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 Helloow123 (talk | contribs) at 12:06, 19 February 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding User:Helloow123/sandbox). 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


February 13

00:27, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Haileyworks

My article was accepted a few days ago, but I noticed that only its Talk page appears in Google search results, not the article itself. Is there a technical way to make the article searchable? I’d appreciate any guidance. Thank you in advance! Haileyworks (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have no control over how quickly Google indexes articles, other than it doesn't occur until the article is patrolled by a New Pages Patroller, or time has passed(30 days, I think) Do you have a particular need for it to appear in Google quickly?
I see you took a picture of Mr. Chung. What is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well noted. There’s no rush, but I was curious as to why only the Talk page is appearing, especially since that page is empty. Maybe I thought that the page was not moved to the main page. And just to clarify, I didn't take the picture myself—I obtained copyright permission from the company, HD Hyundai, via email and submitted it to the relevant Wikipedia team. I appreciate your advice nonetheless. Thank you! Haileyworks (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though the copyright of the image is correct, the author is listed as you, meaning that you took the picture. Since you didn't, you should go to Commons and work with the editors there as to how you can stop claiming to be the author of the image. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I wasn’t aware that I was listed as the copyright holder for that image. I’ll take the necessary steps to correct the information. Thanks Haileyworks (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:46, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Sofimcg

I am a passionate and active amateur photographer. It came to my notice that the Australian Better Photography magazine was not featured in Wikipedia. The Better Photography article currently in Wikipedia features the Indian magazine. The Australian Better Photography magazine has been in existence for as long as the Indian magazine. I have adopted a similar format to that of 'Better Photography'. I believe both magazines have a place on Wikipedia. The content I have used has multiple published sources that are in-depth and reliable, and has secondary references that are strictly independent of the subject. In my latest submission I have removed any wording that may be misconstrued as promotional. Please re-examine my submission and give me any guidance if the article still does not meet your requirements. Sofimcg (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely still reads like a pamphlet for the site. The problem is larger than specific sentences; the tone is pervasive in every part of the article. It's more or less an enthusiastic list of the magazine's offerings, and very little an article about the magazine. Large parts of the article seem to be about Peter Eastway, and only tangentially related to the magazine because he's the publisher.
The whole article feels like a case of writing an article WP:BACKWARDS, meaning that you start with writing the article and then try to find the sources that support the information contained in the article. Start with only sources that are about this magazine and that are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage of the magazine. Then write an article based only on these sources. That would be how to make the absolute best case for notability.
As for the other magazine, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are millions of articles in English Wikipedia, many of which ought not to exist, so "X article should exist because Y article does" does not amount to an effective case for notability. In any case, someone else has nominated the other magazine's article for deletion anyway. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think decliner already made all you requested here and even wrote advice at comment below the declining boxes - please read and follow it. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as a suggestion - try to make it shorter, making each phrase full of valuable information be once-referenced and not only whole paragraph or the section. And focus to the quality of the text (describing exactly notable moments) and not the quantity (but having not much sense for notability). As one as do not avoid to read WP:ORG to understand what do you need to add more. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what the other repliers have said: remember that what you know about the magazine is not of any interest to Wikipedia, except where the information you know is verified by an independent reliable source. I always recommend first finding the sources, then forgetting everything you know about the subject, and writing a summary of what the sources say. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:54, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Shalebridger

Hi, I am confused why this draft keeps getting rejected for lack of "reliable sources". For example, the very similar article about a synthesizer from the same company at "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Trak" has NO SOURCES AT ALL and is published. My current strategy is to just keep removing information that may not have multiple sources and keeping anything that does. Any additional pointers would be helpful, thanks! Shalebridger (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shalebridger: never mind what other articles may exit out there; ignore them. There are nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, some of them pre-date our review processes, some were published by editors with the necessary permissions to get their content past all control mechanisms, some may have had sources but they were removed over time, etc. (If you find inadequately referenced articles, you're very welcome to improve them, or at least tag them with maintenance templates for highlight their issues.) All new articles must meet our requirements for notability and verifiability, the two reasons why this draft has been declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road).
Notability is arguably the bigger issue here. Per the WP:GNG guideline, we need to see significant coverage of the subject in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. Sources 2 and 3 would seem to meet that standard, so you're pretty nearly there; is there maybe one more such sources that you could add?
The quality of sources probably refers to the fact that you cite a few user-generated ones (LinkedIn, Blogspot, WordPress blog) which are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand what you mean about the LinkedIn and Blogspot sources, I only thought to link them since one (Chris Meyer, LinkedIn) was an engineer and designed the product. I'll remove the questionable ones and track down one or two better sources. Thanks so much for the tips! Shalebridger (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Shalebridger. Material by the designer of the product may not have to be reliably published, but it will not be independent, and so can be used only in limited ways (see WP:SPS), and does not contribute to establishing notability. 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. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. Shalebridger (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Electricalwest

Hello, I checked this draft, Alireza Jadidi works as one of the pioneer musicians in the style of instrumental music in Iran, and he can pass this article number seven in NMUSICIAN! In addition, two of its sources are Russian, one of which refers to his record in Iranian music, and the other is an article by him about instrumental music. 

This article is worth publishing. Electricalwest (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Electricalwest: this draft was rejected already, do not resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I corrected it and added another reference and it should be checked again. Electricalwest (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns that led to rejection, the first step is to ask the rejecting reviewer directly to reconsider. I would say that I don't think you've done that- you say he's a pioneer but don't say which sources say that or why. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Harbin Kiwi

I disagree with the finding that the subject of my article is not notable. My subject has been mentioned in multiple news sources, all of which have been referenced. I request a review of my article for further edits or approval. Thank you. Harbin Kiwi (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harbin Kiwi: your draft (not yet 'article') has been reviewed, by no fewer than five different reviewers, and finally rejected for the reasons given in the rejection notice and the accompanying comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Harbin Kiwi You have obviously looked hard for references. A failure to find them means that the person is not yet notable in a wikipedia sense. Please do not remove the review history. You may appeal to the rejecting reviewer with rationale, otherwise it stays rejected. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 13 February 2025 review of submission by 1lockeny

updated the articles even more added reliable sources 1lockeny (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question; you have resubmitted the draft for review. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:19, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Zain Mustafa10

Hello.

Could you kindly tell me where this page is lacking? Are the references inadequate? Or the content? Should I choose a different line to increase the chance of approval? Your help here would be great.

