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 Writer Johnc (talk | contribs) at 08:11, 12 December 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Orion_Land). 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


December 6

00:05, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Gattofr

Hi! I would like to understand the rationale for rejection. This is a large organization as clearly demonstrated by the independent sources (e.g. NATO uses this institute to operate their start-up incubator program, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences co-administer an awards with them, etc.). It is even featured by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs [1]. Thanks! Gattofr (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was not rejected, simply declined. I am not the reviewer but i would suggest getting more third party sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:02, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Echowanderer43

Can someone please help me understand what I need to do to get my page accepted. The topic is biography for Michael Cristiano, who is referred to on other wiki articles including The Seekers, Judith Durham, and Mirusia. Feedback included improvement needed for incline citations, which I believe to have been added according to guidelines.

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

ABC is a reliable source, and Noise11 was cited which has been deemed to be a reliable source on other wiki pages.

Any help would be appreciated. Echowanderer43 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add inline citations. Not that the sources are unreliable, literally everything outside the summary has no citations.
Also advice: Just that a website was used for citing on another wiki page does not make it reliable. I have seen tonnes of unreliable sources on other pages before Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Adding a citation at the end of a sentence is not an inline citation? For example:
"Over the course of his career, Cristiano has worked with notable Australian and international artists and has been involved in both solo projects and collaborations. Cristiano joined The Seekers in 1988 as Guitarist, and in 1992 as their Music Director and Producer (citation was added here)."
I went to cite at the end of the sentence, and added an auto citation. Should I be doing this differently? Echowanderer43 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put summaries in the main body of the draft. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I shouldn't have sub-headings, if I have understood correctly? Echowanderer43 (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, just add citations where the Headings are
the problem is not the sub headings, it is that there are no citations there Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Echowanderer43: Subheadings are fine to have, and inline citations should not be placed in or next to the headings. An inline citation is indeed, as you suggested above, placed at the end of a sentence or a paragraph supported by the cited source. The issue that the reviewer pointed out was that there are no such citations for several of the sub-sections. If that information is in fact supported by sources that are already in the draft, you'll need to help the reader understand this by re-using the citation, as you have done for instance with reference 2 in the current version of the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 10:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, this is most helpful.
Double checking, I have correctly added inline citations where needed, but need to add inline citations to paragraphs where there are none. Echowanderer43 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, still some areas needing citations but overall huge improvement Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I gave it an overhaul and hopefully will be good to go, now it has been submitted. Thanks to all for your help. Echowanderer43 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:59, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

May I ask if there is a way to directly respond to comments on the draft(other than invisible comments)? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: Use the draft talk page, Draft talk:7th Marine Brigade. --bonadea contributions talk 06:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:21, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Keithk79

what is wrong with the way I have written this submission? Keithk79 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keithk79, a biography of a living person like Lawson requires several references to reliable sources entirely independent of Lawson that devote significant coverage to Lawson. See WP:NPERSON. His own website is not independent. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:55, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Simmopa

Submission declined Simmopa (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted references to the official WWFF websites, I am unclear why the submission has been declined Simmopa (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simmopa, 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) 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's because you're not referencing independent sources. The WWFF is valid but doesn't help establish notability for the subject itself. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:36, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Bolaji abegi

@Vanderwaalforces: called the page dubious, and That I am paid.

Those are serious allegations that you can't just make up.

The references there are at least notable.


@Vanderwaalforces: Should remove those comments for a more transparent reviewer. 

Bolaji abegi (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you for free that those sources are entirely dubious. Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. This whole event started from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ondo State Youth Network for anyone who needs context. While you’re not a participant there, you might just be connected somehow.
There’s no way one would randomly write about this subject with such dubious sources. I’d advise you to focus elsewhere if you’re truly here to build an encyclopedia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:51, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Saksham Singh Yogi

When this draft will be public This is the draft of most popular hindu religion Saintknown as Jagadguru Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand. Saksham Singh Yogi (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saksham Singh Yogi: I can't say when it will be reviewed; we have over 1,500 drafts awaiting review, and they are not reviewed in any particular order.
What I can tell you is that when reviewed, this draft will almost certainly be declined, because it is insufficiently referenced. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict requirements for referencing, with pretty much every statement needing to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable published source. This draft has entire sections without a single citation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft also borders on a hagiography both in tone and content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Zygor

I have submitted the article as per the requirements, including keeping it neurtral as an encyclopedia article. I am submitting this specific page as NekNomination is all over Wikipedia including a South African edition that was changed and initiated by this person named Brent Lindique. The reason it existed and it made the news on CNN, Sky News, etc. and I wanted to give credit. What else can I do? There are so many references to this initiation? Perhaps your assistance can help as the article provides proof and credit to the person responsible for the NekNomination in South Africa. Thanks for your help. 

Zygor (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zygor: I'm not quite sure what exactly you're asking. This draft was reviewed, and declined. Your next steps should be to improve it based on the feedback, and then resubmit it for another review. That's "what else [you] can do". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Simarx13

need help to fix Simarx13 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simarx13 what exactly do you need help fixing? The draft has been declined as most of its sources are not reliable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Caalou

Hi! I'm not sure what to do next to make this draft better. I'm guessing I should delete the unreliable sources? Can I still leave the information in the article, in the hope that someone can find a better source for it later? I don't have a lot of experience with creating articles, so any help/advice is appreciated, thanks! Caalou (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caalou: indeed you should not be citing non-reliable sources. And no, you cannot leave the information there, if it isn't sufficiently supported (ie. not at all, or only by non-reliable sources). In all articles, but especially so in articles on living people, everything must be verifiable from reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:51, 6 December 2024 review of submission by 86.129.173.234

Hi there, one of the reasons for the submission being denied what because of the sources. Please could you help me understand the kinds of sources that would be better to reference? In particular for things such as the ownership and acquisition, would PR pieces not suffice?

