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 Riteshkumarjee1 (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 27 February 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Ritesh kumar jee1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


February 21

01:38, 21 February 2025 review of submission by MangeshSahoo

Accept MangeshSahoo (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You skipped AfC and made a cut-paste move. I don't know what you need here given you only typed a single word and left. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 21 February 2025 review of submission by DeepFriedUranium

There are "reliable sources" on the Tucson Scorch. I took references from both their official website and the Arizona Daily Star. If you could tell me how they aren't reliable I would appreciate it. DeepFriedUranium (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeepFriedUranium: this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which requires sources to be not only reliable but also independent of the subject, secondary, and to provide significant coverage directly of the subject. The team's own website obviously is neither independent nor secondary, leaving you with only one (potentially) qualifying source, and notability requires multiple such sources (usually interpreted as meaning 3+). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also might I ask if there is a limit for how many times an article can be declined before it gets deleted? DeepFriedUranium (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeepFriedUranium: there is no hard limit as such. Sometimes a draft is rejected at the first review, if it's obvious it has no chance of being accepted. At the other end of the scale, there have probably been drafts with 10+ declines, although I can't immediately recall having seen one. Usually, as long as you're constructively responding to reviewer comments and making progress, you're given quite a lot of latitude. But don't interpret that as "no limit", because in a finite world everything has a limit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeepFriedUranium, at first glance, your "best" reference appears to be the Timothy Gassen article in the Arizona Daily Star. However, when I read the whole article, I discovered that Gassen wrote I created TV commercials for the team in the summer of 2000 and was slated to add color commentary for the radio game broadcasts that fall. In other words, Gassen was briefly employed by this team that never got on the ice. Providing references to significant coverage in fully independent reliable sources is a requirement to create a Wikipedia article. Gassen is not independent. Please do not resubmit without fully independent reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would fun while it lasted count as an independent source? That's where I got the information that they were founded in 1999.
https://funwhileitlasted.net/western-professional-hockey-league/ DeepFriedUranium (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeepFriedUranium, that website is independent, I suppose, but a database entry with negligible content is not significant coverage, and they buy and sell memorabilia, which means it is not appropriate as a reference in a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So can you tell me how this got approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson_Gila_Monsters DeepFriedUranium (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wait never mind i misread one of the references. DeepFriedUranium (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 21 February 2025 review of submission by Abdelrahmanbarghout

I have made the required changes, please review the articles again. Abdelrahmanbarghout (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdelrahmanbarghout: you need to resubmit it, by clicking that big blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did this
But do I have to wait another two months for review?
Please try to review it quickly Abdelrahmanbarghout (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdelrahmanbarghout, that's not how this works, it will be reviewed when it gets reviewed. There is no priority there is no method of expeditated reviews. Volunteers will get to it at their own pace, WP:NODEADLINES. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that I waited two months before I hoped or thought that it would be reviewed quickly Abdelrahmanbarghout (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might do. And it might not. Nobody in the entire universe knows how long it will take. ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:32, 21 February 2025 review of submission by Referent999

Can anybody explain about this article/draft what is good and what is bad? The last decline is so round-worded that hard to understand what to improve. For example are there some good/OK paragraph or ar all bad? Where is the opinion (there is complain that too much own opinions)? Referent999 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Referent999: much of the information is unreferenced, which could be because it is based on your knowledge of this subject, or original research which is not allowed. Wikipedia articles should simply summarise what reliable sources have previously published, with each source cited against the information it has provided.
Personal opinions and commentary, such as "it is interesting to see how best brake-specific fuel consumption figure has improved during the years" is not appropriate. You should merely present the facts, and whatever reliable and independent sources may have said about the impact, importance and/or other noteworthiness of the subject, and leave it for the reader to draw their own conclusions and determine what is "interesting" etc. Also, do not 'narrate' the content, as in "In this article we take a closer look..." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI we had an unproductive conversation with this user on #wikipedia-en-help. qcne (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on what qcne says, despite what he and I repeatedly told him about Wikipedia's intended and actual audience, he refused to listen and interpreted it as "Wikipedia discriminates against engineers and the hard sciences". I think it's more he's writing for a different, more proficient audience than what we're written for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) OK, I see:
"Also it is interesting to see how best brake-specific fuel consumption figure has improved during the years"
"is interesting" - maybe yes, not totally neutral
"has improved" - maybe yes, not totally neutral
OK, with "has improved" it is possible to change it to "has changed" - should be neutral now, everybody can decide themself is better engine efficency an improvement or not.
But, "is interesting" - how to you say it in neutral, nothing telling way - maybe "it is possible to see" ?
2)
In this article we take a closer look...
What would be replacement for this - maybe just to throw it out/away?
was:
MAN D2676 (also known as D 2676 or D26 or D 26) is diesel engine from MAN Truck & Bus (formerly MAN AG), who has developed diesel engines since 1893 and produced these since the 1890s. In this article we take a closer look for MAN D2676 diesel engine and it sub-models. They all have same displacement, but different power output, different features and accessories. This engine is used in trucks, busses, light marine applications and agricultural machines, like combines and tractors. Also it is interesting to see how best brake-specific fuel consumption figure has improved during the years.
now:
MAN D2676 (also known as D 2676 or D26 or D 26) is diesel engine from MAN Truck & Bus (formerly MAN AG), who has developed diesel engines since 1893 and produced these since the 1890s. MAN D2676 diesel engine and it sub-models - these all have same displacement, but different power output, different features and accessories. This engine is used in trucks, busses, light marine applications and agricultural machines, like combines and tractors. Also it is possible to see how best brake-specific fuel consumption figure has changed during the years/sub-models.
Is this first paragraph now OK or something more?
What about rest of the article? Referent999 (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Referent999: The rest of the article is still a spec sheet, which will still lead to declines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 21 February 2025 review of submission by Userpy4567

Ya esta listo para subirse? Userpy4567 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, please communicate in English. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 21 February 2025 review of submission by Gabrielzang

Hi ! I tried to give a more neutral tone and to give the proper license for the picture. I am eager to learn how I can improve it. Could you please provide specific feedback on areas where it fell short or where further revisions are needed? I’m committed to making the necessary adjustments to meet Wikipedia’s standards and would really appreciate your guidance. Thank you in advance for your time and assistance! Gabrielzang (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabrielzang, you've been warned and reminded about our conflict of interest policy several times already. Please disclose any connection you have with the subject. If you are writing about yourself, I'll remind you again that this is highly unrecommended. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