Thank you. Zain Mustafa10 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined four times, and you got the same information and advice each time – the fifth time it was rejected because the same fundamental problem was still there. If there is any part of the information you received that is difficult to understand, we're happy to explain, but you will need to be more specific. --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Yes, I don't understand if my references weren't sufficient? Or the content? I have more of both available with me so is there any chance my draft can get unrejected and I can resubmit an edited version? Zain Mustafa10 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the draft includes no claim to notability. You have the specific notability criteria for actors at WP:NACTOR, and according to the draft, Watson meets neither of them. And after four resubmissions, there is not a single reliable, independent, secondary source providing significant coverage of Watson – in fact, almost none of the current sources should be used in a Wikipedia article. One thing you need to be aware of is the fact that notability is not inherited: that he has collaborated with a notable person doesn't do anything to make Watson notable, for instance. Please also be aware that what Watson knows about himself can't be added to Wikipedia unless there are publised reliable sources that can verify the information. --bonadea contributions talk 14:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zain Mustafa10: before you reply to the response above, you have to address the question about your conflict of interest, which was asked on your user talk page a couple of days ago. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have done that already Zain Mustafa10 (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zain Mustafa10: although you are not paid to edit, the fact that you personally know the person you're writing about and appear to be collaborating with him on this, creates an obvious conflict of interest (COI) which you must disclose. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Alfeverett

This is my first article, which has been declined. I'd really appreciate some advice on where I went wrong, and how to improve it to get it approved for publication. Thank you! Alfeverett (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example - I would be keen to learn which sources cited are acceptable and which aren't in order to improve the article, thank you!! Alfeverett (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alfeverett I have left a comment on the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! I will have another run through and see how it goes Alfeverett (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 13 February 2025 review of submission by 114.143.194.18

Please help me for citations. He is upcoming actor in Bollywood and he has 1 movie released and most of the links around them.

Plz help me live this page 114.143.194.18 (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP user. An upcoming actor is almost never going to be notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. For an actor, there are specific criteria for notability, and as you can see, there is nothing to show that Veer Pahariya meets them. There is also a set of general criteria for notability of people, but again, he doesn't meet them at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 12:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 13 February 2025 review of submission by P.crafter

Dear Wikipedia Moderators, I recently submitted an article for publication in the English version of Wikipedia, but it was rejected with the comment: "The content of this article includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standards for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes."

I would like to clarify whether this is related only to the formatting of the references or if the sources I used in the article are not suitable for verifying the facts in the biography (or other content).

I tried to carefully gather reliable information and am eager to contribute to the development of Wikipedia. If the issue is indeed with the formatting of the references, I would appreciate any additional explanations or specific recommendations for improving the article. I am also ready to review the sources if they do not meet the platform’s requirements.

Thank you in advance for your help and support! I look forward to receiving feedback so I can revise the material and bring it up to Wikipedia’s standards! P.crafter (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@P.crafter Without examining the draft in any detail, I can say clearly that we almost never decline on the basis of format. Nr do we decline on the basis language of the references (in case you were going to ask). That is a trivial issue which can be solved easily. We look at whether the references provided pass WP:42 which is. sort version of the definition of what is required.
You might wish to ask the reviewer who declined the draft what was in their mind? We all have a duty to justify our action to any editor in good standing who asks us. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case of biographies of living persons, reviewers can and do sometimes decline if content isn't cited inline, even if the references pass WP:42. Policies for writing about living people are a bit stricter, and drafts that would pass on notability might be rejected for having unsourced claims. In that case, what you should do is to follow each paragraph by the a citation to the source that supports it, so it can be verified. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:38, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Greenbird999

Hello,

I have had my draft Ely Folk Festival page reviewed and rejected on the grounds that it doesn't quote multiple secondary independent sources. However other published comparable pages, for example Shrewsbury Folk Festival and Folk East don't do so either. Of the twelve references on the Shrewsbury page eleven were published by the festival and of the seven on the Folk East page four were published by the festival. I'd appreciate some guidance on exactly what the criteria are for references so I can get my page published. Thanks very much. Greenbird999 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbird999 Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not yet addressed by volunteers. There are many ways for inappropriate content to get past us(I can describe them if you'd like), we can only address what we know about. Thanks for pointing out other inappropriate articles that need action. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Shrewsbury Folk Festival has been marked as problematic since 2014. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And predates - by scant months - the drafting process as a whole (first edit 3 Jan 2011). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Mast303

Explain why this list does not "meet the purpose of Wikipedia" and whether it can be changed. Mast303 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think most problem here described at WP:NOTDIRECTORY with exactly "without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" and WP:LISTCRITERIA with "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article". Only entry on your list follow it is Creeper (Minecraft), but it hardly believable list of 1 entry have any sense. Therefore it's at the current state not notable and even restricted. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Every entry meets the notability criteria is only one of multiple selection criteria that are suggested, not a requirement for a list. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You right, but I hope you are agree about other. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However I think it can be good looking added here. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mast303, there was consensus for the deletion of a very similar list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Minecraft characters, meaning there should be a wider consensus before this can be created with a similar scope. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mast303, this kind of list of video game trivia is best placed on a wiki for that video game. You can see the arguments for deletion in the AfD that CE linked above. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Ma3033

Details regarding sourcing:

Dear Wikipedia team- This draft article is a direct english translation from the German Wikipedia article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Krismer - And has the same sources linked, just translated into english. Would you be so kind to assist me with this as I am really not too familiar with what is required. Thank you for your help Ma3033 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikipedia version is an independent project, with its own policies and procedures. English Wikipedia today is one of the strictest as regards quality of sources. An article chosen from another Wikipedia (or, indeed, an older article from English Wikipedia) may not meet the current requirements for verifiability and notability. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ma3033, German wikipedia is much more comfortable with "sources exist" than English wikipedia is. Editors here want to see the sources, not have to hunt for them. You'll run into this problem a lot translating from de-wiki. You'll have to find the source of the information in the draft and cite that source using footnotes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response,
Given im relatively new here, I wanted to confirm that I need to provide exact quotes & page references in the secondary sources i.e Author abc, pg.32 line 4.
Also I had a question regarding the choice of sources, given that I have attempted to correct some ommissions from the original sources provided in the original deWiki article, and have made changes met with rather unpleasant and mocking backlash from users, likely as a result of disregard for the sources themselves, how is this different in ENwiki if one of the primary sources is an acedemically backed research journal that isnt freely available digitally but available once purchased?
any help is greatly appreciated, as I find the EN wiki much more amicable of an environment to newbies like me than the De wiki Ma3033 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ma3033. As of using offline sources, please read Wikipedia:Offline sources, to cite it you can use Template:Cite document or any other similar (writing style described inside).
as of last question, answer is such not free sources are acceptable, please read WP:PAYWALL for details. To mark it you can use Template:Locked content or similar. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:46, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Bobinski 11