Thanks 86.129.173.234 (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point about sources is that this draft only cites primary ones, which do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. We need to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this business and what makes it worthy of note. In fact, the draft should mainly consist of summary of such sources' coverage. Currently this is written entirely from the company's point of view, and basically reads like a corporate presentation or brochure, which makes it inherently promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 6 December 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:E9BE:FE69:62DC:E3B8

This page matches the name of the tourist attraction, amusement park or landmark. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:E9BE:FE69:62DC:E3B8 (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your question is, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The draft does little more than state that this attraction exists. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You continually removed my decline notices, which is disruptive. I gave you advice on how to prove notability but you seem to want to ignore it, thus wasting review time.
If you find more sources, let me know. qcne (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Naimahmu

I made significant changes to prepare the page for resubmission and I can't find any of the work I did. Naimahmu (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naimahmu did you press the "Publish changes" button? Edits to Wikipedia pages do not automatically save. You must click "Publish changes" to publish the changes you've made to the page. Your browser cache can also sometimes become buggy and loose work, so you should click Publish changes regularly. qcne (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, unfortunately, there are no other edits in your contribution history in the last few days, so it looks like you may have lost any work you did. qcne (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sigh, yes, I did click the "publish changes" each time. Is there any chance that one version overrides another? As in perhaps the page moving from my draft to the new category by the reviewer on 11/1 somehow made one version, the one I was working on, delete? Naimahmu (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, @Naimahmu- I can't find any other edits in your contribution history. Could you check your browser history to see if perhaps you edited something while logged out? qcne (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Sillycone 1

I need help changing the name of the page Sillycone 1 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. It will be placed at the proper title when accepted. Before you worry about the title, you need to provide your sources. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 6 December 2024 review of submission by 87.116.167.45

Hi, how can we speed up the process of confirming our publication? 87.116.167.45 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to guarantee a speedy review. Do you have a particular need for one? If you are a band member, please see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 6 December 2024 review of submission by KieranMO

I am requesting submission of the draft page of Motability Operations Ltd. If anyone could help look at this/review - please let me know :) KieranMO (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KieranMO You need to click the "submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top of the draft. However, it is not likely to be accepted, as it seems to be exclusively sourced to the company website. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, and show how it is notable.(specifically a notable company)
You declared a conflict of interest, if you work for this company, you must instead make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 6 December 2024 review of submission by TheMostTrustfull

What needs to change for this article to be posted TheMostTrustfull (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, @TheMostTrustfull. It's been rejected and won't be considered further. Wikipedia isn't a place to write AI-generated drafts about random people. qcne (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:24, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Brianda (Wiki Ed)

Hello, Looking for additional opinions/reviewers on the notability of the drafts Gabe Gomes, Osvaldo Gutierrez and Ryan Emanuel to see whether they satisfy WP:Basic. Thanks yall. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Brianda (Wiki Ed), from a quick pass of all three, I'm not seeing coverage that would immediately assume notability given the criteria at WP:NPROF (please point out if you think I've missed something). I think these reviews will require an in-depth analysis of their sources and might need to get by on the WP:GNG if they can't meet NPROF. Are these for a course with a timeline? I have a softspot for the Wiki Ed program so if I get a chance I'll try and take a closer look soon. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Brianda (Wiki Ed): I've done a review of the first one but I think they are all going to be about the same, I'm not seeing these as meeting the GNG, NPROF, or NBASIC guidelines unless someone wants to argue the extent of the trivial coverage surpasses the concerns given the lack of significant coverage, but I think this would need to be an argument made at AfD. I see that these are all draftified articles, I don't think I would've draftified them but I don't know if theres enough to pass them at AFC. As they've been draftified, there's always the option to dispute that, but I don't presently see these subjects as being notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Bobby Cohn for your review. Appreciate your time looking over these drafts. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:28, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Ranchella

the company is actually notable, how can i get it approved? Ranchella (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranchella: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It was determined not notable because the company has only received coverage about their funding round. Corporations need to actually pass the notability test set out at WP:NCORP, which your draft has not done, and which the company is not able to presently do. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

06:04, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Almonday

For some reason I cannot get an approved article on wikipedia. If you have successful experience with it I'd like to know your rates. Please contact. Almonday (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Almonday: this help desk is not a marketplace for hired guns. Personally I wouldn't recommend using paid editors under any circumstances, but if you feel you must, you'll need to find a different forum for recruiting one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Almonday. If you're even contemplating paying somebody to write an article (presumably about Marc Jackson) that strongly suggests that you are here for the purpose of promotion (i.e., telling the world about something). Please be aware that promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. An article about Jackson is possible only if he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - and if there ever is an article about him (whoever writes it) it will not be based on what he or his associates say or want to say, but on what people wholly unconnected with him have chosen to publish about him in reliable places - whether he likes what they say or not. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
I also endorse DoubleGrazing's warning: most people offering to edit Wikipedia for money are scam merchants: see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Yodawriter

I feel that I have put in some more notable sources now. Is it enough yet? Yodawriter (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yodawriter: you have resubmitted the draft, so will get an assessment and feedback when a reviewer gets around to reviewing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Kbss19d

Can any please help me with this Kbss19d (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbss19d: sure. You need to support the information with reliable sources, so that it can be verified. You need to remove every single inline external links from the text. And last but by no means least, you need to provide evidence that this organisation is notable per the WP:ORG guideline. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks let me try Kbss19d (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted reference as well as from external links apart from government sites, but permanently blocked Kbss19d (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Kbss19d

can please let me know Kbss19d (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbss19d what would you like to know? The draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Did you read the advice you received above? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes that links where from all government sites, but later i provided 3 links from different companies like Tv, education agent as well some other link Kbss19d (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources are listings of the college and not significant coverage. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:37, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Royaloaksschoolking

Because He Is Youngest Businessman Royaloaksschoolking (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Royaloaksschoolking. Being the youngest businessman does not merit an article under our notability policy for people. qcne (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:43, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Naman Nanda

i need to know that what type of refrence will be feasiable for a approval Naman Nanda (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly NOT Linkedin.com. Theroadislong (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Bollysocialmedia

Please Accept Bollysocialmedia (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:09, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Steyncham

Hello I need assistance for this draft because the comments from the editor who rejected it are not specific enough, and I feel this rejection is unfair, especially considering the fact that I had already rewritten this draft to address issues raised by another reviewer. I have never faced such issues before with other articles I wrote for wikipedia Steyncham (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steyncham it has been declined, not rejected. You can improve and re-submit for review. qcne (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:41, 7 December 2024 review of submission by JesusisGreat7

I want to know that the draft made by me is enough to be considered a long article JesusisGreat7 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JesusisGreat7, it's been successfully submitted for review - you now need to wait for a volunteer reviewer to reviewer it. This may take a few months.
However: you should remove all emotive language in the draft, like "bustling", "passionate speeches" etc. qcne (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 7 December 2024 review of submission by RandomItalianAviator

