Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help
desk		Backlog
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


April 25[edit]

00:24, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Student7y335[edit]

I am curious as to why this has been rejected as it meets the requirements for noteworthiness. The page now has over 21 independent primary references. The fund itself is significantly larger in terms of Assets Under Management than dozens of other funds listed on Wikipedia, many of which have less than 5 references.

Many less notable firms with far fewer references are found here Category:Venture capital firms of the United States

For example: Many pages have not even raised any money, or have raised less than $20 million. Bedrock has $2 billion in assets under management.

Please revisit and consider publishing, or provide more detailed guidance. Should I continue adding references? Student7y335 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student7y335 Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles that themselves could be problematic has no bearing on your draft. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. 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.
Your sources all describe the routine activities of the company, or are interviews with staff, which does not establish notability. Please see the advice left by reviewers. That the company has a lot of assets is completely irrelevant in terms of notability, unless independent reliable sources discuss the significance of that fact. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that....The subject of separate articles needs to meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirement which can be confusing. For this case it needs to meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia's sourcing-based General Notability Guideline. So, roughly speaking, to meet that requirement you need to include two independent published sources which cover the topic of your article in depth. So it's not about notability by the common meaning of the term, it's about finding two sources each of which meets all of those criteria. My suggestion is to look for and include those sources. If you are unable to find sources which meet all of those criteria, IMO it's best not to pursue creating a separate article for this subject. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:33, 25 April 2024 review of submission by RygelD[edit]

I was translating an article (for the first time), however, all that I was translating was data from a source that was updated since the original French article was written. Am I supposed to update the original article before doing this one? RygelD (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RygelD: in short, no. There is no obligation on you to update the French article. Nor is there a requirement that the corresponding article in each language version of Wikipedia is equally current, or that they present the exact same information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 25 April 2024 review of submission by RajiKL[edit]

I am writing the Wiki page for Panjab Radio but it has been rejected. It is a simple edit to state what the organisation is and how it is broadcasting in the UK. It is in a neutral viewpoint and not contradicting the Wiki rules. Where am i going wrong? RajiKL (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RajiKL: it isn't enough to show that this organisation exists, we need to see why it is worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. We determine that by looking for evidence of notability, which in simple terms means that the subject has been covered in multiple secondary sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have edited the page with references and formatting. Please take a look. RajiKL (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RajiKL The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.
You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? I see that you claim to have personally created the logo of the radio station- be aware that by doing so and uploading it to Commons you have made it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start a new thread with every comment, just add to your earlier one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should not just state what the organization does. They should summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about it and what makes it notable as Wikipedia defines a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Alexhoffman2304[edit]

I would like to know which sources from our reference list are considered unreliable. Alexhoffman2304 (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexhoffman2304: this draft wasn't declined for unreliable sources, but rather for lack of evidence of notability (which among other things requires sources to be reliable, but there is much more to it than that). None of the sources cited meets the WP:GNG standard required for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I will find better sources to show notability. Alexhoffman2304 (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 25 April 2024 review of submission by 174.76.113.10[edit]

i cant see word 174.76.113.10 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are asking here, but the draft has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Arnavgochuswami[edit]

hi Arnavgochuswami (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you have a question about your draft that was rejected? 331dot (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnavgochuswami:: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 25 April 2024 review of submission by 143.58.185.214[edit]

Hi there,

My article was deleted with no clear explanation. I was told to provide more references, but upon checking I no longer have access to add the references. Could you please help?