Hello, the article I created was rejected minutes after I submitted it for review, without any detailed reasons as to why it did not pass. I tried to get in touch with the person who rejected the article, but never got a reply. Is there another level at Wikipedia I can take this to? References were included, if some of them are not good enough I'd like to know which ones, also no peacock language was used, so not sure what that was all about. Thank you, Bobinski11 Bobinski 11 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bobinski 11. It was declined, which means you can improve and re-submit, and not rejected. The decline reason was based on lack of a formal encyclopaedic tone, which I agree with as it is written fairly casually; and a lack of coverage in independent significant coverage, which I also agree - you have a few sources but quite a lot of them are brief mentions / artist credits. We'd be looking for some in-depth reviews or critique in art books, magazines, or journals. The wz.de source is good. Find some more like those? qcne (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bobinski 11, you say that you avoided "peacock language" and yet you wrote showcasing a unique perspective shaped by a blend of cultural influences. His works often explore themes of identity, societal structures, and the convergence of natural and industrial elements, resonating with audiences worldwide. That is overtly non-neutral and promotional language devoid of substantive content, and is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. We expect rigorous neutrality. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cullen328, thank you so much for letting me know which part of the article is causing the issue with the peacock language. The sentence ist actually a direct quote (translated from German to English) from an article ("Ein Granatapfel auf dem Trottoir") about the artist and his work, which was published in 2009 in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (Süddeutsche Zeitung), which is one of the largest newspapers in Germany. If I make sure to identify the particular sentence as a quote from the article, would it be acceptable? Thank you for taking the time to help me understand the rules of Wiki better, I really appreciate it. Kind regards and many thanks, Bobinski 11 Bobinski 11 (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Qcne, thanks a lot for helping me understand the Wiki publishing process better and for your recommendations re the sources, especially the type of sources you would be looking for. I will update the article accordingly and re-submit. Thank you again and kind regards, Bobinski 11
P.S I am not sure, if you can see my reply to Cullen328 re the peacock language, which was also an issue - so I copied and pasted it below fyi:
Hi @Cullen328, thank you so much for letting me know which part of the article is causing the issue with the peacock language. The sentence ist actually a direct quote (translated from German to English) from an article ("Ein Granatapfel auf dem Trottoir") about the artist and his work, which was published in 2009 in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (Süddeutsche Zeitung), which is one of the largest newspapers in Germany. If I make sure to identify the particular sentence as a quote from the article, would it be acceptable? Thank you for taking the time to help me understand the rules of Wiki better, I really appreciate it. Kind regards and many thanks, Bobinski 11 Bobinski 11 (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bobinski 11 - yes, if you have a direct quote it must be attributed. See WP:QUOTE. qcne (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Qcne Bobinski 11 (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 13 February 2025 review of submission by Maxime Gayraud

please delete this request and draft Maxime Gayraud (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove your last review request template and it will be autodeleted in half a year if noone else will make the same request. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
until you are an article subject and found false statements about yourself or found the copyright violation - but there's quite another procedure. If that's the issue - please be more detailed. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion per author request, an administrator should take care of it soon. 83.142.111.82, please do not restore drafts blanked by their only author. Author blanking is an acceptable way of requesting deletion and does not fall under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby, I doubt until it marked with speedy deletion template and he's the only editor (and here it's not). Can you tell me where am I wrong pointing on the rule? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's the only person to have substantively edited the article (the other person with non-trivial edits, User:Klappia, only expanded citations). The specifics are in Wikipedia:G7, [i]f the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby Agreed. Missed trivia of another editor. Thanks. However still confused about deletion as subject is notable even by decliner. What is the solution of such an situations? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP. If the only substantial editor requests deletion, we delete, irrespective of notability. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:18, 13 February 2025 review of submission by 68.48.208.11

Hi! We're trying to get our company Wikipedia page off the ground, and keep receiving declines. This is our first time working on something like this, and would appreciate some pointers of what we should redo. I do see the comment about AI, but I'm not sure if that means it sounds like it is written by AI or if it mentioned AI too much (or something else altogether)? Please help! 68.48.208.11 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "company Wikipedia pages" here. We have articles about certain companies that meet our criteria, that are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. They summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, not what it wants to say about itself. Please see conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The fact that you are "trying to get your company Wikipedia page off the ground" strongly implies that your purpose here is promotion, i.e. telling the world about your company.
Promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
Only if your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (most companies don't) can there be an article about it. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:33, 13 February 2025 review of submission by MissouriIsthebeststate

The person who drafted this page hasn't started working in it. MissouriIsthebeststate (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He have 6 months to do it. So what was is the question? And why did you submit it then?
Tip: If you'd not submit it it'd be autodeleted in next 3 months, now it will be in half an year. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MissouriIsthebeststate, it does look like you accidentally submitted that person's draft before they could write it. You can see that the light gray banner turns into a yellow banner when doing it – this isn't needed, and you should ideally wait for the person writing the draft to submit it by themself. They hadn't touched it in months, but this is not an issue as drafts aren't stored indefinitely. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the person who drafted the page decided to keep it and not do anything with the page... MissouriIsthebeststate (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make assumptions about other people's intentions, @MissouriIsthebeststate. While it's true that Wikipedia pages don't belong to anybody, it is polite, and good practice for our collaborative project, to ask somebody before submitting a draft that they created. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

00:32, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Esme im

Hi. My article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tradlinx) was declined and I'm having difficulty figuring what how to apply the feedback given which was 'Prose needs work as it is overly promotional; I cannot verify this company's notability as I do not speak Korean (all cited sources are in that language).'. I find it hard see which part of the content is overly promotional as i've specifically avoided any value added adjective and only referenced independent sources(I have disclosed the page belonging to the company I work for, and made sure the language used is as neutral as possible)

also in regards to the references article being Korean, should I provide translated versions of these articles? These are articles from independent media (reputable publications in Korea) testifying what the article claims which is the company's reputation in Korea. While I sincerely appreciate the effort of the editor, I do not know how to take the feedback 'I cannot verify this company's notability as I do not speak Korean (all cited sources are in that language).'

To summarize: I would like to get some pointers on which part come off as overly promotional (As the language choice was intentionally neutral) and also if the reference material should be translated. Esme im (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither how it looks there's much important problem of dependent only sources in the article (their press-releases or based on their only words news) and one dead link. To clarify what do you need as sources your draft is lack of now please read WP:INDEPENDENT. If you will find and add it - that problem will be resolved and you can think about writing style decliner pointed on. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Esme im. The first sentence after the lead is "Tradlinx plays a role in the modernization of South Korea's logistics sector, particularly by reducing reliance on manual and paper-based processes." That is marketing speak. Who says that it "plays a role"? Doesn't every company with similar products play such a role? Don't tell us what the company wants people to know about it: tell us only what independent commentators say about the company. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 14 February 2025 review of submission by NaijaExplorerX

Dear Wikipedia,

On 9 February 2025, I meticulously crafted a Wikipedia post for Balogun Kuku, a visionary 19th-century Yoruba leader, military strategist, and socio-cultural icon. His influence shaped the social, economic, and political landscape of Ijebu-Ode, southwest Nigeria. Before embarking on this endeavor, I investigated the Wikipedia guidelines comprehensively to ensure his notability. I began drafting the page after being certain that he met the conditions.

After several edits from Wikipedia, I was disheartened to receive a post from one of the editors stating that my submission was rejected. The reason given was that the references did not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. This was despite my inclusion of peer-reviewed academic publications, historical journals, and credible secondary sources that provide in-depth discussions of his contributions.

I am writing to formally request a reconsideration of the rejection of my Wikipedia submission on Balogun Bello Odueyungbo Kuku. The decision cited a lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, even though my submission included peer-reviewed academic publications, historical journals, and credible secondary sources that provide in-depth discussions of his contributions.

Balogun Kuku was not just a historical figure but a pivotal one in 19th-century Nigeria. His influence extended to military leadership, commerce, political diplomacy, and the spread of Islam in Ijebu-Ode. His role in the Ekitiparapo War and the British-Ijebu War of 1892 and his founding of the Ojude Oba Festival all underscore his historical significance.