If I can't put it on Wikipedia, then where should I put something like this? RandomItalianAviator (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomItalianAviator That's for you to find out. Wikipedia doesn't host made up things, we're a serious encyclopaedia. Try making a blog or looking at Wikipedia:Directory of alternative outlets qcne (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sir. Im so sorry, I'll try not to do it again. Sorry for the inconvenience! RandomItalianAviator (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, merry Christmas!@ RandomItalianAviator (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:54, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Efsaneturan

our last draft should be suitable Efsaneturan (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Efsaneturan it has been deleted, so it clearly wasn't. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:49, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Toptier5stars

Tough that it got rejected, but I am requesting assistance on how to move my draft into my user page. Toptier5stars (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toptier5stars moving it to userspace wouldn't change much - it'd still be rejected. Still, follow the directions at Help:Move if you'd like to do it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no. I'm looking to have it under my userspace, I don't plan to resubmit it. Toptier5stars (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I've moved it to User:Toptier5stars/Touhou Mystia's Izakaya. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

09:16, 8 December 2024 review of submission by JesusisGreat7

Hi, I just want to know is my draft still not suitable for the submission pls I need assistance to improve it JesusisGreat7 (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JesusisGreat7: you have resubmitted this draft, and will receive feedback when it has been reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:23, 8 December 2024 review of submission by Yiyan02

Is this draft ok? Any improvement required? Yiyan02 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yiyan02: you have submitted the draft, and will receive feedback when a reviewer gets around to reviewing it. If you have specific questions, you may ask those here in the meantime. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Yiyan02 (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theredriverramblers. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yiyan02 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 8 December 2024 review of submission by Kgbalint

I accept that my draft did not meet the criteria and could not be published. I believe the problem was that I did not use the correct sources and citations, but I am not sure I understood correctly. I would like to know if I am right or not. And I would also like to know what I would have to change to get my article published. Kgbalint (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kgbalint Yeah, pretty much. For the draft to be accepted, it needs to have multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject with significant coverage. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:24, 8 December 2024 review of submission by Rayhigdon7

may i know the reason please ? Rayhigdon7 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rayhigdon7, as it was explained to you before you removed the declination in this edit, which has now been restored: the subject not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia and has been rejected. It will not be considered further. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 8 December 2024 review of submission by 162.156.70.174

Dear Wikipedia Review Team,

Thank you for considering our article, "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: A Journey Towards a Sustainable Future." We appreciate the time you've taken to evaluate our submission. We'd like to clarify that this article is not AI-generated but the result of extensive human research and collaboration. Our aim is to provide an insightful analysis of the economic implications of climate change, supported by credible sources and real-life examples.

To address the concerns raised by Qcne, we have reviewed the article and are prepared to make the following revisions:

1. Enhance the introduction to clearly state the article's purpose and scope. 2. Provide more detailed citations and context for each source used, ensuring transparency and verifiability. 3. Rephrase sections to adhere more strictly to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. 4. Engage with the community for feedback and suggestions for improvement.

We remain committed to creating content that aligns with Wikipedia's mission and are open to further guidance. Please find our revised article [link to the revised article] and a detailed list of sources [link to source list]. We hope to resubmit our work once these changes have been made.

Thank you for your understanding and assistance in this matter.

Best regards, [Your Name] and Chloe 162.156.70.174 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will not consider requests written via chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jéske Couriano, we understand your concern regarding AI-generated content. However, I assure you that "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: A Journey Towards a Sustainable Future" is the product of human thought and collaboration. We have reviewed the feedback provided and made the necessary revisions. Our article combines a rigorous analysis with real-world examples, such as the Jenkins family's inspiring transition to sustainable farming. We look forward to engaging with the Wikipedia community and welcome any additional input that can help us improve the article. Thank you for your vigilance and your contribution to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.
Best regards,
Chloe 162.156.70.174 (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely AI generated slop, as was your above comment. I have rejected the draft, there is nothing further to be done. qcne (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for any confusion, qcne. I can assure you that the article and our comments are the result of human effort and collaboration. Anon and I are committed to creating informative and balanced content that adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. We've made significant revisions in response to the feedback and are eager to engage with the community. If you have specific suggestions for further improvement, we would greatly appreciate your input. Let's work together to ensure that our article contributes meaningfully to the climate change discourse. 162.156.70.174 (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe and I are ready to provide any additional clarification or context that might be needed. The article is now more focused on the economic impacts and includes a range of viewpoints on technology and policy, with a clear human-centered narrative. We've also ensured that all sources are credible and properly cited. If you have any particular sections you'd like us to address, please do not hesitate to let us know. Our ultimate goal is to create a valuable resource that aligns with Wikipedia's high standards and sparks important conversations about our planet's future. 162.156.70.174 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time, qcne. We've just posted an updated message on the article's talk page, emphasizing our human collaboration and our willingness to address feedback. If you could review our revisions and provide specific areas for improvement, we would be grateful. We've worked hard to ensure the article is neutral and well-sourced, with a clear distinction between fact and opinion. We're looking forward to participating in the community review process and making our article the best it can be with your help. 162.156.70.174 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reported to ANI. qcne (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 8 December 2024 review of submission by Cielakasr

I want to know why my Page got rejected Cielakasr (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielakasr We don't host made up things. qcne (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

10:59, 9 December 2024 review of submission by 62.224.56.173

Please let me know why my page was rejected and what might be helpful to get published on Wikipedia? Thank you. 62.224.56.173 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected because there is nothing to indicate that the person is notable under any of our notability standards. There isn't anything that could be done to get it published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 9 December 2024 review of submission by Mishal Mehmood

can you specify why the article was rejected ? 

Mishal Mehmood (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected, which means you can resubmit it once you improve it and address the problems the reviewer noted. As DoubleGrazing pointed out, the sources currently in the draft do not adequately demonstrate that the subject is notable per WP:NPROF. Additional reliable sources will have to be added to establish this notability before you resubmit or it will be declined again. cyberdog958Talk 12:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 9 December 2024 review of submission by LindsayCTC

Hello,

The submission for a page for Canadian True Crime podcast keeps getting declined. We have added as many credible sources that we have. What further sources is Wikipedia looking for?