01:20, 22 February 2025 review of submission by Bramable

I want to make something that will not get rejected Bramable (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe... try not to write joke submissions? You're wasting other editor's time by submitting nonsense. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 22 February 2025 review of submission by MalangPrani

i want to publish it what should i do to publish it MalangPrani (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing you can do, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms and the draft has been rejected and tagged for speedy deletion as blatant promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 22 February 2025 review of submission by AP of Euranasia

Have new changes been implemented? AP of Euranasia (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AP of Euranasia you removed my decline notice and have not submitted it for review. qcne (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AP of Euranasia: This reads like a political manifesto. I should also note this draft falls into a contentious topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AP of Euranasia. The first question is, what is your relationship with this party? It sounds from your name as if you have a conflict of interest - this does not prevent you from writing about it, but it does put certain limitations on you, and you should certainly declare your conflict of interest.
Secondly, Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Unless there are enough such sources to establish notability (and remember that nothing written, published, or commission by the party or its members or associates will count) then there cannot be an article on it at present.
Your current draft cites no sources whatever, and will not be accepted as an article. ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 22 February 2025 review of submission by 74.5.151.247

My work wasn't sent through due to no sources, but I don't know how to attach a source about something I myself created. Just a bit confusinig 74.5.151.247 (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Made up one day? it was created 2019. But thanks for your response. - From the person you just offended EmperorQD (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EmperorQD: Regardless of when its subject came into existence, an article that is completely unsourced won't be accepted under any circumstance. While DoubleGrazing may have been unnecessarily flippant and didn't actually explain much of anything, SK2242's decline is correct. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping Jéské Couriano. EmperorQD, see Referencing for beginners if you need help adding sources. SK2242 (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 22 February 2025 review of submission by Frd15

hello, iwould like to know my page not accepted ,please give me more informations for set this page. thank you Frd15 (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frf15 I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. The reason for rejection was left by the reviewer, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Please see WP:NPOLITICIAN. To merit an article as a politician, he must hold public office or have won election to public office. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see all the messages left on the draft, which explains this well. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 22 February 2025 review of submission by FSchwenk

I would like to publish an English translation of my long-standing German wikipedia page. I have translated the article as well as possible. I would have thought that wikipedia would recognise the existing sources and verifications. In fact, it seems more complicated than I thought. The required entries exist in wikidata, but a link to a draft:FredrikSchwenk page is denied. I would be grateful for any help. FSchwenk (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is entirely unsourced so could never be accepted here. Theroadislong (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FSchwenk. The German and English Wikipedia's are separate projects with their own rules and policies. Here, on the English Wikipedia, it is mandatory that biographies of living people have in-line citations after every piece of biographic information linked to a reliable published sources. Please see the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. qcne (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @FSchwenk. Notice also that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
One of the many reasons why it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself is that every single piece of information in the article must be verifiable from a reliable published source - and with few exceptions, from sources wholly unconnected with the subject. Things you know yourself are simply not relevant, unless you can find a published source for them. ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:08, 22 February 2025 review of submission by 102.89.83.122

Why is my Wikipedia was been declined 102.89.83.122 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you provide a link to your draft, we can't help. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 22 February 2025 review of submission by Tunner 01

Hi Tunner 01 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tunner 01, do you have a question? qcne (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tunner 01 if you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 22 February 2025 review of submission by 2600:4040:297C:4F00:50BE:C19C:BC94:45EF

Dear Editors, - I've been trying to submit a Wikipedia page for Professor Lumelsky, and I need your help. His contributions to robotics are truly groundbreaking. He was the first to introduce the pioneering concept of “sensitive skin” enabling the development of a new generation of robots operating in unstructured environments. Meanwhile, for a long time I'm stuck with Reviewers' small technical issues. Here are the most recent Reviewer's comments that need to be addressed: 1. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." ---- I added a couple of sources, but since no specific unreliable sources were mentioned, how should I respond? 2. "See WP:COI. See also WP:BLP. Statements, starting with the date of birth, need to be sourced or removed." ---- Since Lumelsky's date of birth is public knowledge, can it stay? - see e.g. sites Radaris and Wikitia. Also, with "Statements" in plural, what other statements does the Reviewer refer to? I would be grateful for additional guidance or advice. Yours, Michael Shur 2600:4040:297C:4F00:50BE:C19C:BC94:45EF (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Yes, the birth date must be sourced. We have a strict policy, WP:BLP, that any substantive fact about a living person must be sourced. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places, and almost nothing else.
It does not appear to me as if a single one of your citations is independent of Lumelsky. The draft therefore does nothing to establish that he meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and provides essentially no information on which to base a valid article. ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:01, 22 February 2025 review of submission by Rhocheung

CCUE, Singtao, Screen Daily, are all reliable news source, also IMDB, not? Which part of it is not reliable, would really love to know. Thanks. Rhocheung (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb cannot be used as a source. Additionally, you have referenced Youtube, which is also unreliable. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, two more sources are CHIME itself and another one is an interview. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

07:01, 23 February 2025 review of submission by Армен Меликян

I wanted to post an article about media attacks and fake articles, why not about commissioned articles? Армен Меликян (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Армен Меликян: Because you fail to properly cite your sources. A list of plaintext URLs at the bottom is not sufficient given we're also discussing what is effectively a biography of a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 23 February 2025 review of submission by Truth Layer 123

This draft, in my opinion, follows the Wikipedia's manual of style. It is noteworthy since it is covered hugely on international channels and isn't a single incident, as it was also cited as one of the factors in the opposition party's defeat in 2024 elections. I'd like to hear more people's thoughts about the draft. Please advise me on any necessary modifications. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with the last reviewer, it reads like a news article, and not an encyclopedia article. It's "telling" and not "summarizing". 331dot (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is also content in there which comes across as commentary or conjecture, although TBF I've not checked the sources to see if all of that comes from them or from the draft author.
The lead section also should be rewritten to better comply with MOS:LEAD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @DoubleGrazing I will do necessary changes today and will resubmit the draft again. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 23 February 2025 review of submission by Sainter5

Hi, I would appreciate any help you can give me to accepting this page. This is the first article i have raised, it's genuine for the baseball club that I am involved in. There are other baseball club Wiki pages which I have modelled this page from. All content is unique and true to Williamstown Baseball Club. Sainter5 (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sainter5 If you are associated with this club, that must be disclosed, please see conflict of interest.
While understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as those too could be inappopriate and you would be unaware of that as a newer/inexperienced user. Please see other stuff exists. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, so not all problematic content is removed immediately, or even detected immediately. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
No one disputes that your club is "genuine". Genuine-ness isn't sufficient grounds for an article. You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your club and what makes it a notable organization as Wikipedia defines one. This is why it was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you used as a model so we can take action and prevent others from doing as you did. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 23 February 2025 review of submission by AP of Euranasia