My submission included a wealth of evidence, with 19 sources provided, including academic journal articles, books, and news publications. While the number of sources may not match those of Western historical figures, the evidence they provide of Balogun Kuku's influence and importance within his community and historical context is substantial. These sources go beyond mere passing mentions, offering detailed accounts of his life, achievements, and impact. For instance, the 'Biography of Chief Bello Kuku', 'Balogun Kuku: Military Brass, Merchant Prince and Muslim Leader', and 'Knights of a Global Countryside: The Balogun Institution of Ijebuland, Nigeria provide in-depth accounts of his life and impact. It's worth noting that only two of the 19 sources used for the page are written by the family, which refutes the claim that the sources are not independent.

Balogun Kuku's notability aligns with aspects of the Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines for People because:

1) He held a unique, historically important position: As the Balogun (warlord) of Ijebu-Ode, Kuku held a crucial military and political role in the Ijebu Kingdom. The Balogun was responsible for the kingdom's defense, leading the army and advising the ruler.

2) His actions had a significant impact: Kuku played a key role in military conflicts such as the Ogunsegun War and the Ekitiparapo War. He also influenced the political and economic landscape of Ijebu-Ode and contributed to the spread of Islam in the region.

3) His life has been the subject of historical study: Historians have examined Kuku's life and impact in the context of 19th-century Yorubaland. This demonstrates sustained scholarly interest in his significance.

Regarding 'Sustained Attention Over Time', Balogun Kuku's notability is not temporary. He remains a significant figure in Ijebu history, with his legacy continuing to be recognized through:

a) The Ojude Oba Festival: Kuku originated the Ojude Oba festival, which has become a major cultural event in Ijebuland. This festival serves as an annual reminder of his contributions and ensures continued focus on his office. It is paradoxical that the Ojude-Oba has a Wikipedia page, while the originator is deemed not notable for having a Wikipedia page.

b) The Olorogun Title: The Awujale of Ijebuland conferred the Olorogun title upon the Kuku Dynasty as a hereditary title in recognition of Balogun Kuku's achievements. Now, in the Ilamuren class, this title ensures the family's continued prominence in Ijebu society.

c) Continued prominence of his descendants: Balogun Kuku's descendants have played significant roles in Ijebu society, with many achieving success in various fields. This ongoing legacy reinforces the family's notability and connects it back to Balogun Kuku's original contributions.

d) Historic Landmark: The Olorunsogo House, built by Balogun Kuku, has been designated as a Special Architectural and Historical/Cultural Significance building by the Ogun State Government. The house and its surrounding memorial burial vaults serve as a tourist attraction and a tangible connection to the history of the Kuku family

The rejection of this article underscores a more profound issue concerning the representation of African historical figures on Wikipedia. The platform's notability guidelines for biographies prominently feature examples of Western figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, known for his role in the American Civil War; Marie Antoinette, the last Queen of France; Michael Jackson, the iconic pop star; and George Orwell, the influential writer and essayist. However, the glaring absence of non-Western historical figures in these criteria raises alarming concerns about potential systemic bias inherent in the definition of historical significance. 

This implicit framing around predominantly Western figures creates a troubling environment where numerous 19th-century African leaders, esteemed warriors, and impactful cultural pioneers may be systematically overlooked despite their substantial contributions to their societies and global history. This bias could indeed shed light on the widespread underrepresentation of significant African historical figures on Wikipedia, ultimately skewing the platform's role as a comprehensive and equitable repository of global history.

Balogun Kuku meets and exceeds the notability requirements regarding historical, political, military, and cultural influence, and his contributions have been widely documented in academic sources, historical studies, and cultural analyses. Despite meeting these criteria, the rejection of his biography reinforces the underrepresentation of African historical figures on Wikipedia and contributes to the erasure of African contributions from global history.

I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards for notability. However, I urge you to consider the broader implications of applying these standards uniformly without acknowledging the potential bias against historical documentation for certain regions and cultures. A more nuanced approach is necessary to ensure that Wikipedia accurately reflects the diverse tapestry of human history and does not inadvertently contribute to the erasure of important figures like Balogun Kuku and other African historical figures.

I respectfully request that this submission be reviewed again with a more inclusive, globally conscious approach to historical notability. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response. 


NaijaExplorerX (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NaijaExplorerX: We do not entertain requests written via chatbot, and users are greatly disinclined to read a long, rambling screed against our notability criteria. I agree that non-European cultures, leaders, and history is grossly underrepresented on Wikipedia, but this is the absolute worst way to make that argument. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I was just following the instruction on where to file an appeal. NaijaExplorerX (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your 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.
If you believe that the reviewer erred in their analysis of your sources, please ask them directly to reconsider or explain more specifically what the concern is. Also note that this process is usually voluntary- you are free to move it into the encyclopedia yourself(you are now autoconfirmed), though it's usually a good idea to use this process, as moving it into the project yourself risks it being potentially nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Umetnikperformansa

Hi. I am beginner in writing an article on Wikipedia, and just got declined. I was wondering to ask for help regarding the footnotes required in my article. Thank you Umetnikperformansa (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners with regards to referencing.
Please explain how you obtained the photo; "it's a promotional photo" is not acceptable as a source. You're also claiming copyright as the uploader. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have a problem not with citation style you use but it's absence somewhere when each article line have to be cited. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Mydaemonthirst

The latest reviewer is objecting to the title. I'm not sure why but I'm happy to see it reduced to 'Swindon Health Hydro'. I've removed the one comment that looked like personal opinion but I can't see anything else of that sort. The references I've quoted are the ones available to me. Tell me which are unacceptable - I will have to remove parts of the story of the Health Hydro, which will undermine the value of the article but perhaps I will find more sources in the future. I've trimmed the article a bit, admittedly not much. Depending on which references are unacceptable, I will probably be chopping out more and losing parts of the story of the building. Have I entered URL references correctly? Wikipedia is not the accessible tool I thought it would be. If I didn't think that the story of this building mattered I would just give up. You have to be an expert on Wikipedia, not just be on top of the story you care about. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you still have unreferenced statements. Please ref all of it. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... or delete it 83.142.111.82 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mydaemonthirst You have dived right in to the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia- writing a new article. We usually recommend that newer users first gain experience and knowledge by first editing existing articles before attempting to write a new one. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of the draft is very essay like, it will need WP:TNT and a fresh start with no rambling background details just the plain facts as supported by reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Siddharthaavermaaa

The information is return in the wikipedia is totally wrong about lodhi caste Siddharthaavermaaa (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Siddharthaavermaaa: that's as may be, but you must support your edits with reliable sources, which you didn't.
And if you wish to write about Lodhi (caste) or any other existing topic to do with Lodhi or Lodi, please edit the relevant article rather than submitting a new draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 14 February 2025 review of submission by AnneTucker

Hi!