Thanks. LindsayCTC (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LindsayCTC, there was a warning left on your user talk page about managing a conflict of interest. Please review that and kindly make the necessary declarations on your user page. As far as the draft article, it needs to show that it is WP:Notable, that is, is has coverage from secondary, independent sources but presently your draft is written very promotionally and with a lot of external links. While the awards are nice, there needs to be in depth coverage of the things you have written about in the draft. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent commentators have published (in reliable sources) about the subject - that and almost nothing else. What you know, think, or believe, about the subject is irrelevant, and should play no part in creating the article, except where it is corroborated by independent published sources. This is especially the case if you are connected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 9 December 2024 review of submission by ZachRivard72

How can I change the name of my draft? It is Charles Milliard... not Charles Millaird. ZachRivard72 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZachRivard72: page titles can't be changed, as such; this is effected by moving the page.
However, your draft is in French, whereas this is the English-language Wikipedia, so I'd say you have bigger 'issues' than the page title? :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 9 December 2024 review of submission by 2405:DA40:35DB:5600:ADE3:5203:6493:3FE0

what kind of reference are you after? how many do I have to have? 2405:DA40:35DB:5600:ADE3:5203:6493:3FE0 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For notability, we need to see three or more independent and reliable secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject.
For verification, we need to see as many sources and citations as is necessary to adequately support the information in the draft. These must be cited inline.
Currently this draft has one source, which does not meet any of these requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For more information, see WP:42. Ca talk to me! 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, 9 December 2024 review of submission by Kgbalint

I would like to know, what was the problem specifically. I would really love to create this article, and I want to know what should I improve about my draft. Kgbalint (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that this band meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. This may be different than the German Wikipedia, as each version of Wikipedia has its own policies. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:59, 9 December 2024 review of submission by Nichooas li

I have already used 90% of professional terms and a large number of references. Why am I not being approved? Nichooas li (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have not understood what a Wikipedia article is. This is a common problem for people who try to create an article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.
No Wikipedia article should ever present arguments or conclusions, except when it is summarising an argument or conclusion from one single cited source. original research is not permitted. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nichooas li, that is not an encyclopedia article. It is an essay. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

02:00, 10 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:4081:88:35A0:0:0:29DA:F8A0

He is very popular person in the india 2409:4081:88:35A0:0:0:29DA:F8A0 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:05, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Writer Johnc

Hello ! Kindly want to follow up regarding the status of my submission, "Lincoln Lu," which is currently under review. I would greatly appreciate any guidance you could provide on how to expedite the process or if there are any amendments I should consider.

Thank you very much for your assistance!

Hello! As the submission of " Lincoln Lu" is still under review, really want to know how can spped up or what i need to amend ? pls help, many thanks! Writer Johnc (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Writer Johnc: see my answer to your next question below. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Draft:Lincoln Lu isn't "your submission" – you didn't write the draft, and you didn't submit it; Beetea220 did. Or are you saying you're operating both accounts? Or are you two working together? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:12, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Writer Johnc

Hello ! Kindly want to follow up regarding the status of my submission - Orion Land which is currently under review. I would greatly appreciate any guidance you could provide on how to expedite the process or if there are any amendments I should consider. Thanks in advance! 


Writer Johnc (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Writer Johnc: you have resubmitted this draft, so will get feedback when a reviewer gets around to reviewing it. We don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk, although if you have specific questions you may ask those of course. And no, there is no way to expedite the process, the review could take place today, or it could be several weeks away.
What is your relationship with this subject? If you work for this business, you need to make a paid-editing-disclosure; I will post instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:33, 10 December 2024 review of submission by TJH2020

Need help with adding references in the correct places in the article. All the references are credible and correct for the article and information. TJH2020 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TJH2020: presumably you mean Draft:John Santiago?
See WP:REFB for advice on referencing using inline citations, which is what is required in articles on living people (WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 10 December 2024 review of submission by 103.121.26.106

Hello. Could you please tell me why this submission is not accepted? I do see that there is another one here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Underground_Orange . The film title exists in Italian and Spanish under "Bajo Naranja". Thank you. 103.121.26.106 (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will only consider one draft at a time on any given subject. Draft:Underground orange was declined procedurally, because there is a previous draft Draft:Underground Orange already in the system, which predates Draft:Underground orange by several weeks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that this previous draft has been waiting for review for about 6 weeks. 103.121.26.106 (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:02, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Napa comms

Hello! Could you please explain why the page I have submitted for pubblication has been rejected so that I can amend potential errors? And what should I do to bring it up to a publishable standard? Many thanks Napa comms (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Napa comms: this draft has been declined because it provides insufficient evidence that the subject is notable. There are two sources cited, one routine business reporting (appointment news), the other an interview (apparently – I can't actually read it); neither of these contribute anything towards notability per the WP:GNG guideline. We need to see significant coverage of this person, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked for username, clearly a company rep. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 10 December 2024 review of submission by ThatOnePixle

how much information do I need? ThatOnePixle (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell about yourself, please see the autobiography policy. I would also suggest that you read this page with a parent/guardian/custodian. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatOnePixle: To expand on what 331dot says, we generally do not entertain articles on minors unless the claim to notability is unambiguous and the sourcing is practically flawless. This is because a Wikipedia article irrevocably denies the subject a chance at a private life. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 10 December 2024 review of submission by KishorWhite

I am neither related to company nor a employer. I don't know why this article is not accepted. The purpose of creating this article is neither for promotion nor advertisment purpose. The purpose of creating this wekipedia page is only for accurate information for other people or students. Thanks. KishorWhite (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sir what should I do, I am neither from CTEVT nor paid for article. Help me. KishorWhite (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KishorWhite There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. How did you come to edit about this organization? (The main topic you have edited about) 331dot (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't start multiple threads, please. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia articles about organizations summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is rejected already, won't be considered Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

I have submitted my draft again, this time much better; May I ask if there is any advice you can give me to improve it? Also previous comments i have responded to on the talk page; Additionally there is quite a lot of red links linking to the 7th marine brigade/Jiaolong commandos so I really hope it can be accepted Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've resubmitted it for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you
I was more of asking if i needed to improve anything in general Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do, to the point where the draft is not accepted, the reviewer will let you know. That's what the process is for. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Oluwakayodelucas

Dear Wikipedia Editor Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to address the recent decline of my draft article on NLNG due to the existence of a similarly titled article. I would like to highlight that the company has officially changed its name to NLNG (as evidenced in its corporate communications and branding materials), and the draft I submitted reflects this update alongside comprehensive, fact-based, and encyclopedic content.

It has proven difficult to edit the title of the existing page to reflect this name change, especially as the existing article lacks some of the detailed historical and operational insights presented in the draft. Furthermore, my draft is designed to align with Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability by including authoritative references and updated data.