Many thanks, Nicola 143.58.185.214 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nicola,
Your draft was deleted as it was unambiguous advertising or promotion. Please note that Wikipedia prohibits any kind of promotion. We are an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not a venue to advertise a subject.
You can request your draft to be temporarily undeleted at WP:REFUND if you want to work on it further, but please keep the above rule in mind.
Please read What Wikipedia Is Not before you proceed, though.
Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Jeremiah97478[edit]

I am asking for the deleiton of this page, thank you. Jeremiah97478 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:33, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Aazir111[edit]

Cool Aazir111 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aazir111: that's not a question, and your draft isn't much of a draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Clay2004[edit]

I need to find some good sources. What are some good places to look for non in-universe material? Clay2004 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clay2004: it seems you're going about this the wrong way. You shouldn't write what you know about a subject, and then try to find sources to back up what you've said. You need to start by first finding a few (3+) sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria, and write your draft by summarising what they've said, citing each source against the information it has provided. This gives you appropriate content and necessary references, along with proof of notability all in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 26[edit]

01:23, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Boingit[edit]

Hi, I submitted this draft early, assuming that since the queue is months long, I could work on it for a few days improving references before anyone looked at it. I was surprised when I was warned that it could be deleted after hitting publish just the 2nd or 3rd time. Am I doing something wrong to work this way? I expect to be complete and ready for review in a few days. I believe drafts may be improved up to the time they're reviewed. Thanks! Boingit (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boingit: just to make sure we're using the same terminology, when you're working on a draft and have made your edits, you click on the 'publish changes' button, which saves your edits. (It's only called 'publish' rather than 'save' to make the point that your edits will be publicly visible to everyone on the internet.) You can keep doing this as many times and for as long as you like.
When you feel that the draft is ready for publication, you click on the '(re)submit' button, which puts it into the pool of pending drafts, and a reviewer will at some point pick it up and assess it. You should obviously only submit your draft when you think it's ready, because the review can happen at any time, sometimes in a space of minutes, sometimes weeks or even months. (The system is not a 'queue', put rather a 'pool', as drafts are not reviewed in any particular order.)
Hope that makes sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, @DoubleGrazing, I think I get it now. I'll keep polishing and publishing but won't re-submit until I've gotten it where I want it and answered all concerns. Boingit (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:08, 26 April 2024 review of submission by MusicSoundsGoodAgency[edit]

Need help with Citations. I read through the rules and have added some but I want to make sure this gets approved first before applying again. Looking for any help as this is my first article! MusicSoundsGoodAgency (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MusicSoundsGoodAgency: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, you will need to submit your draft to get it reviewed. That said, I can tell you already now that it will be declined, as there is far too much unreferenced information. Articles on living people must be comprehensively referenced, with every material statement, anything potentially contentious and all private personal details clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. And speaking of reliable sources, a WordPress blog is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable, and Last.fm is actually deprecated and must not be cited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:33, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 175.139.211.236[edit]

PLEASE REVIEW AGAIN 175.139.211.236 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:16, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 140.141.4.72[edit]

I am not sure as to why my article was rejected. 140.141.4.72 (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't rejected as such, but rather declined on the basis that an article on that subject already exists at General Zionists. Your draft was replaced with a redirect to that article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy"[edit]

hello, I'm seeking help due to my article being declined for reliable sources. I'm also new to creating. Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy" (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy": your draft is entirely unreferenced. Even if you 'know' this information to be true (seeing as you're writing about yourself), we can only accept information backed up by reliable published sources.
And speaking of writing about yourself, don't. See WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, and WP:YESPROMO for some of the many, many reasons why not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:35, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Antwan123123[edit]

finished corrections Antwan123123 (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antwan123123: okay, no need to announce it here, just resubmit the draft when you're ready... as indeed you have done.
I can tell you straight away, though, that it is insufficiently referenced, with a lot of unsupported biographical detail. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, and need inline citations to reliable published sources to support pretty much every statement you make. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 102.90.42.133[edit]

Is this draft notable yet? 102.90.42.133 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Please do not resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Manveerdulay[edit]