How to add this article? AP of Euranasia (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AP of Euranasia: you cannot; it has been rejected. There is zero evidence that this organisation is notable, since the draft cites only its own website as a source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:43, 23 February 2025 review of submission by Drego82

Hi im am trying to get help publishing an article for an artist and also adding pictures i am not able to upload the headshots Drego82 (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You can worry about images once the draft is accepted. What help specifically are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:49, 23 February 2025 review of submission by Drinfio

Assist me in creating collecting more knowledge on this article .please help it was my first article that was not accepted .anyone interested in helping me can directly edit the article i have already provided a infobox . Please reply me in my talk page if anyone is interested in helping me out.hope some support from the community Drinfio (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find sources for you- that's your job if you feel that this company merits an article. Please review WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:13, 23 February 2025 review of submission by 2402:E280:3D7A:359:E546:3C80:7319:20B2

This page is good and he is one of the best architcets we have in india, why his profile is in drafts? 2402:E280:3D7A:359:E546:3C80:7319:20B2 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. We don't have "profiles" here, not a single one. We have articles.
What is your connection to this man? You took a very professional image of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that interviews do not establish notability, as that is done with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed account of OP soft blocked for username. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 23 February 2025 review of submission by Scottlinehan1999

How can i improve article? Scottlinehan1999 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected means that it will not be considered further, please see WP:NLIST as advised by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 23 February 2025 review of submission by Get out 333

Can you explain why you brought something like that to my page? If you don't explain it I won't understand and I will delete it. What does that mean though? I joined Wikipedia 4 hours ago. Get out 333 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Get out 333: This looks like an editing test, not a serious draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 23 February 2025 review of submission by 2806:2F0:8100:18C3:B8E8:FD6:7F90:557C

It mentioned the article is promotional. But I’m not sure where that is picked up from the article as I don’t see it being promotional. A specific example explained or two should be really helpful for me to understand how to make the article better align with Wikipedia guidelines. 2806:2F0:8100:18C3:B8E8:FD6:7F90:557C (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP user. It's promotional because it is very obviously telling us what Naupairi and his associates want us to know about him: that is the essence of promotion. 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) 20:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:03, 23 February 2025 review of submission by Viv2505

I don't understand 

Viv2505 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You created a hoax article, it was rejected and tagged for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 23 February 2025 review of submission by Las-Giddy 1995

Would please welcome your guidance on what else needs to be done to move this draft (Draft: Society for Equity Neuroscience) forward as an article? Thank you. Las-Giddy 1995 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entire article seems like some promotion; write it in a neutral tone to comply with wikipedia guidelines Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 23 February 2025 review of submission by 2.66.51.235

Can someone add the references for this article. The bloke was signed for 3,000,000 euros. He's obviously worth an article. 

2.66.51.235 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How much euros a dude was signed for DOES NOT mean they meet notability standards of wikipedia. You need to show evidence of notability(which means again third party sources). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the draft says he signed for an undisclosed fee. Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

00:17, 24 February 2025 review of submission by Thetradings

Hello, please consider publishing the page for Gloria Sabra, as she is a musician. Thank you. Thetradings (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thetradings:, Topic is not notable. Resubmitting it again and again without improving the draft is why it was ultimately rejected. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:33, 24 February 2025 review of submission by Mateo Inc

Could you add more references to this article? Mateo Inc (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to ask for others to help you with your draft - it's for asking questions. See WP:REFB or WP:CS for help with adding references. I don't speak Spanish, but based on a preliminary Google search, there seems to be various news articles on the subject of your article. Don't worry about using non-English sources. Good luck! it's lio! | talk | work 01:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mateo Inc. In case it's not clear, when @HKLionel said "Don't worry about using non-English sources" they meant "it's OK to use non-English sources". (This may be clear to you, but I suspect it is ambiguous for some people whose first language is not English). ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 24 February 2025 review of submission by Aami.jiarul

Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Draft: Monglapota High School

Dear Wikipedia Review Team,

I am writing to formally request a reconsideration of my submitted article *"Draft:Monglapota High School."* Despite multiple revisions and the inclusion of all possible reliable sources, the article continues to be declined.

Monglapota High School is a government-sponsored institution, established in 1940, and plays a significant role in Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, India. It is officially recognized by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) and West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (WBCHSE).

I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:NSCHOOL) and ensured that the article meets the necessary requirements. The references provided include: -Official government databases (UDISE+, Banglar Shiksha) - Independent school directories** (Schools.org.in, StackSchools) - West Bengal State Council of Technical & Vocational Education -Publicly accessible school records and report cards

These sources are reliable, independent, and verifiable. The article is not promotional and presents neutral, factual information. I have also ensured proper formatting, citations, and compliance with Wikipedia’s content policies.

I kindly request a thorough re-evaluation of the article. If any specific improvements are needed, I would greatly appreciate detailed feedback to make the necessary revisions.

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

Best regards, Aami.jiarul Aami.jiarul (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aami.jiarul: Requests written via chatbot will not be entertained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please suggest something for my draft? I was writing a wikipedia page on my high school but it is continuously getting rejected despite I gave it a lot of reliable sources please check it out Aami.jiarul (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aami.jiarul: Your sources are school profiles and the school's social media. At best, these only show that the school exists - not that it is notable as Wikipedia defines the term. (We don't accept the position that schools are inherently notable by existing.) For that, we're looking for news articles or books that cover the school at length. If those don't exist (online or off) we can't have an article until they do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I've so many schools like this nearby which have individual wikipedia pages while having notability as much this school has! Aami.jiarul (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to find reliable, independent and verifiable sources and put them in the article. it's lio! | talk | work 07:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aami.jiarul In the past, schools were deemed inherently notable- meriting an article just for existing- but this was changed a few years ago, so that schools are now treated like any other organization, needing to meet WP:ORG This means that there are many inappropriate articles that we still need to deal with but haven't gotten to yet, because this is a volunteer project. These other inappropriate articles cannot justify adding more inapproprate articles, see other stuff exists; as well as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.
Note that to merit an article, there needs to be significant coverage of the school by independent reliable sources. This usually means that a school needs to be in a historic structure, or have many independent sources that discuss the school at length beyond its routine activities. Note that even a school shooting at a school doesn't merit the school itself an article(Sandy Hook Elementary School, the site of a mass shooting, redirects to the school district while a separate article is about the shooting itself). 331dot (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so we can take action. We need the help, and we are only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aami.jiarul Even though some high schools(including mine) have articles, you need to find more reliable independent sources. Are there any famous alumni from your school or any important events(e.g. disasters, shootings etc) that happened? That would help out with notability. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 24 February 2025 review of submission by Kalingad

So I am sure that I made the edit long back and that time the tone was not suited to that of a wikipedia but I have made the necessary changes now.