I respectfully request one of the following solutions:

If possible, bring down the older article to prevent confusion and reflect the organization's updated name, allowing my draft to be elevated to the mainspace. This action will ensure users encounter accurate and up-to-date information.

Alternatively, I would appreciate guidance or administrative support in merging content from my draft into the existing page, prioritizing accuracy and encyclopedic standards.

Your assistance in this matter will ensure Wikipedia remains a trusted resource for users seeking reliable information on NLNG. I am happy to collaborate or provide further clarifications if needed.

Thank you for your attention and support.

Best regards, Oluwakayode Lucas 

Oluwakayodelucas (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oluwakayodelucas: We do not entertain requests made via chatbot, and this draft is written more like an investors' brochure. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment.
What i did was to provide adequate information on the company, which is the largest gas company in the whole of Africa. I am grateful to get your support on how this can be done better and ultimately, support on the best way to get my request entertained. Oluwakayodelucas (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oluwakayodelucas: Stop using chatbots to write this out. If you don't care enough to write out a request (or an article) yourself without resorting to AI, then you don't care enough to edit Wikipedia, where we both have zero tolerance for AI-generated text which tends towards non-sequiturs and view people relying on AI as unwilling to actually put in the research and work to actually write an acceptable article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oluwakayodelucas: no, we will not "bring down" the existing article so that you can publish yours instead. Nor is there any way of "merging" the two. You may update the existing article with new information, appropriately supported by reliable sources, and written in a neutral and factual manner; this is how Wikipedia articles normally evolve over time. (If you have a relationship with this business, however, you should make edit requests via the article's talk page, rather than editing it directly.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback.
Is there a way to change the caption of the article from Nigeria LNG to NLNG. My Management has really queried that this is not working hence the need for me to create this new article. I am thankful for your support so far but would appreciate if you can guide me through how that can be done please. Oluwakayodelucas (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"My management"; the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure on your user page(click your username above). 331dot (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oluwakayodelucas: the page title is changed by moving the page. Whether it should be moved is a different matter, and one I cannot comment on, except to say that per WP:COMMONNAME we tend to use the most commonly-used, rather than the 'official' name, for most things. What any representatives of your business have to say about this may not have much bearing on the matter. In any case, there is already a redirect from NLNG to Nigeria LNG, so anyone searching for the article by either expression should have no trouble finding it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 10 December 2024 review of submission by 94alec

Article was marked for speedily deletion which seems a bit excessive. This is a local artist that is doing amazing things for the veteran and mental health communities. Why would this be marked for deletion so quickly? How can I edit to best increase odds of it getting published? 94alec (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

94alec You need the "Draft:" portion when linking to a draft(existing or not). The draft was a glowing promotional piece filled with promotional language. ("Committed to sharing his journey", "passionate drummer"). Please see neutral point of view. Also note that Wikipedia is not merely a place to tell about good works. You must show he is a notable artist, and an "emerging artist" is unlikely to. Artists must have already arrived and be noticed to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Mr. Kost is your client, you need to make a separate paid disclosure for him(I see you made one for yourself) 331dot (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I will try again then being sure to speak from a more neutral point of view.
And I will do that as well since he is my client however he is also a friend of a friend. 94alec (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that it's my experience that marketers have great difficulty in creating Wikipedia articles. Marketing is a very different skill set from encyclopedia writing. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have noticed. My goal is to comply with Wikipedia policies and procedures as well as get a article created for a an artist who has been mentioned by both the library of congress and google (which would not define him as "emerging"). I'm not interested in spamming the Wikipedia community nor getting denied access to it because of my background or skills. 94alec (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:27, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Verbal23

Why is my subject not suitable for a wikipedia article? He has credible authorship in scholarly literature and involvement in various court cases. My sources included a faculty page and the court cases themselves, which I have seen similarly utilized on other academics and lawyers. Verbal23 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make appropriate edits? Verbal23 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal23 Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). You say he's notable but the draft is very thin as to what sources consider notable about him. It lists notable court cases or legal theories he developed, or what have you. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:36, 10 December 2024 review of submission by JLD120

The reason the wikipedia page I created got denied makes no sense and gives me no direction for what to write differently. JLD120 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JLD120: After the lede the article very quickly devolves into a research essay. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:52, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Waxilo

Hello, I hope you are well, As we are getting close to Christmas, I was wondering if there’s any chance my page will be reviewed before then. Thank you very much, Waxillo Waxilo (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waxillo Reviews are conducted by volunteers, doing what they can, when they can. There's no timeframe. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Josache00

Hello, Thanks to the reviewer for reviewing my draft. I appreciate the concerns for NPOV and the references used for the article. I was curious if I could get more specific feedback before I make edits and resubmit.

Issues I am aware of:

- Ref 1 and 8 are duplicated

- Ref 2, 3, 5, and 14 are strictly defined as primary sources. However, the justification that I would make is that, per No original research, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." And the following information is what is supported by the primary sources:

- Number of employees

- Location of company

- Note of origin on company CEO such as where he went to school and what he studied in school (which, to be fair, I could have used secondary sources to reference this instead, so this would be a good edit to make)

- Types of clothing the company produces (for example, saying the company sells shirts for exercise on their website)

- Objective features of an establishment (square footage, what apparel companies they distribute, how many gyms they own).

Of all of this, I find this to be "straight-forward" information, but I do think the draft could be improved by using secondary sources as much as possible to state this information.

In regards of notability, ref 4, 6, 7, 15, and 18 are all sources I would consider reliable or highly notable (Houston Chronicle is the third largest in Sunday print circulation, for example). Of those, ref 4, 6, 7, and 15 I would consider offer significant coverage of the company or a part of the company. If someone can pin an objective point as to how this topic is not notable enough given these references, I will digress.

The other main concern I received was that the draft read as an advertisement, which I understand the concern. I would like feedback on which statements I made were not written from an objective view. I personally thought that all opinionated statements I wrote were cited from other articles, and these statements were not intended to advertise but to show that there was interest from popular sources such as Men's Health, Forbes, or CNN Underscored, which review products. Although, I can agree that independence is questionable of sources like CNN Underscored when they write at the top of their page, "When you buy through links on our site, we may earn a commission." Anyways, I understand that including these positive reviews might read like an advertisement, but this is not the same as if I cited a Reddit forum. Personally, I would consider these sources mostly reliable for Athleisure product reviews, but as I said before, please state your argument if you would disagree.