What do I need to add/edit in order for this page to get approved? Manveerdulay (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected this back in November for it's totally inappropriate tone. If you have substantially changed the draft to cut out all the inappropriate text, let me know on my User Talk Page and I will have another look @Manveerdulay Qcne (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes the tone totally inappropriate? Manveerdulay (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your properly rejected draft is a hagiography packed full of praise for the subject. It is an obvious and glaring violation of the Neutral point of view, which is a mandatory core content policy. It is utterly unacceptable for this encyclopedia, and you have been told to drop the matter. Please do so now. Cullen328 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read your own draft and also read our guidelines at WP:NPOV? I will extract the totally inappropriate sentences and words for you:
- renowned
- boasting
- artistic voyage
- extraordinary contributions
- profoundly shaped by her lively perspective on existence and her affinity
- discover delight in every instance, regarding each day as an occasion for jubilation
- literary endeavors
- immense joy in engaging with the splendor of the natural world via contemplative strolls and the contemplation of meandering clouds
- she channels her artistic inventiveness into abstract paintings, providing a display of her diverse skills
- odyssey
- diverse nations
- pivotal juncture
- evoked deep distress within her, simultaneously fortifying her bond with her cultural legacy
- She is highly regarded as an accomplished author, poet, and painter
- dedicated to fostering understanding among different faiths
- commitment to public service
- dedication to her faith
- recognized as a valuable resource
- impart the genuine essence
- heartfelt trans-creation of the teachings and grandeur of the Gurus reflects her genuine love and commitment
- eagerly anticipated narrative
- profound connection with Sikhi
- heartwarming experience
- comforting words and delightful illustrations
- loving and reassuring perspective on siblinghood
- beautifully portrays
- enriching their understanding
- playful approach
- embrace its endearing story and cultural richness
- beautifully illustrated chapters
- esteemed storyteller
- profound message of Guru Nanak
- appealing to readers of all ages
- deeply intrigued
- heartwarming tale
- cherishes the innocent and tender moments
- cherished ceremony of Dastar Bandi
- seamless blend of English and Panjabi
- captivating story and warm illustrations
- delight boys and girls
- entertaining and engaging manner
- Readers are often captivated by
- The book gracefully emphasizes
- esteemed institutions such as Yale
To be blunt, the draft needs a complete re-write. It is currently designed to promote Inni Kaur and ellict emotions from the reader; this is prohibited on Wikipedia. @Manveerdulay Qcne (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I will apologise, @Manveerdulay, for not answering your question on your User Talk Page back on the 09 November. I was not notified of your question there. Hopefully my answer above answers it. Qcne (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 2.87.17.180[edit]

Hello,

I need specific information of HOW I'm able to make this article go live. The references I added are legit interviews of the band and everything in the article is based on facts being online. Is it that I added the references wrong or the actual references are assumed to be invalid?

Please let me know step by step what I have to fix!

Thank you in advance, Anestis Nine 2.87.17.180 (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anestis Nine Remember to log in when posting. Interviews contribute nothing to notability, as an interview is not an independent source. Any article about this band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Please see the advice left by the reviewer(specifically that all external links in the body of the text be removed). If you need help with referencing, see Referencing for beginners.
Do you have a particular need to have this article be "live"? 331dot (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand, but includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media. What are the particular needs to have an article live? It's a biography and reliable information about a band and current status of them. I already changed references and added more and specific links for everything in the article. Anestis Nine (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anestis Nine I will ask more directly- do you work for or are otherwise associated with this band? 331dot (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that has nothing to do with the article. Anestis Nine (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with it- if you work for them, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. If you are just associated with them, you must make a conflict of interest disclosure.
You have embarked on the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- write a new article- and having a conflict of interest/paid relationship makes it even harder. Wikipedia is not a place for a band to tell the world about itself(either directly or through a representative). We want to know what others say about them and how they meet the definition of a notable band. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you personally take this image with your own camera as you are claiming? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I just read the links you shared and I understood (mostly) how it should work and what is wrong in it.
I guess my information are not enough (For example that one photo is not with my camera but a friends so that should be clearly referenced) on it. Also I didn't knew that if you have any Association with the reffered-to is something invalid for Wikipedia) Anestis Nine (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So one of the next edits you make should be to make the needed disclosure on your user page(User:Anestis Nine).
If you are saying you took the image with your friend's camera, that's okay. What really matters is who the photographer was- mentioning the camera just serves to emphasize that.
Let's try it this way. What are the three(and only three, please) best sources you have that provide significant coverage of this band and are not interviews, press releases, mere announcements, brief mentions, or primary sources? 331dot (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I completely understand that. Nothing difficult to refer as is not an unknown person or else.
I think there are only interviews (which contribute nothing to notability) and articles with QA interaction with the band. Or articles that an author took information personally from the band or uploaded media (such music, or video music etc.) or social events(such us live shows / tours etc) that have being refereed from online magazines or articles/ authors.
Is any of the above suitable for the 3 sources you need? Anestis Nine (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to more specific sources(the actual news stories or what have you) but that's okay; interviews do not contribute to notability as it is by definition the subject speaking about themselves, which is not an independent source. Documentation of events or of the existence of the band's music(like music videos) in an of itself does not contribute to notability because that is not significant coverage.
You refer to "articles that an author took information personally from the band or uploaded media"; if these authors chose on their own to write about the band, and discuss how it meets the definition of a notable band, that could work, but we would need to know specifically what those sources are.
I might suggest that you examine some articles about bands/musicians(The Beatles, Metallica, Fleetwood Mac, Billy Joel, etc.) to get an idea of what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:23, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Boingit[edit]

