi, Appu k Sami. Truth always killed by lies, finally truth will win Chennaiwiki20 (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An acceptable Wikipedia article is based on what independent, reliable sources say about the subject. You have cited two mere listings, and two Wikipedia articles (which can never be cited, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Hkc345

Hi, I have an undisclosed tag on the Wikipedia page even though I have disclosed on my talk page that I am being paid to edit. Do I have to disclose it somewhere else? Thank you Hkc345 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see somebody has removed that tag, and replaced it with a different one. In my opinion, it is far too promotional. Great long lists of people and places he has played with do not serve Wikipedia, they only serve him. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:01, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Thegibster1

the editor is biased Thegibster1 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@thegibster1: ok? what's your question? ltbdl (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

01:00, 15 March 2024 review of submission by 136.36.47.34

I HAVE A COMPLAINT The reason it was rejected was "Wikipedia articles are not for stuff made up in one day." I DID NOT INVENT WIZ MUD SOMEBODY ELSE DID AND IT WAS NOT MADE UP IN ONE DAY IT WAS CREATED IN 2017 BRUH WHY ARE THE EDITORS ALWAYS CAPPING BRUH!!!!! 136.36.47.34 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered any longer. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft violates Wikipedia's core content policies and is simply not appropriate for this encyclopedia. Discuss this game on social media if you want to, but not here. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:12, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Srinivaschinka90

I have established myself in my field and Wikipedia helps me in stating that I'm genuine person for those who don't me personally and Wikipedia will help me to grow my name in longer wide online rather I struggling in off-line Srinivaschinka90 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srinivaschinka90: try LinkedIn or something similar. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for promoting yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Rajaranics37

Why Rajaranics37 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...is this your other account? ltbdl (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:38, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Kaiumkhan321

Why this page is not getting published, working hard for more than 2 years and provided with sufficient links to proof including government links, kindly look into it. Kaiumkhan321 (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiumkhan321: you're pointing to your user talk page, we don't publish those as articles, obviously (and you shouldn't use it to develop article content, either). If instead you mean Draft:Abdul Kashim Khan, then that draft was deleted months ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 15 March 2024 review of submission by 203.123.39.86

what are the reasons for rejection 203.123.39.86 (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is one sentence. ltbdl (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 15 March 2024 review of submission by İstbull

Hi, we are trying to create our university's wikipedia, however, can you help us with this, will it be accepted if we put external links or our university's own page as a reference? Cem Barut 12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not for organizations to tell the world about themselves Articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you are an employee of the university, that must be disclosed according to the Terms of Use, see WP:PAID for instructions. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
İstbull, your draft is much more like a promotional essay than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Puck Osborne

I have made the revisions as requested but want to make sure I have resolved all the issues adequately before resubmitting. Thanks! Puck Osborne (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we don't really do pre-review reviews here- the best way to get feedback is to submit it. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Friendbelittler

Hi there! My page was declined and I figured I would ask point blank what things I would need to add to demonstrate that the artist meets the notability guidelines. Would the inclusion of additional coverage from reputable sources independent of the artist (like her Splice interview) be sufficient? Friendbelittler (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendbelittler I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed.
Interviews do not contribute to notability as interviews are not independent sources, being the person speaking about themselves. You need to show how she meets the definition of a notable musician with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that chose on their own to give the coverage. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! I'll give the guidelines a more thorough read and resubmit in the future when I think she's met the criteria. Friendbelittler (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Friendbelittler: you would need to cite sources that meet the WP:GNG notability guideline, or else provide evidence that the subject satisfies the WP:MUSICBIO one. The sources currently provided fall far short of either.
And just resubmitting the article without any improvement after it has been declined is not going to get you anywhere, other than eventually resulting in a rejected draft with no option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know about the possibility of rejection on resubmission, thanks! Friendbelittler (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 15 March 2024 review of submission by PratikPatel0795

Please let me know about modifications in this article. PratikPatel0795 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PratikPatel0795: this draft has been deleted as promotional. Please note that you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 15 March 2024 review of submission by LRW123

Article for creation rejected because sources are not considered notable. When I have used all the secondary sources that I could find on the subject, what else can be done to get the article published? ` LRW123 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LRW123: this was declined, not rejected; rejection would mean that you cannot resubmit, whereas declined drafts can be submitted again once you've addressed the decline reasons. That said, if you cannot find better sources, then the subject may be not notable enough to justify an article. There isn't anything else that can be done, as notability cannot be magically conjured out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:51, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Peanutlover2024

Why my page has declined? What is missing in my page? Peanutlover2024 (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peanutlover2024 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. Your draft has no sources to support its content. Please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Mazula258

Hello I am trying to add an information panel using Wikidata? Any help appreciated. Mazula258 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

04:21, 16 March 2024 review of submission by ScriptKKiddie

I need help finding reliable sources and ensuring the accuracy of my article on Fraud Risk Management. Can I get feedback from other Wikipedians? ScriptKKiddie (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1213961008"