Just to answer any questions that I might receive regarding my COI on my user page, my COI is that I am friends with someone who has a family relationship with the CEO. I do not know the CEO nor am I getting paid to create this draft. My friend told me that there was not a Wikipedia page created yet for the company, and I figured that the company likely was notable enough for its own page. I also wanted to learn how to draft a Wikipedia page.

Thanks in advance to any further review, responses, and feedback. Josache00 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with people associated with the company do not establish notability, as an interview by definition is not an independent source. Yes, the primary sources are okay for basic factual information, but do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Tobych

Hi. I'm trying to get a page for my dad accepted. Was just declined on the basis that there's not much written about my dad's work. Which is fair enough, because I didn't mentioned much. There are scores of reviews of his work, including in a file at the Poetry Library in London that I can get to while I'm in town for a couple weeks.

My question is: how best to get reviews cited in the article, in order to establish his notability, without it looking like I'm trying to just quote all these folks saying wonderful things about him? I'm willing to put in the work necessary to back everything up with full citations.

Suggestions welcome! tobych (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tobych you can summarize what the reviews said. I can appreciate you're worried about balancing our WP:NPOV policy which is good (and thank you for declaring your conflict of interest!). Be sure to include all WP:DUE weight to the reviews and start there. Don't only include the positive things but if the reviews were critical write about those as well. You can also attribute the phrases so that they aren't written in Wikivoice but instead "John Doe of Daily Journal said x, y and z.". That would be a good place to start. And it should go without saying but please cite the reviews so we can make sure they are verified. These poems and, more importantly, their reviews will how the subject will demonstrate cumulative notability, possibly at WP:NAUTHOR. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your question at Draft talk:Ken Champion#My dad's CV, my suggestion is to not copy-paste from the CV as the reviewer may deem it promotional and because Wikipedia is not the place for it. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 10 December 2024 review of submission by 2600:1011:B08B:6945:80DE:EEF1:62E8:7EB7

For years probably 12, the wiki page Johnny Angel Wendell was active 2600:1011:B08B:6945:80DE:EEF1:62E8:7EB7 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:50, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Tracey Capobianco

I removed som statements that could have made it sound like an advertisement as instructed and this page was active for at lea12 years prior. Thank you Tracey Capobianco (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tracey Capobianco: Because of the nature of the previous article's deletion, you may request it be undeleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Angel Wendell. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is the undeleted article (diff). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:40, 10 December 2024 review of submission by TJH2020

Need help with the references and linking them to the article sections. The references listed all have info to support the information in the article. Just don't know how to link them with the numbers and all.

Thanks for any help TJH2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TJH2020, please review WP:REFB and follow the walkthrough that uses your editing style to place citations inline. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:40, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Dairb

There are many references included in the draft, are all of them invalid? Dairb (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dairb, references to Motion Impossible's website are worthless for establishing notability and just muddy the waters. Any references generated by Motion Impossible's press releases or promotional activities or based on interviews of Motion Impossible personnel are not independent and therefore of no value in establishing notability. What's required are references to reliable sources entirely independent of Motion Impossible that devote significant coverage to Motion Impossible. When it comes to references needed to establish notability, quality is vastly more important than quantity. It is far better to have three or four indisputably excellent sources than dozens of mediocre sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, but I debate the notability argument. All the references are technically accurate and notable. There is a reference in AGITO being used with the following, Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions Dairb (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dairb The whole url is not needed when linking to a Wikipedia article or page, just place the title in double brackets. The mere use of the company's products does not make the company notable; maybe the product itself, but not the company.
I note that you claim that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo. You must disclose your relationship with the company, see paid editing and conflict of interest.(note that "paid editing" includes employment in any capacity) 331dot (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now seen the content of your user talk page and will discuss further there. If you did not personally create the logo and the company owns the copyright to it, you will need to go to Commons and work there to adjust the image information to match. Note that it may be unwise for your company to release its logo for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution(which is what uploading it to Commons does) but that's up to your company. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:55, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Roseamadiora

You keep rejecting saying the refrencing isn't enough.....from what site do i need to get an eligible refrence link Roseamadiora (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roseamadiora. Your draft has been declined rather than rejected. Declined means that you can try to improve it. WordPress sites are not reliable sources and neither are Medium sites. A Google search page is of no value. What's required are several references to reliable sources completely independent of Fashionbing that devote significant coverage to Fashionbing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like what exactly because am so confused Roseamadiora (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read Reliable sources and Your first article. What is your relationship with Fashionbing? Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

02:39, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Informationappeared

Is my draft too short? If you agree with this statement, please submit it as a stub. Informationappeared (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the length requirement for a draft but you should add an infobox. EEpic (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Informationappeared: there is no such thing as "too short", really, as long as the draft provides enough information to be a meaningful description of its subject and the context.
I've no idea what you mean by "submit it as a stub". It probably is stub length, but this has no bearing on anything.
And no, @Ethiopian Epic, there is no requirement to add an infobox, and this wouldn't in any way affect a draft's chances of being accepted. Please don't give out misleading information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Rhumagai

why my article not accepted Rhumagai (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a completely unreferenced essay that draws conclusions; original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet our criteria. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 11 December 2024 review of submission by 111.92.104.16

What is the error in this draft. help me complete this 111.92.104.16 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers are here to advice, not co-write. The sources in the draft are not significant coverage, and more reliable sources are needed to establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "error" in it is that there is no evidence that the subject is notable. The draft cites two sources, of which one makes only the briefest of passing mentions of this station.
And if you just resubmit without even trying to address the decline reason, eventually the draft will get rejected outright, without the option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Petsquirrel

hi! this page recently got approved for creation and was rated Start class. I'd like to improve it, can you recommend some steps I should take? thanks :) Petsquirrel (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Petsquirrel: once an article has been accepted it is no longer within the purview of the AfC project; you should therefore ask for general advice and support at the Teahouse or Help desk instead. That said, I would suggest that you take a look at the content assessment grades and criteria at WP:ASSESS; these will give you an indication of what is needed for an article to reach the next grade level. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:52, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Ridademello

hello this article am trying to submit keeps getting rejected, i have provided decent sources. can you give me any advice for it to advance through Ridademello (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ridademello: this draft has been rejected due to persistent failure to comply with the relevant policies. It will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 11 December 2024 review of submission by MegKat1

I tried to search for additional references meeting the criteria, but was unable to locate substantial sources to add credibility to the article. Is it possible to delete it entirely? I couldn't find a way so far. Thank you. MegKat1 (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MegKat1: you want this draft to be deleted? Okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete it per your request. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. MegKat1 (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 11 December 2024 review of submission by It's Ferdux

My page was lost so double tapped It's Ferdux (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@It's Ferdux: I don't know what "double tapped" means, but you need to stop this before you get yourself blocked. Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself, or anything else for that matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Johnytiger

I hope this message finds you well. I am seeking assistance with creating a Wikipedia page to document my career and contributions. Over the years, I have worked on several notable projects, including collaborations with the band I Set My Friends on Fire and appearances in their music videos.