Hi Folks, I created this draft article after reading a biography of the subject and being astonished he didn't have a wikipedia entry. It seems someone had created one but it was low-quality and was deleted. I resurrected some of the text, threw lots out, created some new, and provided many references (I'm working on more now). I have not yet cited the bio that I read that started me off, and as @Notcharizard has noted, there is no ref for where his "overall story" comes from. What's the best way to do that? Should I say in the beginning that he was the subject of a biography and simply cite the book there? Boingit (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boingit: Yes. We accept offline cites as readily as we accept online ones, provided you give us enough information that we could look the information up in a library that has a copy of the book. (We need, at minimum: Book title, author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, and either the ISBN or OCLC number.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 26 April 2024 review of submission by James Middieton[edit]

I couldn't find a reason why my Article was declined, I am wondering why. I also added some more info too. James Middieton (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@James Middieton really? You can see no reason why your draft was (correctly) rejected? None at all? Does it look like an encyclopaedic article to you? Qcne (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James Middieton: We don't accept what amounts to stories. We're an encyclopaedia project, and we (and our readers) have no use for inspirational stories like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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) 20:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Jmparthage[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering why my submission was rejected. This is a popular music YouTuber (over 300,000 subscribers), who also has created a very popular piece of music software (DecentSampler). It seems odd that neither they nor the software they created has a page. It says the references don't show significant coverage, but I provided 9 articles, all of which are about different projects, software, and videos that Hilowitz has worked on. The articles are by independent authors and publications. The rejection also states that the biography reads more like an advertisement. On the contrary, I actually think it's actually pretty scant as I stuck only to facts directly mentioned in the articles. I'm hoping this entry will get the ball rolling and more people will be able to fill in details as they become available. Jmparthage (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
The number of subscribers is not relevant, as that is not in the notability criteria. You did a nice job of telling what he does, but not what makes him notable according to independent reliable sources. Who considers him influential? What is his influence? Do others emulate him? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. That's an interesting challenge. I frequently see his work mentioned in Youtube videos made by other creators in the "music Youtube" space, but I'm not sure how to provide that as evidence of notoriety? Jmparthage (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, not "notoriety"(which has a more negative connotation). YouTube is itself not generally acceptable as a source, because anyone can post anything there without editorial oversight and fact checking. You'll need things like news reports or professional critiques/reviews of his work that describe what makes him important as a YouTuber. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the software makes him notable, it doesn't yet have an article. Probably he could be mentioned in such an article, but not a standalone one. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Mfmq67[edit]

My submission was declined and I am having trouble trying to fix the issues with it. Do you have any recommendations on what I can do ? Mfmq67 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did a nice job telling about what he does, but not what makes him a notable person. Many people give to charities and found businesses; is there something particular about him that makes him stand out among the 8 billion humans on this planet? 331dot (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfmq67: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of your sources are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Baileyirelan[edit]