This person is prominent figure in the Indian sphere, he has voiced for ads (like for BMW and many other companies), worked on regional dubs of Disney films, and even sung in movies. Despite their remarkable work.

The page is not meant for branding but for documenting artists in India. A lot of mentions are buried in old radio broadcasts, magazines, and other difficult-to-access sources. To make the page, I’ve used references from interviews and film credits (including national awards), but I want to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and verifiability.

I’ve already added over 15-20 references, including the award (with name and photo listed on Wikipedia). But I’m unsure about the process of getting this page approved or if there’s anything I should be cautious about. I plan on creating more pages for voice actors who have been active for 15-20 years. Kalingad (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalingad You have resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kalingad. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a subject, and very little else. Most of your sources, and all the sources by which you intend to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, should meet the triple criteria of WP:42: reliability, independence, and significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and should almost never be cited. Interviews, and anything written, published, or commissioned, by him, his friends and associates, his employers, are not independent, and so cannot contribute to notability, and can only be cited for limited purposes (see WP:SPS). Listings are nearly useless - yes, they confirm a particular role, but if you cannot find an independent source that discusses that role, why should it appear in an encyclopaedia article? ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback I understand the importance of using independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage. My intention is to document François Castellino's contributions objectively, ensuring that the article aligns with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.
I acknowledge that interviews and primary sources have limitations regarding notability, and I will ensure they are used only for supplementary details. However, I have also referenced independent sources, including his National Award recognition, coverage of his work in advertisements, film credits, and industry publications. These sources substantiate his notability in the voice acting and dubbing industry, particularly in India, where such contributions are often underdocumented.
Additionally, I’d like to clarify that the listings are not from employers, friends, or associates, but rather from independent sources, including government sources and international brands. For example, Disney’s operations in India work through Hotstar, where official credits appear. These listings serve as verifiable records rather than promotional material.
I will go through the references again and make necessary improvements, ensuring they meet WP:42 criteria (reliability, independence, and significant coverage). If there are any specific sources that you believe do not meet the guidelines, I would appreciate guidance on replacing them with better alternatives.
Additionally, since voice actors and dubbing artists are often underrepresented on Wikipedia due to the lack of easily accessible mainstream coverage, I would like to understand how best to approach documenting their contributions while maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. Kalingad (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responses written by AI are rarely helpful, and this case is no exception. As is typical, AI doesn't really understand what reliable sources means in the Wikipedia context; the very block of text you copy and paste from AI clearly doesn't know the different between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY and "international brand" is not one of the characteristics of a good source, in and of itself, unless the international brand is something that has a reputation for providing quality coverage with a robust editorial process.
In fact, much of the draft appears to be written by AI. It's full of the WP:PEACOCK terms that AIs love to cram into biographies. It's full of flowery, unencylopedic sentences like these experiences expanded his skill set and enabled him to explore different aspects of voice artistry, from musical performances to dramatic dubbing and He also became a preferred choice for character voicing, allowing him to explore a wide array of roles, from authoritative narration to quirky animated characters.
I think it's actually fairly likely that an article about this person has a decent chance to make a case for notability, but to be blunt, the article is a mess in its current state, and I'm skeptical that a few suggestions are enough to salvage it. It really need to be blown up and rewritten less ambitiously, but with more focus towards actually being a Wikipedia article, rather than an AI-enhanced resume. Go through your sources, and pick out only the ones that are independent of Castellino, reliable, and provide significant coverage of Castellino. That means no YouTube videos, no simple presence on a list, no articles that only mention him in passing. And then write based only on those sources. Other things can be added later once notability is properly established. Less is frequently more. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I use the AI for making the language decently better. I wrote a lot of things and used it for proofreading and enhancing.. Even my response was written like that. In hopes that it reads out better. I will try to redo it Kalingad (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 24 February 2025 review of submission by Fibip

Hi Why was this rejected?

//Filip Fibip (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fibip: it was declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road) because it is completely unreferenced. Where does the information come from, and how do we know it's true? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mikael Björnstjerna [sv] is covered in Swedish Wikipedia, Wikidata (d:Q77285993), and has at least one design in the MoMA collection. It shouldn't be too much of a stretch to get a short article over the WP:NBIO line. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you're interested, there's another Swedish designer who could use some attention: Draft:Tom Ahlström (Tom Ahlström, d:Q5544310). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 24 February 2025 review of submission by 27four

My article was rejected. I would like assistance in editing it so that it gets approved. 27four (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:13, 24 February 2025 review of submission by 220.233.199.163

My article was rejected 220.233.199.163 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question.
The draft (not yet article) was declined (not rejected), because there is no evidence that the subject is notable, since the draft is entirely unreferenced. Where does all the information come from? (No need to tell me here, you tell the reader by citing your sources, see WP:REFB for advice.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. The good news is that it 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.
The draft is completely unsourced and shows no indication of how the band meets our special definition of a notable band; you list "interview with James van Hest" as a source; that is unacceptable. Information must be sourced to independent reliable sources that can be verified Furthermore, an account(perhaps yours) named "James van Hest" is the author. If you are writing about your own band, that must be disclosed, please see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:57, 24 February 2025 review of submission by Ismatzein

Ismatzein is An Artist Ismatzein (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ismatzein: This draft is practically a blank Article Wizard template, and is all but content-free. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and recreating it here Ismatzein is disruptive and pointless. Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 24 February 2025 review of submission by Leo2324

This is my first time creating an Wikipedia page of an Indian director Desingh Periyasamy. How do i make it reliable and readable. Leo2324 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For starters wikimylinks is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Leo2324. The steps are easy to list, though not necessarily easy to perform.
1. Find several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42: they are published by reputable publishers, are not written, published, or commissioned by the subject or any associates of the subject; and they each contain at least a few paragraphs about the subject specifically.
2. If you can't find at least three such sources, give up. The subject probably does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
3. Forget anything you may know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say about him.
That should be enough to get your draft accepted. After that you can add images, a small amount of uncontroversial factual information cited to non-independent sources, selected list of works etc. ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Message. Leo2324 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:59, 24 February 2025 review of submission by 158.93.6.52

No one is approving the draft. This is the only US route being in the draft, so why is it taking so long? Many wiki users like @Imzadi1979 are doing nothing to the draft even admitting they will not approve the draft anytime soon. 158.93.6.52 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was only submitted for review a couple of days ago. As the yellow box on the draft page says, it can take several weeks. There is no deadline! --bonadea contributions talk 20:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, "why is it taking so long"? This draft was submitted yesterday. Did you see the note on top of it saying "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,379 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 24 February 2025 review of submission by Userpy4567

Request for reconsideration: Notability

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing the draft. I would like to request reconsideration regarding the notability of Julian Gualtieri. The subject already has a Wikipedia article in Italian, focusing on his achievements as a professional basketball player: Italian Wikipedia Article. This demonstrates his established notability within the sports field.