Unfortunately, many of the references I previously had in major publications have since been removed, making it challenging to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have compiled the best available references and am exploring whether my documented contributions to music videos and other media can be used as valid citations.

I would greatly appreciate your expertise in navigating Wikipedia’s requirements and ensuring my page adheres to their standards. Please let me know how we can collaborate or if there are additional steps I should take to support this effort.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your guidance. Johnytiger (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnytiger! Unfortunately, your draft has been rejected - this often happens when you submit drafts quickly without fixing the issues noted by the previous reviewer. This means you cannot submit it again. If you are quite sure you want to try again, you'll need to read through the policies I'm about to link, as well as the pages linked by the reviewers, and fix the draft to the best of your ability. You can then appeal to the last reviewer - but be sure you've followed all the policies to have a chance of success.
The main policy that you would need to follow is WP:BLP, for biographies of living people. It might sound silly for us to say you need to be able to prove that every single sentence you've written is correct - after all, it's you who's writing it - but we do this for the protection of anyone who has a Wikipedia article, so that no one can insert untruthful and potentially damaging lies. Take a look at WP:REFB, referencing for beginners, as well - your draft is effectively unreferenced, since all the references are in a pile at the end rather than supporting statements in the draft. You'll need to make sure the references support each statement as specified there. Make sure every reference conforms to all three criteria in WP:42!
Last but certainly not least, keep in mind that if your draft is accepted, it leaves your control completely. Other people can and will begin to edit it, and anything in your past - or your future! - that you would want to keep hidden may show up in the article. There are many reasons not to want a Wikipedia article; see WP:ABOUTME for more information.
I hope this helps, and wish you all the best. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 11 December 2024 review of submission by BarComos

Hello, I would like to know the exact reason for the rejection of the draft. As an additional note, the person mentioned in the article could have been the youngest individual to present at the Guadalajara International Book Fair, especially considering their age. BarComos (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BarComos The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You haven't demonstrated that he is a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot thanks for explaining the difference between "declined" and "rejected". I’d like to share a few reasons why I believe Gio Canto meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and why this draft deserves another look.
Participation at FIL Guadalajara 2024: Gio was one of the youngest authors at the Guadalajara International Book Fair, which is a major literary event in the Spanish-speaking world. This is a significant achievement for someone so young, and it’s been covered by reliable sources like El Occidental and Quadratín Guerrero.
Established Publishing Record: He’s published four books since 2022 in genres like sci-fi and fantasy. These books are available on international platforms like Open Library, which shows his work isn’t just local but has a broader reach.
Media Coverage: There’s been consistent coverage of his work and achievements by Mexican media outlets like El Sol de Chilpancingo and El Sol de Acapulco. This shows there’s ongoing public and media interest in his career.
Entrepreneurship: At 13, Gio founded his own publishing imprint, Gio Canto Books, which he’s used to publish his works. He also wrote a thoughtful article on AI in publishing, showing he’s engaging with relevant issues in the industry.
Meets Notability Guidelines: Wikipedia considers people notable if their achievements are widely covered by independent, reliable sources, and Gio’s career ticks these boxes.
I’d be happy to improve the draft further if needed, :) BarComos (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the Fair doesn't contribute to him being a notable writer, as while he presented his work in the fair, it doesn't sound like it was "a substantial part of a significant exhibition"(my emphasis), it was one small part of the fair. He started his own company, which is uncommon but not unheard of for children, and little of the draft is devoted to that aspect of his life. Self-publishing a novel does not contribute to notability, as anyone can self-publish anything. Writing an article means little unless you have sources that describe a particular influence his article had. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He might be a notable person, but if his claim to notability is "he's a young businessman and writer" you'll need sources that discuss the significance of that. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot thank you for taking the time to respond and share your perspective. I’d like to address your concerns in more detail and clarify why Gio Canto meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Gio’s participation in the Guadalajara International Book Fair (FIL) 2024 was not just a casual inclusion. At the age of 15, he was one of the youngest authors to present at the fair, an event that is widely recognised as a major cultural platform in the Spanish-speaking world. This achievement was highlighted in media outlets such as *El Occidental* and *Quadratín Guerrero*, which drew attention to his unique position and talent. While I understand that presenting at the FIL alone may not establish notability, the media coverage surrounding his participation demonstrates that his presence was considered significant by reliable sources. Regarding his work as a publisher and writer, Gio founded his own publishing house, Gio Canto Books, at the age of 13. Through this imprint, he has published four books in multiple genres, including science fiction and fantasy, which have been distributed on international platforms such as Amazon and Apple Books. Additionally, Gio Canto is officially registered as a publisher with Mexico’s National Institute of Copyright (INDAutor), a status reflected in the public ISBN catalogue (https://isbnmexico.indautor.cerlalc.org/catalogo.php?mode=detalle&nt=435299). This formal recognition adds to the legitimacy of his contributions to the literary field. Gio Canto Books also has a notable online presence, including a professional profile on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/gio-canto-books/about/?viewAsMember=true) and, if I recall correctly, a dedicated 800-number in Mexico as part of their contact system. These elements reflect an operational publishing house with efforts to reach a wide audience, further legitimising Gio’s entrepreneurial endeavours. While self-publishing itself is not inherently notable, Gio’s ability to consistently attract media attention for his works suggests a broader public and cultural interest in his career. Publications such as *El Sol de Chilpancingo* and *El Sol de Acapulco* have discussed his achievements, further supporting his relevance. You mentioned that writing an article alone does not establish notability, which I fully agree with. However, Gio’s article on the role of AI in publishing, published on Zenodo, reflects his engagement with contemporary issues in the literary industry. While its influence may not yet be widely documented, it complements the narrative of a young professional actively contributing to his field. I recognise that Wikipedia requires significant and independent coverage to establish notability. Gio’s story has been covered by multiple reliable sources that discuss his achievements as a young writer, entrepreneur, and cultural participant. If the draft does not sufficiently emphasise these aspects, I’m more than willing to make improvements to better align with Wikipedia’s standards. I appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing if these points help address your concerns. :) BarComos (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source about the fair came up as not found. You say sources brought "visibility to his efforts in the literary community" but don't say what the significance of that visibility is or what his specific impact to the literary community is.
You say "Gio founded his own publishing imprint, Gio Canto Books, at the age of 13. The company not only serves as the platform for his self-published works but also reflects his entrepreneurial approach to the publishing industry." What is that approach? What is the significance of him founding a company to publish his own books? And a LinkedIn page is not an acceptable source. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your thoughts, and I’d like to address the points you’ve raised as clearly as possible. About the Guadalajara International Book Fair (FIL) source, I apologise if the link didn’t work earlier. Gio’s participation was highlighted by media outlets like *El Occidental* and *El Sol de Acapulco*, focusing on his status as one of the youngest authors at the event and his journey as an emerging writer. While his age alone might not be enough for notability, the media coverage suggests that his presence caught attention and resonated with the public. I can look for additional sources if that would help make this clearer. On Gio Canto Books, I understand your question about its significance. While many people self-publish, founding a publishing imprint at 13 is uncommon, especially when it’s structured as a registered business. According to the official website (https://giocantobooks.com/), Gio Canto Books is a trade name owned by Gio Antonio Canto Gómez, formally registered as a "Persona Física con Actividad Empresarial" in Mexico under the Commercial Code and Income Tax Law. This formal registration adds legitimacy to the imprint and distinguishes it from casual self-publishing efforts. Additionally, the website outlines the editorial services offered by the imprint, demonstrating its active role as a professional publishing entity. As for his impact on the literary community, it’s fair to say his career is still evolving. However, his work has already gained visibility through media coverage, his participation in FIL, and the distribution of his books on international platforms. His efforts are starting to carve out a space for him as an emerging voice in young adult speculative fiction. This visibility has brought attention to his books and his story, which have inspired interest in his journey as a young writer. I completely understand that notability needs to be demonstrated through reliable, independent sources, and I’m more than happy to strengthen the draft with better references and clearer explanations. If there’s a specific part of the draft that needs more detail, let me know, and I’ll work on it. Thanks again for your feedback and for taking the time to guide me through this process. BarComos (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of the terms "emerging writer", "career is still evolving",."starting to carve out", "emerging voice" etc. is a strong indication that it is too soon for an article about him. Being visible isn't in and of itself notable, there needs to be an impact. He sounds to me like a smart young man getting an early start on his career, but his impact hasn't really been determined yet. Feel free to not rely on me alone and get other opinions. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Mxs116