Hi there, I would like to know a few specific reasons why this article was rejected. I do believe it has sufficient third-party sources discussing it, and that is the only reason I can find that it was declined. Thanks in advance. Baileyirelan (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baileyirelan Do you have a conflict of interest or are a paid editor with regards to this subject?
The draft was rejected for the exact reason stated- the subject is not sufficiently notable. You only wrote about the routine business activities of the company; this does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok that is good to know. To be notable enough, what coverage do I need to link rather than the routine business activities? Baileyirelan (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a conflict of interest or are a paid editor with regards to this subject?
You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic- coverage that goes beyond merely telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, how it meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:11, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Tronmajesteetiline[edit]

How do I make it publishable Tronmajesteetiline (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't publish vandalism. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Iamjakhar[edit]

how to rewrite? Iamjakhar (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid no rewrite is possible, the draft has now been deleted as promotion. Wikipedia is not for telling about yourself, please read the Autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 26 April 2024 review of submission by CrSb0001[edit]

Reason that the page was declined says that it needs multiple resources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject.

So do I need to add references that meet all 4 criteria, or could I include multiple references for one particular thing that overall meet all 4 criteria altogether?

CrSb0001 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each reference needs to meet those criteria; what you describe would be original research. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to 331dot's point, note that talking about "adding references" indicates that you have written the article BACKWARDS (as most people do who try to create an article without first learning about crucial ideas like notability and reliable sources). First find your sources (and check that each one meets the criteria in 42); then, if you have found the sources, forget anything you may know about the subject and write a summary of what the sources say. Otherwise you risk disappointment, frustration, and wasting a lot of your effort. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:57, 26 April 2024 review of submission by IIlIlIl[edit]

What needs done to this to get it approved? IIlIlIl (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pennington Family IIlIlIl (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:02, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Johnnydeadline[edit]

I need to know how I can appeal a rejection to a higher authority. I have removed the offending sources and recast the proposed Wiki with new sources, but admins are relying on an error when rejecting this Wiki. They keep telling me that this Wiki is based on Forbes.com sources. But it is not. The content I cite is published in Forbes MagazineWikipedia (WP:FORBESCON) is confusing Forbes Magazine with Forbes.com. It is incorrectly disallowing all stories related to Forbes because Forbes.com publishes some sponsored content. First, Forbes.com is NOT all sponsored content. Some of it is, and some of it is not. Other stories are exact replicas of what appears in the magazine, Forbes. For some reason, wikipedia is disallowing anything that is published that references Forbes. I am sourcing Forbes magazine, not Forbes.com. The Forbes Magazine content is produced and edited by journalists, not by advertisers and marketers. I would like to appeal that this content be allowed as a source. Can you help me? Wikipedia needs to changes its notes related to Forbes and Forbes.com since the people who are disallowing Forbes content do not understand the difference. Thank you, JohnnyDeadline Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Johnnydeadline (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
There is no "higher authority" here. First, you should raise your concerns with the reviewers. If they are misinterpreting guidelines, then we can discuss that here. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnnydeadline: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
The issue becomes very clear when you look at the list above - your sources are all unusable for one reason or another, mostly because they are written by him, treat him as background noise only capable of one-liners, or completely forget he exists. The decline looks very proper here, especially given our stricter sourcing standards for content about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:52, 26 April 2024 review of submission by All Write by Me[edit]

Hi there,

Respectfully asking for a more specific explanation of why this article does not meet the notability and/or other requirements. Mr. Miller has been featured, not just mentioned, in several independent publications which I took the time to cite. Is there anything I can change to gain a better chance of the article's acceptance? Thanks in advance, your help is very much appreciated. All Write by Me (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Write by Me I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). Much of the draft is unsourced, and the sources you do have aren't appropriate; Philanthropy impact is based on an interview with him, so is not independent. You did a nice job writing about his career and philanthropy, but not summarizing what makes him a notable person. If it's his philanthropy, we need sources that discuss that and say what his influence is. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note 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 entirely 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) 20:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 27[edit]

08:14, 27 April 2024 review of submission by 1.233.206.93[edit]