Thank you for the feedback. I'm not Anne Tucker, but I I thought I was supposed to use her name as my username if I was writing about her. I'm very new to this. How do I change my username to my name and then write about her? Many thanks! AnneTucker (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother there is zero indication that they are notable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Anne Tucker" also doesn't strike me as a particularly unique name. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can change your user name with help from Wikipedia:Changing username. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giving additional feedback, the draft as it currently stands is very promotional. Sentences like Anne's mission is to support awakening souls aren't encyclopedic: we want to write about what other people find notable about Tucker, not what she says her mission is. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 14 February 2025 review of submission by 2601:4B:4701:280:F4FC:3E38:2FAB:C9B4

This wiki page is a about me and me brand in the music industry i would like tho know what errors were made and what can i fix to make sure this gets published correctly. 2601:4B:4701:280:F4FC:3E38:2FAB:C9B4 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft(you need the "Draft:" portion). It is completely unsourced and shows no indication of how you are a notable musician as Wikipedia defines one. That is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. I suggest that you go on about your career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia- if you truly merit an article, someone unaffiliated with you will eventually write it. You shouldn't write it yourself, please see WP:AUTO. An article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Esterhazcolony

How can I upload a photo of Count d'Esterhazy to include in the article? Esterhazcolony (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia.
I can say your draft is not likely to be accepted as the references need to be in line next to the text they are supporting. Please see referencing for beginners.. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 14 February 2025 review of submission by Statr

I do not understand why this draft is rejected when this page has more sources than some of the pages for other bike tours on Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_Ride_Across_Georgia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biking_Across_Kansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_DC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_MS:_City_to_Shore_Ride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulevard_Lakefront_Tour and so on. Statr (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean it could not be resubmitted.
Please see other stuff exists. Each article is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed yet by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined because of not having text that cited and follow next criterias. Try to read it, add such one's evidences if available and cite it for sure. Then resubmit the draft. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

04:23, 15 February 2025 review of submission by Turnerbake

why its always getting rejected even I been editing and submitting back again and again pls give approval 

Turnerbake (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Turnerbake: it was rejected because the draft is effectively unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:05, 15 February 2025 review of submission by Raparticlesofalbuquerque

I would like to get this article published. Raparticlesofalbuquerque (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Raparticlesofalbuquerque: that would be fine, as long as you can provide reliable sources to support the information and to demonstrate that the subject is notable. Currently you have none of that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and Google, YouTube,Facebook,Instagram, X, And Burque Records LLC are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Raparticlesofalbuquerque. The question you need to ask (in fact, the very first question, long before actually creating a draft or writing any text) is "Where have people wholly unconnected with Reach, and not commissioned or invited or informed by Reach or his associates, chosen to publish a significant amount of material by him, and been published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking?". (See WP:42 for more explanation).
If the answer is "nowhere, or hardly anywhere", then he is probably not notable by Wikipedia's definition. If you have several sources which meet the criteria in WP:42, an article may be possible. You should forget everything you know about Reach, and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:32, 15 February 2025 review of submission by 1234udaRaz

What other info should I add to be this verified? 1234udaRaz (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more you can do, the draft has been rejected. It is a promotional text wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How so? It's not even a promotional text and I can't see it as inappropirite. I've not stated phone number,s,locations , etc., o thereofre, it's not promotional. 1234udaRaz (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what Wikipedia means by "promotional". The draft is written in a promotional style. But it would not be appropriate even if it had been neutral in tone, because there are no reliable, independent sources and no claim to notability. If you read the first decline notice on your user talk page, you will see an explanation of what that means. --bonadea contributions talk 12:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Have a nice day! 1234udaRaz (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 15 February 2025 review of submission by Anagarcia2000

Can you advise anything that i can do to make it live? Anagarcia2000 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. If you were paid specifically to create this article, I suggest that you return his money. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 15 February 2025 review of submission by GksEOauJAn

When a first version of this article was submitted, the reviewer noted a lack of secondary sources. Since then I have expanded on the text and added secondary sources. I would like to know if my article is ready to be resubmitted. An experienced eye would be helpful! Many thanks in advance. GksEOauJAn (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews; the best way to get feedback is to submit the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:20, 15 February 2025 review of submission by Swiss-MH

I do not understand the rejection. They don’t explain well. This is wrongly rejected each time. This done neutrally with various sources but they wrongly states it is self promotion. I have nothing to do with Wecan but just sharing my knowledge Swiss-MH (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main source was Wecan Token's own website...it was correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swiss-MH Wikipedia is not for sharing personal knowledge, it for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2025 (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) 17:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Swiss-MH: I would suggest editing in a topic area that isn't a contentious topic (Blockchain, cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and Web3). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

01:50, 16 February 2025 review of submission by PaxMulta

The above draft submission's references do seem to show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article since all citations are from published, reliable, primary and secondary sources independent of the subject, for example, Radio New Zealand, the NZ Herald, the NZ Royal Commission of inquiry into Abuse in Care, The Journal of New Zealand Studies (NS37), The international dialogue centre case KAICIID, among others. Can you advise otherwise? PaxMulta (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PaxMulta, it's simply not true that all of the sources in that draft are independent of the subject. Some of them are his own witness statements in court, others are explicitly by him, and at least two are his biographies on websites like this [1], which he almost certainly wrote himself. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you may be confusing information with source. Longhurst is not the NZ's Abuse In Care Inquiry which was the source. Nor is he KAICIID but a member of KAICIID. Therefore, the sources are in fact independent of the subject. This distinction should not be difficult to understand. If you still disagree, then why not edit the draft or explain how an intuition is conflatable with a person. PaxMulta (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PaxMulta: Anything a subject or those connected to them says, no matter where it was published, is useless for notability on that subject and can only be used once notability has been established thru other means to verify quotes or personal information a reasonable person could never challenge (such as beliefs or national/racial identification). Saying the source is an enquiry where he gave testimony or a group where he is a member is a distinction without a difference; the source would be useless all the same due to his and his surrogates' direct involvement in its creation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks, Jeske! PaxMulta (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you update the draft with this citation for the statement about the subject being a KAICIID fellow?https://cathnews.co.nz/2020/04/23/longhurst-international-dialogue-centre/
Cheers! PaxMulta (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, @PaxMulta, but that source is certainly a "handle with care". First, the last couple of paragraphs are evidently based on his words, and so that part at least is not independent. More troublingly, there is no byline, and in fact it says "source: supplied"; which strongly suggests to me that this text comes from KAICIID, and is again not independent.
Having said that, yes, it could be used to verify the uncontroversial fact of his being a fellow, though an independent source would be better. ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:24, 16 February 2025 review of submission by Bowie2109

I'd appreciate your input on my draft wikipedia page. Hi there, please have a look at my draft (Draft:Martin Looi) and let me know what you think. Any input will be greatly appreciated. Bowie2109 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bowie2109, if you want someone to comment on your article, please submit it for review. -- asilvering (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bowie2109 The whole url is not needed when linking to your draft; I've fixed this. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:59, 16 February 2025 review of submission by DeclanMiner2023

How can I improve the draft? How can I quickly put information from my own research and testing into the draft? How can I get a speedy review? I need an answer to these questions, because I don't want to give up and fail to make this article. DeclanMiner2023 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeclanMiner2023, have a look at WP:BACKWARDS. -- asilvering (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeclanMiner2023: We don't accept information from [one's] own research and testing; that's called original research and has no place in an encyclopaedia, which summarises what has already been published about a subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeclanMiner2023 I fixed your header, you need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking to your draft. We cannot guarantee a speedy review, as this is a volunteer project with no deadlines- what is the source of your need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeclanMiner2023, your draft is entirely unreferenced and therefore fails the core content policy Verifiability. It cannot possibly be accepted into the encyclopedia in its current form. Read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need a helper to edit this draft with me, and someone who has experience in this. Because, I myself understand this, but... I am still new to this stuff! I have edited 10 to 15 times so far, but I am new to writing a completely new article. DeclanMiner2023 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeclanMiner2023: read carefully the advice you've been given here. It boils down to sources. You need to research the subject to find reliable sources that have published substantial content about this topic, then summarise what they've said, citing each source against the information it has provided. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeclanMiner2023, I would advise that you stop trying to write this draft for now, and instead go about editing articles that already exist. It will be much easier to fix up this draft once you have some basic experience with wikipedia editing in general. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 16 February 2025 review of submission by Summonier