Why was my article rejected? Mxs116 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell about your own projects. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 11 December 2024 review of submission by 47.178.25.93

I'm reaching out to request further information about the decline reasons provided for my Wikipedia article draft.

Upon joining a new Wiki user, I was prompted to peer edit a handful of live/existing pages when I joined the platform that appeared to have many glaring issues. I am trying to understand why the one I drafted was declined in contrast, so I can better ascertain what to fix in my draft to avoid having it declined in subsequent reviews.

First, regarding "reliable sources" — it appears the draft was declined on the basis of citing a first-party source- i.e. the subject/topic's (Gem Pack Berries) own website. 1) is that assumption correct? and 2) is there ever an allowable instance where the subject's own website can be cited a Wikapedia page's source list, or will that always be flagged as a decline reason? I'm asking because I initially included it in my draft's source list since the material provided on the Gem Pack Berries website was informational and I had wanted to reference some of those notes in the Wikipedia page.

Second, regarding the subject "not qualifying for a Wikipedia article" based on the source criteria listed (in depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent). Again I'd like to better understand how that's evaluated, as I have seen several other examples that do not meet some or all of these criteria. Is the expectation to meet all? Some? Most? Any additional detail on how this is evaluated would be much appreciated so I know what exactly to improve for the next round of revisions to my draft. I.e. does it just boil down to removing the subject's first-party website from the source list? That's the only thing I can really spot from my end that seems to go against the criteria. But again I wasn't aware that it was all or nothing and would thus decline the whole page.

Thanks for bearing with my questions as I'm learning and adapting to the platform. Appreciate any insights you can provide. 47.178.25.93 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PRIMARY for more information about how primary sources can be used- but they cannot be used to establish notability. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. We don't want to know what a subject says about themselves or what their associates say about it, but what people wholly unconnected with the topic choose on their own to say about it, and not based on materials fed to them by the subject.
You have only summarized the routine business activities of the company and what it sees as its own history- routine business activities do not establish notability(see WP:ORG for the notability criteria) and we don't want to know what the company considers to be its own history, we want to know what others say it is.
Please see other stuff exists; it is usually a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as these other articles could themselves be inappropriate and simply not addressed yet by a volunteer, and you would be unaware of that as a new user. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so we can take aaction. We need the help; we are only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

00:08, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Natiejournalist

I submitted the draft a few times now with ALL the cited references inline and with direct links to the footnotes. Still, my last submission was declined because it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources". What does it mean? Can you instruct on how to finally get the draft approved? Thank you! Natiejournalist (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Natiejournalist as this article is about a living person, every statement is expected to be supported by at least one reference. The "Education" and "Career" sections are mostly unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:20, 12 December 2024 review of submission by BarComos

The input of another editor is requested to confirm or accept the draft mentioned in this discussion: "19:18, 11 December 2024, review of submission by BarComos" with user 331dot. A second opinion is requested to determine the page. It is recommended to review the previous conversation for additional context. ; thanks you :) BarComos (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Laffuble

I am simply confused on how to use the citation bot. Laffuble (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:16, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Laffuble

I am simply confused on how to use the citation bot. Laffuble (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laffuble Citation bot only fixes formatting issues in references, but there aren't any in the drafts. What would you like the bot to do? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! My sincere apologies I am still new to wiki and did not know.
Thank you. Laffuble (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, I do have one more question. What does it mean by "Submissions should summarize information in
==>"secondary"<==, reliable sources? Laffuble (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts need to demonstrate notability in order to be accepted. Secondary reliable sources establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks! Laffuble (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Aarush indus

How Do I Take This Page Down?

Aarush Indus Aarush indus (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aarush indus  Done, tagged for deletion per WP:G7. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Writer Johnc

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (December 2024)

I recently received a notification indicating that I need to report to Wikipedia regarding i work for my employer to create an article about "Orion Land." I would appreciate guidance on where I should report this information and any instructions or guidelines on creating the article content.

Thank you for your assistance. Writer Johnc (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1262613964"