Additionally, Mr. Gualtieri has successfully transitioned into the financial industry, where he has received notable recognition. Most recently, he was named a finalist for the “Best Rising Wealth Manager in the United States” by Citywire, a respected financial publication. His professional achievements at Morgan Stanley, along with verification from FINRA and the SEC, further support his public prominence.

I believe that the combination of his sports career and recognized accomplishments in finance meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies of living persons. If there are additional improvements needed, I would appreciate any guidance to help align the article with Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, 

Userpy4567 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Userpy4567, each project has its own policies and guidelines about notability, English is one of the most stringent. We do not care what any other language project has done. Looking at his draft three are zero sources given which meet all 3 of the criteria we look for, which are reliable, independent, and significant. If there are not any sources that meet all those criteria then there won't be an article about him here on the English Wikipedia. See WP:ANYBIO WP:42 and WP:REFBEG. The top 10 style of awards are not considered significant or well-known here, for this criteria we are often looking at awards that have their own article to demonstrate their significance. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 24 February 2025 review of submission by 50.86.96.187

im tr 50.86.96.187 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quit creating joke pages. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:55, 24 February 2025 review of submission by TRusso78

Hello,

I received a message saying that “The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements.”

I have not in any way shape or form received compensation of any kind in submitting this page.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Many thanks TRusso78 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TRusso78: The article is basically claiming she's notable by association with other entities. We do not accept such claims, and they almost always come across as promotional. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:40, 24 February 2025 review of submission by 2600:1702:5730:22A0:4D27:7A21:5C2F:300E

Why does this exist? 2600:1702:5730:22A0:4D27:7A21:5C2F:300E (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you created it. Along with other pieces of nonsense: Draft:*anymore, and nonsense you added to other garbage drafts. Please stop. ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated both of those for speedy deletion. ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

05:52, 25 February 2025 review of submission by SantiagoM123

Subject: Clarification Regarding the Article Submission on Ricardo Néstor Martínez

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I recently submitted an article about Ricardo Néstor Martínez, a paleontologist, but it was not accepted, possibly due to concerns about it being AI-generated or lacking reliable sources. I want to clarify that I personally wrote the article with the assistance of Dr. Martínez himself, as he is my father.

My intention is to provide accurate and well-sourced information about his contributions to paleontology. I understand the importance of citing reliable sources and would appreciate any guidance on how to improve the article to meet Wikipedia’s standards. If there are specific areas that need better referencing or modifications, I am more than willing to make the necessary changes.

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

Best regards, 

SantiagoM123 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SantiagoM123: well, you sure have a knack for writing in a way that strongly resembles AI...
The bigger problem, by far, is that the draft is completely unreferenced. I get that you 'know' all this stuff, given your family relationship, but not to put too fine a point on it, we're not particularly interested in what you know, or what you or your father want to tell the world about him; we're almost exclusively interested in what independent and reliable sources have previously published about him. Your job is to summarise what they've said, and cite each source against the information it has provided so that it can be verified.
You must also disclose your conflict of interest (COI); I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. And you should show WP:AUTOBIO to your father. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just that you are his son or he helped you write it does not mean you are automatically reliable. Heck we don't even know if you are his son, and even so that does not excuse the fact that you could just make up stuff(I could always claim my dad is god).
The important thing is, if everything in the draft is true, there should be enough third party sources for you to use considering how famous dinosaurs like the Eoraptor is. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 25 February 2025 review of submission by MH-wiki2025

I'm working on a draft for a biography of Sudhir Mehta (businessman) and am having trouble demonstrating his notability. I've tried to find reliable sources, but I'm not sure if the ones I have are strong enough. Could someone please take a look at my draft and give me specific guidance on what kind of sources I need and where I might find them?

Thank you for your help! MH-wiki2025 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MH-wiki2025: you're effectively asking us to pre-review, which is to say review, this draft. That's not something we do here at the help desk. If you have specific questions, you may ask those, otherwise I suggest you await the result of the next review.
As a general piece of advice, you should start by first researching the subject to find sources which demonstrate notability, and then summarise what they have said; not write what you want, and then start looking for sources to support that (known as writing WP:BACKWARD). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I understand; I would focus on finding independent sources to establish its reputation before moving the draft forward and wait for formal review. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 25 February 2025 review of submission by DarthDajic

Hello, is there anything we can do to speed up the article acceptance process? Thank you very much. DarthDajic (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If drafts show absolutely clearly, how the topic is notable they are usually accepted very quickly. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, Wikipedia is a volunteer service, so no guarantees. Either way, I believe your draft still has some issues outlined by the reviewer and comments, so fix that first before worrying about the review speed. Happy editing, it's lio! | talk | work 15:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 25 February 2025 review of submission by ס.ג'יבלי

I asked to check the article and they decided it was not good enough. How can I improve it? ס.ג'יבלי (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try to address the problems outlined by the reviewer (finding sources with significant coverage that prove the subject is WP:NOTABLE and qualifies for its own article). If you still encounter any specific issues, feel free to ask. Good luck, it's lio! | talk | work 15:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant criteria are WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN see if you can show how he passes one of them. Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 25 February 2025 review of submission by RajputHistoryIndia

Dear Articles for Creation Team,

I recently submitted an article titled “Rajput Kuldevi” but it was declined. The article includes verifiable sources, and I made sure to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Could you please clarify why it was declined and what improvements are needed for approval?

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards, Devendra Singh User Name:- RajputHistoryIndia RajputHistoryIndia (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RajputHistoryIndia: this draft was declined because it provides insufficient evidence to show that the subject is notable enough to be included in the encyclopaedia. To rectify that, you need to cite multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, per WP:GNG -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @RajputHistoryIndia. Two of your sources cited are Wikipedia: this is almost never acceptable, as Wikipedia is user generated, and so not a reliable source. Two of them are on a site called rajputkuldevi.com, which is probably neither independent nor reliable (as Wikipedia defines the term).
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a subject, and almost nothing else. Writing an article should begin with finding such sources, because if you cannot find any (or not enough) then every minute you spend on trying to write a draft will be time and effort wasted. Please see WP:42 for how to identify acceptable sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 25 February 2025 review of submission by Albieabbiati