Hello! Would like to kindly ask for assistance for creating this page for Nikita Bondarenko. He is a verified author who got published in the largest and most reputable book store chain in all of Korea. The sources used int he article are reliable, alongside sources from leading newspapers in Sri Lanka and Russia about Nikita Bondarenko (individually). However, I still keep getting rejected... 1.233.206.93 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft wasn't rejected (which would mean resubmission is not possible), only declined. It was declined because there is no evidence of notability presented in the draft. And I suspect, for someone who has written (presumably?) only one book, and a very recent one at that, such evidence of notability simply does not exist. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. Remember to log in when posting.
Please describe your connection with this author, as you claim, by saying it is your own personal work, to have taken a very professional looking image of him.
That a particular retailer carries his book does not make him a notable author- please review the definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 27 April 2024 review of submission by Steelbird1967[edit]

Please Help me Editing This Draft Steelbird1967 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbird1967 I've added the submission template so you can submit it when ready; what help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i submit it to afc its under review till that can you tell me if there is any correction in this draft ? Steelbird1967 (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steelbird1967 You incorrectly placed it in the "Wikipedia" namespace, which is for policy pages, not articles. To submit it, you need to click the "submit your draft for review" button. Unless you have extensive experience having drafts accepted, you should allow the process to play out and not move it yourself.
You will also need to clarify the copyright of the image you uploaded to Commons. Unless you took it yourself or can show it was released with a copyright compatible with Wikipedia's(allowing for reuse for any purpose with attribution), you shouldn't have uploaded it. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Can You do it please ? i need your guidance to get started with this Steelbird1967 (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't clarify the copyright for you. If you aren't able to do that you should just request deletion of the image. Images are not necessary for the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 27 April 2024 review of submission by Gravitas temporale[edit]

simple: does Gravitas temporale get a notification, when this question dialog box is answered.😪 Gravitas temporale (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gravitas temporale: Your draft was declined because it appears to be more of an editing test than an attempt to write a draft. (And for the record, I can't assess your one source; it tells me I need to enable JavaScript even after I've temporarily disabled my scriptblocker and uBlock Origin. Even if I could, one source cannot by itself support an article.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your educated answer will not go unnoticed or lost. With such depth, the world is again in good hands. I will endeavor to write some source code on the 8 Automorphic Pascal positions, and why only "J1", can be found to perfectly express said, "prime mover", before using your buttons further.😇🫡😌0_o Gravitas temporale (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gravitas temporale: If you're using AI to write your responces, stop it. Your last reply verges on a non-sequitur. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. not really. although it surely engages the intellect. something i could apologize for, since it is so very simple, but also since even the extremely astute have a difficult effort keeping up, perhaps it's wiser to explain some small details, and write up the necessary table style with a 17px padding, later, as i go.🙂 EXPLAINING:
a pascal triangle can point up or down or to the left or to the right. but it can also be formed from the upper left, the upper right, the lower left, the lower right, corners [8 positions]. and if we are forming a Halkus Yarna in 45 "10 × 10" product boxes [using table style], and adding the 10 backbone product boxes [which are all the boxes that contain squares, and naturally cognitive developing], we sum a base of 55 boxes, for which i have charted, but only 54 to my credit, since an ancestor of mine, a certain Fibonacci who during his time was known as Leonard of Pisa, will quite expectantly receive credit for the original product table of 12×12, from the 12th century.
THAT SAID.
The "J1" can be seen clearly, due to the capital letters [upper case] forming to the left, and "J1", in the lower left.🙄 so if it's all the same to you, just know that this is nothing new from my side. and that on an intellectual ground, any remote peers have yet to be found in over 60 years.
In fact, perhaps i'll need to start a wiki tree of my own, gaining large handfuls of sponsers, just to get my story out there.😇til the next time, mr. Couriano, 再见.😳0_o Gravitas temporale (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 27 April 2024 review of submission by 2A00:23C5:5229:E501:8CB7:B994:D2CD:CF62[edit]