Wikipedia:Anselm Wong Siew Shen I stumbled upon this page. It seems that its title is incorrect. Summonier (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Summonier: yes, it was, thanks for the heads-up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 16 February 2025 review of submission by KS782

Why my draft is declined . KS782 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KS782, writing a draft without citations is like building a house with no foundations. Please see backwards. If you keep on submitting it for review without addressing this fundamental shortcoming, it will get rejected (not just declined). ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:10, 16 February 2025 review of submission by Absent.Editor

A Wiki editor has not approved the draft of this page that I have been working on for a couple of months. She indicates that the tone is not formal. I teach formal academic writing to grad students and disagree. 'As an example to help me understand her decision, I asked her politely to select a portion of the content that she believes is not in a formal tone so that I can understand her decision. She has not replied. Do I have any recourse if I disagree with her decision? Help! Absent.Editor (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Absent.Editor: the full decline reason reads "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." I expect what triggered this was expressions like "key roles", "achieved", "excelling", "top generals", and many more peacock expressions besides. Also, quite a lot of the content isn't cited as coming from any sources, let alone independent and reliable ones.
Your 'recourse' is to edit the draft, support it better, and resubmit it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you this is very helpful! Absent.Editor (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 16 February 2025 review of submission by MuchangiJK

can i get some help on the changes that i can make to improve this draft so it's not declined. Anyone that can help me edit it, kindly? MuchangiJK (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MuchangiJK We don't do co-editing here at this help desk, we just help with the submission process. If you have questions about what is needed, please ask. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be my pleasure if any input is given on my draft MuchangiJK (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove ALL unsourced puffery ie. "Enos Njeru is a devoted family man who prioritizes the well-being and happiness of his family. Outside his professional commitments, he is a philanthropist, a passionate farmer, and a businessman with a love for nature. He actively participates in community initiatives aimed at improving education, governance, and overall community well-being, believing these efforts directly benefit the public." Totally unacceptable in an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the feedback. I just made the edit please review and guide me accordingly MuchangiJK (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "personal life" section is unsourced garbage and we don't use external links in the body of an article and there is still little indication of passing WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 16 February 2025 review of submission by Umetnikperformansa

Hi. I'm sorry this article has been rejected. First it was mentioned that the articled should be rewritten to avoid promotional language and to include more citations, and now, after trying to rewrite, it's rejected. What would be your advice? Shall I return with a new article when there are more significant coverages for Branko Milisković as a mid career artist in his early 40's? Thank you Umetnikperformansa (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umetnikperformansa, what is required are several references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to Milisković. All you have is two listings in databases or directories. That is completely inadequate. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

00:31, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Archivelens

I am not able to publish an article I spent so much time researching and writing. Archivelens (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a resume, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources say about this man and what makes him notable. He seems like an ordinary government employee/civil servant. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:01, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Thatsoundsreallygood

Could you please help me and explain why this didn't get approved? Thank you:) Thatsoundsreallygood (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer letf the reason why. Please review the pages linked to in their decline message. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:00, 17 February 2025 review of submission by John Jou

I do not understand where I am going wrong John Jou (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Helloyesgoodbye

Made appropriate edits and added in references for article. This is now ready to publish. Helloyesgoodbye (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope...Linkedin.com is not a reliable source and the draft was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:59, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Zhanga1996

This love Zhanga1996 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhanga1996: We don't accept blank "drafts". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 09:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 17 February 2025 review of submission by MuhammadSuhail2006

I am new to Wkipedia, and I am not too much aware of rules and regulations. Can anyone help me know where do mistakes lie in my article, that is actually a translated version of the one already existing in Sindhi? Can anyone even correct the mistakes? it would be great. MuhammadSuhail2006 (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that what is acceptable on one language Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on another. It's up to the translator to ensure that the subject meets the guidelines of the Wikipedia that they are translating for. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.
The sourcing of the draft is far from sufficient. Every substantive fact about a living person must have a source, please see the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Sources need to be in line next to the text they support, please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MuhammadSuhail2006: The issue is that it's just a straight translation, would be my guess. Wikipedia's standards, and enforcement of those standards, is more stringent than the vast majority of other Wikipedia projects, so much so that a straight translation that would pass muster at the origin wiki would be undersourced here. This is especially so as far as content about living people, where pretty much everything a reasonable person could challenge must be sourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 09:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:43, 17 February 2025 review of submission by 93.39.86.233

Dear contributors, may I ask for help in the correct editing of this page? I would need to understand more specifically what points are not working and for which the draft is rejected (since the same page is already on Wikipedia in other languages). Thanks a lot! 93.39.86.233 (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Please know that what is acceptable on one language Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on another. It's up to the translator to ensure that the subject meets the guidelines of the Wikipedia that they are translating for. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Please see the message left by the reviewer at the top of your draft.
You seem to have a connection to this person, as you took a very professional looking image of them. Please see your account's user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Aston3421

The article has been rejected due to not enough coverage and a lack of formal tone. However the exact mistakes have not been highlighted. Could someone help me to show me exactly what is wrong and where to improve it. Thank you Aston3421 (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aston3421: we don't point out every single issue, just the reason(s) why the draft isn't ready to be published. This has been declined, because it doesn't show that the person is notable enough. You need to show that he passes either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:CREATIVE notability guideline.
The informal/promotional tone is evident in expressions like "Koukjian's artistic vision is rooted in the concept of connection. His recurring motif of the chain serves as a profound symbol of unity, interdependence, and human relationships. Through this form, he explores how individuals are inherently linked, bound by shared experiences, and yet retain their own identities within a collective whole." This is not appropriate style of writing for an encyclopaedia. We need you to focus just on facts, and skip the floral tones and peacock expressions. And anything you say about his artistic style etc. must be based on a reliable and independent published, not your own opinion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will review and correct. Aston3421 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The necessary changes have been made, if possible could you review the draft and let me know what other problems you encounter? your help is much appreciated. Aston3421 (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is still not at all clear how they pass WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
According to the last point, if there are public sculptures aor part of museums then it passes the requirements. In this case both these conditions are present. Is it OK like that or there is a mistake somewhere? Aston3421 (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft doesn't mention this though? Theroadislong (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft introduction at the top has been modified to reflect this now. Aston3421 (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Phx-Racing

On February 9, 2025, the submission of the page I am writing was rejected, so I tried to make the corrections and changes that were suggested to me by expert editors, before resubmitting it for verification. I am trying my best to write the page respecting Wikipedia standards, but I am a new editor and I do not have much experience, so I ask you for your kind help to know if I could now, perhaps resubmit the page for verification. Thank you very much Phx-Racing (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer or reviewers, you are free to resubmit the draft. We don't do pre-review reviews here, as that is redundant to the process. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:55, 17 February 2025 review of submission by 199.119.87.146

I had made an draft about the fan film, but was declined. Is there anything I can do to make it be accepted? 199.119.87.146 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not offered any independent reliable sources with coverage of this fan film. YouTube is not an acceptable source as it is user-generated, unless the video comes from a reputable news outlet or similar on their verified channel. This is possible(see Star Trek: Of Gods and Men) but you haven't done so here. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 17 February 2025 review of submission by IvanPili25

Hello, My draft article "Ivan Pili" was declined, and I would like to understand what specific improvements are needed for approval. I believe Ivan Pili meets the notability requirements as a musician and painter, and I have provided references from independent sources.