Greetings! I was told that this page was denied due to non-reliable sources however the sources listed are The Florida-Times Union as well as Maximum Rock and Roll which is arguably the most famous punk magazine out of the United States. I might be missing something? Many thanks! Albieabbiati (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Albieabbiati: You are - they're just slapped on the end rather than properly cited. Also, lose all the boldface words (we don't use those other than when introducing the subject) and the promotional tone. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! I'll adjust the bold face and the citing. Maybe you can help me with the "promotional tone?" I have ZERO connection to this band and have no reason to promote them. Albieabbiati (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Albieabbiati: The easiest way to do this is simply to stick strictly to summarising what the sources explicitly say, without trying to editorialise or spin it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Albieabbiati. "... the band is recognized as one of Jacksonville's pioneering punk rock acts": promotional. No evaluative statement like this should ever appear in any article in Wikipedia's voice. (It may acceptable as a direct quotation from a wholly independent reliable source).
And that's just the first line.
If you write the article saying what the band (or their fans) want people to know about them, that will be promotional. 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) 19:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Albieabbiati:, I see you did some cleanup on the draft. However, please make sure to use WP:INCITE. I would also suggest adding sources from Google Books. I am on the fence if they would meet notability but they seem to be covered in some detail there so it would help a reviewer once you resubmit. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 25 February 2025 review of submission by BlooBind

Hi,

My draft was declined with the following feedback:

"This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

  • In-depth (not just brief mentions or routine announcements)
  • Reliable
  • Secondary
  • Strictly independent of the subject."

Based on this feedback, I have revised my draft by improving the references and ensuring they meet these criteria. Could someone review and confirm if my changes align with the required corrections? Also, is it appropriate for me to proceed with resubmitting the draft now?

Thanks in advance for your guidance! BlooBind (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BlooBind, I only see a single reference - this does not satisfy the multiple criteria. qcne (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and that's to IMDb, which is user-generated and therefore not even considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlooBind:, I did a quick WP:BEFORE to determine if the topic is notable in order to not waste anyone's time. Unfortunately, there are no references I can find in a search for "Miraacle Movie" that would meet the notability criteria established in WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 25 February 2025 review of submission by Wznbfc

My draft was rejected for the reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." The editor also mentioned "Doesn't meet WP:NCOMPOSER." However, after carefully reviewing the Criteria for composers and lyricists, I believe that the composer Dai Wei clearly meets at least criteria 1 and 4.

Moreover, the WP:NCOMPOSER guidelines seem to focus primarily on popular music and musical theater composers, with little consideration for contemporary classical/serious music composers. This makes it seem as though, despite Dai Wei's music having been performed in dozens of notable theaters worldwide and covered by major media outlets such as The New York Times, these achievements do not sufficiently support notability (Is my understanding correct?).

I am unsure if additional information is required to improve my draft. Could you kindly advise? Thank you for your response. 

Wznbfc (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wznbfc: okay, so what/where is the evidence that this person so "clearly" meets NCOMPOSER #1 and #4?
Other than that, you've resubmitted the draft, and will receive feedback when a reviewer get around to assessing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing, Thank you so much for your reply.
I have resubmitted my manuscript, but the reason I am asking here is that each review process takes 2-3 months. I want to know if there is anything I can do to improve my draft as much as possible, rather than facing the same situation again after waiting for another 2-3 months.
  1. 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
—Notable composition: The Dancing Moonlight. Over the past eight years, this piece has been performed dozens of times by renowned orchestras worldwide. Initially, this information was included within the piece's description, but considering it might not have been sufficiently prominent, I highlighted the widespread performances by placing this fact in the first paragraph before resubmitting. I am unsure if this adjustment is adequate. If you have any suggestions or advice, I would greatly appreciate your feedback.
  1. 4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
—She was awarded Commission from 2020 Underwood Readings.
Again, thank you for your guidance. Wznbfc (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 25 February 2025 review of submission by AladdinSustain

Hi! This is the first template I’m creating and I’m wondering how to document sources in a template as I see from other templates that they do not seem to include inline citations?

Thank you and all the best! AladdinSustain (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AladdinSustain: Draftspace shouldn't be used for templates. You should probably move this to a user subpage (such as User:AladdinSustain/Portland City Government Template) as soon as you are able. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Will you please link me to directions? AladdinSustain (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AladdinSustain: See WP:MOVE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AladdinSustain. Since a navigation template is a set of links to existing Wikipedia article, I don't think they require citations, any more than categories do.
Having said that, I personally don't think it is appropriate to link to an article about something as temporary as the current holders of offices - others may disagree.
Have you read the essay navigation templates? ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, I’ll make sure it links to offices and orgs, not current people. That article and the info about citations were both helpful, thank you! AladdinSustain (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I successfully moved the page, thank you! AladdinSustain (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:09, 25 February 2025 review of submission by B52 strato

It was in the note at the beginning that it shouldn't be seen as reliable info but was still declined for "relibility"??? (Not trying to come off wrong so sorry if it seems that way :( ) B52 strato (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@B52 strato: Unless you have sources that discuss the Wyvern in the context of games criticism, this is better suited for a Fandom wiki. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok B52 strato (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. If there are no reliable independent sources about a subject, then there is nothing which can validly go into the article. ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:31, 25 February 2025 review of submission by ScreenSage

Thank you for your feedback regarding our draft article on Dr. Durwood Fleming. We understand the importance of secondary sources and will try to secure additional sources. Is there a specific quantity that Wikipedia considers sufficient for notability? We will conduct an archival search to identify more independent sources that document Dr. Fleming’s contributions. In addition to strengthening the references, is there anything else we can do to better demonstrate his impact on the religious community and educational administration to meet Wikipedia's standards for resubmission? We appreciate your feedback. -ScreenSage ScreenSage (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ScreenSage. Who are "we"? A Wikipedia account is personal and may not be used by multiple people. If several people are working on this draft, then they should create individual accounts.
It is not up to you as the writer to "demonstrate his impact" on anything, and that may be why somebody referred to it as promotional. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about the subject, and been published in reliable places (see WP:42 for more infomation about sources). If an independent source talks about his impact on the religious community, then you may summarise that source, or even quote short excerpts: either way, you should explicitly ascribe the view to that source: no article should use any evaluative language in Wikipedia's voice.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search didn't find much as far as significant coverage. I would focus more on finding that initially to ensure he meets notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