Unsure about reason this submission was declined: I would like to request further guidance so that I can improve the article. 2A00:23C5:5229:E501:8CB7:B994:D2CD:CF62 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
This looks like a case of chaff choking the wheat. Get rid of the poorer sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:02, 27 April 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:8:5CB7:A696:E3D4:3023:D753[edit]

Could you please provide more context or details about the rejection? 2409:40F4:8:5CB7:A696:E3D4:3023:D753 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, not an enyclopaedia article.
An article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject, nothing more. Your thoughts, beliefs, opinions (like mine, or any other random person's on the internet) do not belong there. ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 27 April 2024 review of submission by Wearefromjersey[edit]

Hi! Hope you can help answering my question - after submitting this draft, I got the below note: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." Not really sure what I'm doing wrong since all the info I'm citing is coming from these media sites and can be verified. Am I citing it incorrectly? Not sure what I need to change, any help and advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks so much! Wearefromjersey (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of your citations are to interviews. 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 entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 27 April 2024 review of submission by AdamsFunOfficial[edit]

ADVICE PLEASE GIVE ME SOME AdamsFunOfficial (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at your first article.
Writing an article (which is hard, for inexperienced editors) starts by finding places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write at length about it and been published in reliable sources.
Then if you have found some such sources, forget everything that you personally know about the subject, and everything said or written by the subject or its associates, and write a summary of what those independent sources say, citing them.
If you can't find several such sources, then the topic is almost certainly not notable according to the definition that Wikipedia uses, and no article on it will be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 27 April 2024 review of submission by 74.12.81.63[edit]

‪Concern regarding User:Jthomxav/sandbox‬". My page is declined. Could you pls help me publish the page 74.12.81.63 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Please see the advice left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your sandbox article is not properly referenced. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do so and WP:Biographies of living persons for why we have to be very strict about how sources are referenced. As to your sources themselves...
Your sourcing is better than we usually see around here; your best sources being the Galatea Resurrection zine review and the Asian-Canadian Observer (disregarding the ProQuest source as I can't say anything about it). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:31, 27 April 2024 review of submission by Hannoscholtz[edit]

I have written an article on Alex Counts, founder of Grameen foundation, author of several books on microfinance and social entrepreneurship, teaching philantrophy and social entrepreneurship at UMD.

The article was considered promotional and deleted within minutes, while I was still writing on the talk page why I consider this person to be worthy of a WIkipedia page. Since being deleted in entirety, it is not longer possible to access the work I have done.

I still think that Counts is worthy an entry, but are of course not willing to waste my effort a second time. What can I do? Hannoscholtz (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannoscholtz You created an article directly; this board is intended for drafts in the submission process. You may want the more general help desk. To answer you, though, your article was completely unsourced. Every substantive fact about a living person needs a source, per WP:BLP. The only references you had were to Counts' own work. Any article about him needs to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You said he is notable for his work in microfinance and poverty reduction but don't say who considers him so or why. You are welcome to submit a new draft via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannoscholtz, adding to 331dot's excellent advice, any unsourced statement about a living person that is on the public-facing pages of Wikipedia gets removed extremely fast (as you have unfortunately discovered). It is in fact required for editors to do so, since the privacy of living people is paramount. On the other hand, if you work on your page in the draft space, you will have time to source everything without danger of deletion. I also think you might be able to retrieve your work via WP:RFU if you request to have it draftified. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:46, 27 April 2024 review of submission by Lawrencehlevens[edit]