Could you please guide me on:

What changes are required for notability and sources? Any structural or formatting issues that need fixing? How to ensure neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines? I appreciate your help. Thank you! IvanPili25 (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IvanPili25: I suppose you're referring to Draft:Ivan Pili 1, which is the draft that has been declined. The most obvious problem is that it's not in English. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept English content. (The same goes also for Draft:Ivan Pili and User:IvanPili25/sandbox. Please do not create multiple copies.)
I assume you're writing about yourself? In which case, please note that we strongly discourage autobiographies; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Also the same content at User:IvanPili25. Please delete this yourself, before the whole page is removed. For information on what can and cannot go on your user page, see WP:UP. While you're at it, see also WP:PROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Tudóspéter

It is not clear if the references are insufficient or there is a problem with their quality. Systems Education is a rather new concept and there are not many other references than the article that we linked from Nature magazine (also added to the references as point 5 now). Please let us know how we could improve the article. Tudóspéter (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tudóspéter Who is "we"?
Based on the reviewer's comments, the formatting seems to be the main concern, please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting of the references corrected, hopefully it is OK now. Thank you, Tudóspéter (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You used "we" above; do you represent a group? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References need to be secondary and cover the topic in-depth. We are not interested in what the primary sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the use of "we", no, I just got used to using the plural in scientific subjects.
Regarding secondary references: I will do some research on them. Tudóspéter (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tudóspéter: Is this an assignment that is part of your coursework? --bonadea contributions talk 19:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it " is a rather new concept and there are not many other references than the article that we linked", that pretty much guarantees that it is Too soon. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:18, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Ncapte

My draft was declined for not having a proper tone. Can I get to know which specific sentences may have triggered this? 

Ncapte (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well this unsourced promotion for starters "Pune has a vibrant design and manufacturing industry and has a large number of professional designers and design houses." Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:27, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Junihagel

I would like to set a new title to this draft and invite others to conbribute before I resubmit. Is this possible or do I have to start from scratch with a new article draft? Junihagel (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junihagel The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. You're free to ask others to contribute to it. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 17 February 2025 review of submission by KC Alunan

How do I find reliable sources on this person, when all the sources are from 100 years ago, and mostly in Spanish? KC Alunan (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not required that sources be in English. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used some sources in Spanish, but to be fair, that was one of like two exactly the same sources I found. KC Alunan (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not required that sources be online, printed materials that are publicly available(like in a public library) are fine as long as you can provide enough citation information for someone else to locate them(author, publisher, date of publication, page numbers, etc.). 331dot (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 17 February 2025 review of submission by Liza Nagymihály

Why did you decline my darft? Liza Nagymihály (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given at the top in the decline message "submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article." Theroadislong (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liza Nagymihály: Over at Hungarian Wikipedia, you mention that this is something you have been assigned to write as part of your coursework. If that is correct, and you have been told by your instructors to create an article about suggestive communication in order to get a grade, please ask them to read this information. --bonadea contributions talk 19:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

01:08, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

I think this person is very significant, as he is the biggest Smash Bros content creator in Australia (as well as one of the biggest Smash Bros content creators in general), and has built other YouTube communities and groups. I thought I sourced everything well, on line with other articles for content creators like Alpharad, but it got declined for not showing it's significant through the sources. I was wondering what I could do to improve the page, and make it eligible to be published? Thanks. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Orangutan, in order to establish the notability of a living person, it is mandatory that you provide references to reliable published sources fully independent of that person that devote significant coverage to that person. Your references are a combination of YouTube videos, blog posts and X/Twitter posts. None appear to be actual reliable sources and none appear to be independent of Little Z. Cullen328 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's three independent articles, I can look for more if that's the problem. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The InvenGlobal article is an interview with the subject, so that's not content independent of the subject. The only plausibly independent, reliable reference I see is the Dashfight cite, and that's not about Little Z. Sources have to do more than mention the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Dashfight reference is a passing mention, and is by no means significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is the Dashfight only a passing mention? He's in the article title and everything. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor Orangutan, the coverage in this case consists of two sentences: Well-known Australian Super Smash Bros ultimate player and content creator Little Z is one of the many that chose to step out of the org. Before today's announcement, Little Z had mentioned were to leave the org, he would want to bring another one in if he had the chance and that content creation was still his focus. Read how the Notability guideline defines significant coverage: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. We learn from this meagre content that an Australian gamer quit an org and will be working on content creation. What city was the gamer born in? What city does he now live in? What is his real name? How long has he been a professional gamer/content creator? How old is he? Is he married? Does he have children? Is he a college graduate? What was his profession, if any, before becoming a gamer? Significant biographical coverage of a person provides at least some of this type of information and similar information.
Those two sentences are not significant coverage. They amount to a passing mention which is not sufficient to establish notability. Also, the coverage is discussing Little Z's tweet, which is the modern day equivalent of a press release. It is not independent coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok 👌 Mayor Orangutan (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:35, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Ahappydugong

I'm new to creating wikipedia articles and have been reading about the requirements and standards, but still having some difficulties so I would like to ask for some help to see where I need to make improvements and so-on.

I'm trying to create a biographical article for work, specifically for my boss. I'm aware of the COI and have disclosed it on my profile and on the page as required. My draft article was declined under the basis of: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)"

Does this simply mean I need to find more reliable sources to cite and reference in my draft? I am hoping to get some more specific feedback about what I need to do in order to fix/improve the draft so it can be published. Thanks.Ahappydugong (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahappydugong all of your references are by the subject not about the subject. Do you have any that are not connected to the subject and about the subject? The entire biography section has no references besides ones where information must be inferred by the reader see WP:OR. They may likely meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, but is still lacking any solid independent references for the biography section. You will also need to remove all external links in the body of the article per WP:EL. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS, and have him read it too. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:10, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Gracewith

Please advise how I can publish this article. I don't know about this. Gracewith (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracewith You've been given much advice on the draft itself; is there something more you're looking for? 331dot (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Aston3421