09:12, 26 February 2025 review of submission by DaniKro

Hello! Since this is my first article, could you please let me know the required number of in-depth sources (and maybe some examples) needed for the article to pass the review? I used similar articles as references and noticed that not all of them include many sources. For example, this article has only one source: Mystery Manor. Thank you for your assistance! DaniKro (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:IMPERFECT; we are always a work in progress and welcome positive contributions. Just because an article has only one source doesn't mean that that is the standard here, especially as articles for creation is a rigorously reviewed process that not everyone participates in. Anyway, the issue isn't the required number of sources - it's the extent to which the subject is significantly covered in the sources you cited. I see that you haven't edited the draft since it was declined - maybe try improving it even more first? If you think there's no way you can expand it further, try asking the reviewer on their own talk page (they might not have seen your reply on your talk page). Good luck, it's lio! | talk | work 09:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DaniKro Thank you for identifying another problematic article. I've marked it as such. While understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as those too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us(the main one being that this process is not required of all users, and has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed). We can only address what we know about. Please see other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community.
When linking to another article, the whole url is not needed; just the title in double brackets([[Mystery Manor]] gives Mystery Manor). 331dot (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaniKro: Mystery Manor was never drafted, having been created in mainspace before WP:ACPERM became a thing in early 2018. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 26 February 2025 review of submission by 46.246.135.161

Hello. Could I please have your kind advice on how I can ensure that this article for internationally recognized author Nikolaos Zormpas can be included? I would really appreciate any guidance. 46.246.135.161 (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting.
It has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you think that you can address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. You have not shown how he is a notable person. You have summarized his work, but not said what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about it. The lead says he has had two articles published- what is significant about that? The "thought leadership" section is completely unsourced and also doesn't state what is important about his thought leadership. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The awards do not appear to be notable (ie. they have no Wikipedia articles) so zero evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NWRITER. Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 26 February 2025 review of submission by Toblerone101

What should I change TobyB (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. No indication of notability has been given. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I reapply for publishing TobyB (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toblerone101: Since the current version of the draft is not an improvement to the version that was rejected in October (it is even more promotional, and still shows no sign of notability), you would be wasting your time by resubmitting.
Please don't create new sections to ask new questions about the same draft – until this section is archived in a few days' time, please post here if you have further questions. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 26 February 2025 review of submission by RobbieIanMorrison

Hello fellow editors

First of all, thank you for prioritizing the review of this draft article.

I am a little surprised that this request was declined (as opposed to rejected). I had read the Wikipedia guidelines carefully and tried to comply. I cannot imagine that the mainstream coverage is inadequate in this case — so that leaves the notability as a crime perpetrator that lacks merit. To quote from the guidelines: "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". My estimation is that this latter threshold has been met and would welcome feedback on that context.

My fallback is to let a little more water flow under the bridge — as it is very likely that the various legal trajectories described in the draft will unfold in significant ways over the coming weeks and months.

To finish, does Wikipedia have a concept of a second review? If so, can I request one. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not "prioritized"; drafts are reviewed in no specific order by volunteers on their own free time. If it was quick, it was probably by chance.
Declined is better than rejected, not worse as you're suggesting, as it means you can resubmit. Rejected is the end of the line for a draft. Yes, you may resubmit if you can address what the reviewers say.
I might refocus this to be about the event and not the person(see WP:BLP1E as advised). 331dot (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but was just going to say that IMHO it's borderline, as there seems to be more to this, in terms of legal and political ramifications, than just the criminal offence. Although that said, given that the case is ongoing we may need to wait to see what transpires, exactly.
@RobbieIanMorrison: unless you have a conflict of interest with regard to this subject, you're of course welcome to move the draft into the main space yourself, should you so wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I am on the borderline with respect to editing conflict of interest. I wrote three times to the justice secretary Shabana Mahmood regarding Gaie Delap and copied that traffic to the public email address of Gaie. I myself have never corresponded directly with Gaie nor met Gaie nor any of her supporters. But Gaie did kindly send me two hand-written thank‑you notes via her support network while in prison. Shortly after I began editing that draft, I have intentionally had no further contact with Mahmood or Delap. So I would prefer to have another editor provide approval. My plan is to await the legal developments that will surely occur and resubmit as these public interest components grow — as @DoubleGrazing suggests. Other editors are welcome to step in too in the interim of course! As @331dot indicates, I did think about refocusing to the legal angle, but I think Gaie will remain central to these unfolding events. Thanks for the feedback everyone. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. In that case, yes, please do continue to pursue this through AfC. And your prudence in this respect is appreciated. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Noted. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article now live! @Theroadislong asked me to resubmit and they duly accepted the draft and cleaned up the AFC markup. Thanks again to all. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

13:21, 26 February 2025 review of submission by Queenday23

The article I have started today is a draft. I have been working on it for a number of years. Another editor has stated it needs more citations, but I am in the process of adding these from another document. I cannot find out how to continue in visual mode on this draft. Any help would be gratefully received. 

Queenday23 (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Queenday23: I don't use the visual editor myself, so can't help you there; I'm sure someone will be along soon who can.
In the meantime, I'm curious what would make someone who lived nearly two centuries ago and died before getting into his teens notable? Could you describe briefly and in your own words what is the significance of this lad, which warrants his inclusion in a global encyclopaedia? Perhaps the answer is to be found somewhere in your draft, but nothing jumped at me based on a cursory scan. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. He was brought here by a missionary and became a significant embodiment of the benefits of empire at the time. He was referred to regularly in the news and has a volume in the British Library dedicated to him. He is an early member of The Stolen Generations who we know something about and can share in the encyclopedia as an aid to understanding. Queenday23 (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note here that the draft was submitted for review by a different user; the draft creator posted to my user talk page that they had intended to revise the draft and add sources before submitting it, and were taken aback by the fact that it had suddenly been submitted and reviewed. --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that too, and meant to takes this up with the submitter... but now see that you have already; thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for checking on this and taking the time to make a note. Queenday23 (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:40, 26 February 2025 review of submission by MH-wiki2025

I believe Shree Datta Padmanabh Peeth meets WP:NORG. It has significant national recognition, as evidenced by its leader receiving the Padma Shri. Media coverage in reputable sources like the Times of India, Indian Express, Amar Ujala, and Deccan Herald further supports its notability. The organization also has a demonstrable historical impact, and its prominence is confirmed by government records. I respectfully request a reconsideration of the decline based on these verifiable references and the organization's notable influence. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MH-wiki2025: this organisation's leader receiving an award in no way whatsoever contributes towards the organisation's notability. "Historical impact" and "prominence" are not notability criteria, either. Coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources is, but it needs to be significant coverage (not just passing mentions), and it mustn't be based on press releases, interviews, commentary by someone from the organisation, routine business reporting, etc. A quick scan of your sources suggests they may be more in quantity than quality. Other than that, if you wish to challenge the review, you should approach the reviewer directly, rather than ask us here at the help desk to 'overrule' anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 26 February 2025 review of submission by Abduddaher

Greetings I have made the necessary changes to this article, and I have reviewed and improved it according to the feedback I received, but the review took a long time, more than two months, when can it be approved or requested more changes? https://w.wiki/DDW4 