I have made the necessary changes requested over the past few days to demonstrate notability and the neutral point of view. If someone could point out what else is wrong in the draft it would help a lot. Thank you Aston3421 (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to Mr. Koukjian? You took a picture of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hello @331dot
it was disclosed as an autoportrait.
We discussed together this part on my talk page including the proper disclosures to be done. The discussion is here User talk:Aston3421#c-Aston3421-20240502094800-331dot-20240502093900
is there any other information you would? Is there any specific thing you can help me with the draft so that it can be accepted? Aston3421 (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not yet shown how Koukjian meets the criteria at WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong I have modified the draft, particularly in the beginning to try to show that Point 4 in WP:NARTIST was respected. ie: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, AND (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
The subject has works as public monuments in Switzerland and Lebanon, part of a museum in Lebanon and had his works in a gallery in Switzerland.
could you guide me on how to improve the notability part? Aston3421 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I did not see the discussion from last year. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot No problem, if you could review the new version of my draft and guide me on how to improve it would be really helpful. Aston3421 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Jayfatwani

With due respect I want to state that I am Jay Fatwani I wanted to Know why My wikipedia Article is Rejected in easy way and want a video how can I easily recreate it THANK YOU Jayfatwani (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayfatwani: this page was purely promotional, and that extensive photo gallery was entirely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. You also shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO. If you want to tell the world about yourself, please find some social media or blogging platform for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jayfatwani, your deleted draft completely failed to make the case that you meet Wikipedia's standards as a notable person. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 18 February 2025 review of submission by 獅眠洞

May I use the Chinese sources which is mention in Chinese version of this page, because English articles are less in numbers about her but in Chinese there are much more pages, I am afraid to use that sources because it may be not accepted due to language barrier.

Thank you 獅眠洞 (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@獅眠洞: you may use non-English sources, yes, as long as they otherwise meet our requirements for reliability etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Schiller67

I want to correct the spelling of the subject's first name from "Grigori" to "Grigory." The latter is preferred. Schiller67 (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schiller67: I've added a comment to that effect on the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Schiller67: As a general rule, draft names are provisional; if a draft is accepted the reviewer will move it to the proper title. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:06, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Tianaj25

I need help creating a page for helecia choyce Tianaj25 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tianaj25: you have already created Draft:Helecia Choyce ( SKG ), but it has no chance of being accepted as it currently stands, since it is completely unreferenced. See WP:42 -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Shujaktk

hi, this is shuja, i need your opinion about this topic, what is best methods to submit article abour mobile application and companies? can you help me please? Shujaktk (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is thoroughly promotional and was correctly rejected. It does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Depewtyl

I believe the references have all been fixed. I had placeholders that I meant to replace and I only fixed some of them previously. They should all be fixed now. Depewtyl (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to submit Draft for Review

I am trying to submit my draft for review, and in the page that instructs on how to do that, it says I can paste the following code: {{AfC submission|||ts=20250218185635|u=FahadAlHawazini|ns=4}} in the Source editing at the top, where Id be then able to see a yellow button, but still it didn't appear. The page that instructs on pasting the code instructs on coming here if that doesn't work, please help me this is my first draft FahadAlHawazini (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FahadAlHawazini: You have no edits to the English-language Wikipedia other than this. The code we use here does not translate to the Arabic Wikipedia; you would need to look it up on ar.wp. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Abir017

Article declined Abir017 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article rejected, @Abir017. qcne (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abir017, your rejected draft is entirely unreferenced which is a violation of several policies including Verifiability and Biographies of living people. Attempting to write an autobiography is strongly discouraged and almost never succeeds. It is rare for a 16 year old to be notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, and such unique individuals are the subject of massive coverage by a wide range of reliable sources. You aren't. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what happened? Can't I tell others about myself? Abir017 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept my article Abir017 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. We want to know what others say about you. Please use social media to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abit017: No. Accept that we will never accept an utterly unreferenced article about a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:21, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Anonymous.In.Nashville

Hi - I added more sources as he has received significant media coverage recently. Is this under review? Anonymous.In.Nashville (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anonymous.In.Nashville, I rejected this back in November so no, it's not under review. I have checked all your sources: none of them show this person meets our criteria for inclusion, sorry. qcne (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:00, 18 February 2025 review of submission by Yiopanda

I wrote this a while ago, and received a pretty much immediate decline (which is fair, there are a lot of uncredited sources). The problem is that most of them are either from the counts for YouTube videos, Spotify, or the own band posting their statistics. I would like help on trying to get this published as there is no other source on this band. Yiopanda (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the band, it would not yet merit an article. Wikipedia sunmarizes what is already out there; it's the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

03:37, 19 February 2025 review of submission by Editormariasrivian

Please suggest how to improve my article Editormariasrivian (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editormariasrivian: The page has been deleted as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion. What is your connexion to your subject? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:33, 19 February 2025 review of submission by Chance997

I had made an draft about the fan film, but was rejected because an unreleased film hasn't begun production (principal photography or animation) and didn't satisfy film notability. Is there advice that you can give me about it? Chance997 (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chance997: my advice is to drop the stick. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chance, you've been given plenty enough input already about your draft already and ignored most of it. To be blunt, there is no evidence that the topic is notable and to continue to pursue it is likely a fruitless endeavor, wasting both your time and ours. I suggest you re-read and follow the advice that Serge gave you, and move on. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 19 February 2025 review of submission by Priyank b sutariya

Please tell me the reason why are you not adding my profile page Priyank b sutariya (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Priyank b sutariya: Have you read anything on your user talk page? Multiple users have explained it to you, myself included. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyank b sutariya: please read the advice on your talk page, which you asked for but seem to be completely ignoring. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 19 February 2025 review of submission by MarcoTruck

Hi, I'm having trouble getting the green light for the article I've created about the Iveco Group Company. The tone of the article seems to me to be as neutral as possible and the content in it is purely informational about the company.

The company is relatively young, so the historical part is not particularly rich, but it is a company with a global presence, with quite an important relevance in the automotive field and one that already exists on Wikipedia in other languages.

I have always tried to use indipendent sources to support the data within it (mainly articles from online publications), but it does not seem to be enough.

Can you help me better understand what I can do to improve the article for acceptance? Thank you so much in advance MarcoTruck (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 19 February 2025 review of submission by ValeZh1987

Hi. Can you check my translation of the article from Ukrainian Wikipedia in this project? https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_ (% D0% BA% D0% BE% D0% BC% D0% BF% D0% B0% D0% BD% D1% 96% D1% 8F). Please add a recommendation for my project if required. ValeZh1987 (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ValeZh1987: I can tell you one thing right off the bat: Straight translations generally won't work, and this is due to the difference in sourcing standards between projects (English Wikipedia tends to be amongst the strictest). WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:PRIMARY may be very relevant here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 09:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 19 February 2025 review of submission by Helloow123

what to do to get article get select Helloow123 (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, it has been rejected. The vast majority of schools do not merit Wikipedia articles. Typically they must be historic structures or otherwise receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources beyond merely telling of the existence of the school and describing its offerings. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:54, 19 February 2025 review of submission by Nibawiki

I have written the article from an unbiased perspective and have selected references from reliable news sources. However, in the comments I was told that it is not yet in the format intended by Wikipedia. I would be grateful if you could review my draft and provide more detailed guidance to fix the problem. Because similar pages have used almost the same literature and referencing, and I do not understand the problem. Thanks in advance 

Nibawiki (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 19 February 2025 review of submission by Tanyathakur9

reject ?? 

Tanyathakur9 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 19 February 2025 review of submission by Helloow123

how to get accept my article Helloow123 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1276534445"