Abduddaher (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abduddaher: don't know if you noticed, but on the top of your draft it says "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,367 pending submissions waiting for review." There is no way of saying how long you have to wait, the review can take place at any time. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 26 February 2025 review of submission by 115.96.219.247

My article is declined. I have included all the authentic sources from various national newspaper of India. And I see that Umesh Zirpe is a notable person for Wikipedia article. His contribution is mountaineering is remarkable. Please guide and help me to get his article approved. 115.96.219.247 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. If you are the creator of the draft, it appears you took a picture of Mr. Zirpe and he posed for you. What is your connection to him?
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
You have 38 references- as odd as it might sound, that is too many references. At the same time, you have portions that are unsourced. Fewer high quality references are preferred to a large number of low quality sources. Most of your sources seem to just document his achievements, they don't summarize what sources say is significant about those achievements. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

00:31, 27 February 2025 review of submission by Theconnorrossfangirl11

i need 2 reference more of connor's stuff plz help me out thx Theconnorrossfangirl11 (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theconnorrossfangirl11:, there is no set number of sources needed. What is required is that the sources are reliable and they show significant coverage. What is needed is to ensure that everything in the bio is supported by a reliable source (right now there is a lot that is not). If it cannot be sources, it would need to be removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently no reliable, independent sources, and most of the text is promotional in tone. His CV (which shouldn't be used as a source anyway) supports almost none of the information where it's placed, and the other two sources (gossip pieces that should not be included) are also not connected to the draft content. --bonadea contributions talk 06:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:20, 27 February 2025 review of submission by Mohshinhm

Hello Sir, I apologize for forgetting to send the message that should have been included in the comment for Bobby Cohn. However, in my latest update, I removed some content that, in my opinion, did not have sufficient support for inclusion on the page of Kamrul Tarafder. The picture was also removed, but I have obtained permission to use it on Kamrul Tarafder's page.

Please let me know how I can fix this. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Mohshinhm (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the content I included is considered notable, but I made sure to highlight Kamrul Tarafder’s contributions, including helping almost 2 million women in the Philippines overcome financial difficulties through microfinance. His dedication and passion have significantly contributed to the growth of the company and its mission to support millions of women. Mohshinhm (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohshinhm: based on the edit histories of your sandbox and the other draft on the same topic, I would ask you to read both WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:42, 27 February 2025 review of submission by MikeatVans

This was rejected for “tone.” What needs fixed? I will fix what is wrong if someone can help me know what I need to do. Thanks you. MikeatVans (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have not edited the draft since it was declined; try reading the policies cited in the declination (WP:ENCSTYLE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:PUFFERY). Once you are sure that your draft adheres to these policies/guidelines, feel free to resubmit it. Happy editing, it's lio! | talk | work 06:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think user is asking for assistance pointing out the specific areas where those policies are not being adhered to. Regardless, I took a look the person meets notability guidelines. There were some minor issues such as peacock language but nothing that should have kept it out of the mainspace.--CNMall41 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 27 February 2025 review of submission by 115.131.47.35

Because i'm a filmmaker 115.131.47.35 (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck with your film career, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. You also must be a notable creative professional as Wikipedia defines one first, you can't use Wikipedia to generate notability. Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 27 February 2025 review of submission by ChrisN at The Student Room

Hello, I appreciate people are busy, but wondered if there is a chance anyone would be able to review this submission, as it has been over 2m since I resubmitted it. Thank you so much. ChrisN at The Student Room (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,432 pending submissions waiting for review.". There is no way to speed this up or "jump the line" as everyone would like their draft reviewed quickly. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 27 February 2025 review of submission by Acakebread

please get someone that understands maths to review this decision.. this is part of number theory and will be an entry on Wikipedia at some point regardless of any jobsworth's attempt to block it. Acakebread (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Acakebread: we don't accept unreferenced drafts, and we also don't accept original research, so this fails on two counts.
And please remain civil, there is no need to start hurling insults around just because you don't get your way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia moderators generally seem to have a problem with facts.. it's ok, I'll take my information elsewhere Acakebread (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't given any facts. You've posted an unreferenced essay. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there's a section of references at the end. Also the reason I replied the way I did was because of the nasty and curt response I initially received.. I was told in an email that I have been permanently rejected and won't be allowed to resubmit.. what's the point of even trying if people are going to react like this. I am not going to bother now. I was only adding for other people's use. I'll just contact Mathloger or someone that will be more receptive Acakebread (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were posting it to promulgate your own idea. You need to do that elsewhere, that's not what Wikipedia is for – there are any number of blogging etc. platforms out there; you might even get this into a journal of some sort, if it has any merit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 27 February 2025 review of submission by SapphireBandit

Having trouble figuring out if an article I made was declined correctly or mistakenly.

The Upturned is a very small game comparatively, so it really didn't have too many sources to cite. I guess I wasn't really too surprised when it got rejected for a lack of notability. I had one article for a review on PC Gamer which was good, but other then that I had articles from sites such as Push to Talk, Fearzine Magazine, and Indie Games Plus. I knew the last two were pretty small so I was unsure whether they were considered reliable at the time, though after the decline I reviewed the reliable source guidelines and I'm now pretty certain they are not. However, the confusion comes in with the article from Push to Talk.

At first, it really seemed like a reliable source to me, so I thought my reviewer just missed the section on The Upturned contained in it, as the article was mainly about Lethal Company and mainly being used as a source for brief information on Lethal company, so I kinda thought it was my fault for not marking the section on The Upturned. Though after reviewing the reliable source guidelines, I was decently sure that it was not a reliable source due to it being a smaller publication and seemingly self-published. However, when I was looking through Lethal Company's sources (article ranked C-Class) with Ctrl F to see if there were any mentions of The Upturned, I realized the article was also being used as a source there. Normally I would assume it is unreliable since it was declined, but since I never cited the specific section on The Upturned, I am unsure if it was considered a reliable source but the section on The Upturned was missed. Of course the Lethal Company article could always have just wrongfully used that source, but now it is especially hard for me to tell if it is or isn't reliable.

Basically, the guidelines on reliable sources are a vague in some parts, so I was wondering if anyone with more experience could tell me if this could be considered reliable source: https://www.pushtotalk.gg/p/how-lethal-company-sold-10-million-copies And if so, should I contact the person who declined my article or submit it for re-review with the relevant section directly referenced.

Probably not gonna be reliable but this has been confusing me for a while now, so I just want to try to resolve the situation with certainty. Any help would be greatly appreciated. SapphireBandit (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 27 February 2025 review of submission by Riteshkumarjee1

My personal Riteshkumarjee1 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1277931673"