How can I upload photographic content to Will H. Dixon's profile? Lawrencehlevens (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrencehlevens We don't have profiles here, we have articles. Photos are not relevant to the draft submission process, which only considers the text and sources. You should just concentrate on getting the draft accepted first, you can then worry about images. If you're still interested in learning about the process, see WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see referencing for beginners to learn how to write in line references. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I hesitated in creating an article/profile whatever term you are happy with. I am not an editor or professional writer. If anyone is interested in correcting this essay by all means go ahead. It's too cumbersome and technically difficult for the average individuals. Feel free to edit. I really didn't like your tone in your response.
Kindly, Lawrencehlevens (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrencehlevens I apologize, I intended no poor tone; just trying to be clear and help try to get you on the same page/mindset. Many people who use the term "profile" are here for other purposes than writing an encyclopedia. Writing a new article is the most difficult thing to do here, and getting some experience by editing existing articles and using the new user tutorial can help immensely. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrencehlevens I'm afraid I have tagged the draft for speedy deletion it is a blatant copyright violation of https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/143687702/william-h-dixon Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you establish the page, instead of criticizing. You certainly didn't offer to help. Have at it. Lawrencehlevens (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't write an article about your topic for you. It's up to you to gather the independent reliable sources that give this man significant coverage, showing how he meets the definition of a notable person, and to summarize them in an article. As I indicated, this is the hardest thing to attempt on Wikipedia. If you want to do it I would suggest that you first do as I indicated earlier, to gain the knowledge needed first. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 28[edit]

14:04, 28 April 2024 review of submission by Tiwari Richa[edit]

i need assistance in understanding what exact needs to be changed if its about citations these all are reliable citations if there is something wrong in the way it ha been put give me an example how to write it Tiwari Richa (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiwari Richa: I take it you mean  Courtesy link: User:Tiwari Richa/sandbox? It was declined because it isn't appropriately referenced. We require inline citations to reliable published sources supporting pretty much everything in articles on living people. You have external links, not citations, and they are all piled together on the bottom where they support nothing.
Also, as pointed out separately on your talk page, you should not be writing about yourself, or promoting anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Linkedin.com and The Times of India are not reliable sources so cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted now as self-promo. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 28 April 2024 review of submission by Gkennish[edit]

How do I get this acknowledged? Gkennish (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been acknowledged and rejected, there is nothing there to make a viable article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gkennish: We don't generally have articles on neologisms that have recently been coined. You need to provide sources that show it's been used by multiple people to mean the same thing in order for us to even discuss having an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:45, 28 April 2024 review of submission by Np1608[edit]

i would like to know why my article page was declined Np1608 (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It tells you in the two grey boxes "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read WP:What Wikipedia is not for more information." and blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Np1608, in other words, writing about yourself is not allowed here. From your edits, it's showing. See also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 28 April 2024 review of submission by Ziggleluff[edit]

Hi, I recently created a draft of a non-existing page about the singer-songwriter Hayley Reardon. I am new to editing on Wikipedia so there are some things that I still need to understand. Anyway, I submitted the draft and it was declined for publication due to the following reason: "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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I used newspapers and magazines that talk about her music and some also includes interviews. Anyway, I stil do not understand what type of additional sources I need to add for a chance of submitting an article successfully.

I would really appreciate help in this matter.

Kind regards,

Ziggleluff Ziggleluff (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ziggleluff the first three sources are mostly interviews/based on what she says so considered primary sources and not independent. Atwood Magazine accepts "pitches" and their About us page states they "strive to create a collective of artistic visionaries" and so forth so does not appear to be a reliable independent source and same with Patoo. The Boston Music Awards is not a major award so not useful for indicating notability but fine to state she was nominated. Please see WP:NMUSIC along with WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for some examples of acceptable sources. S0091 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you are having a very common experience of new editors who rush into trying to create an article before they have spent time learning the skills they need. I always advise people to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles and learning about core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources and notability before trying it.
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 entirely 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. It follows that articles which are mostly based on interviews or press releases are of little value in supporting an article. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 28 April 2024 review of submission by PK.Hanafiyya[edit]

in which categories will more reliable sources be needed? PK.Hanafiyya (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Salafi Publications (SPubs) has zero independent sources and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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) 20:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:40:18, 28 April 2024 review of submission by 2601:201:8000:5BB0:B134:DB4E:95ED:1D60[edit]

Hello,

I was wondering what can the issue be fix on this draft article since it was decline of last year. I was wondering what’s there need to be improve for it to be accepted as a article. I did add new info and parts of this year of this subject. 2601:201:8000:5BB0:B134:DB4E:95ED:1D60 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you corrected the draft with reference to the decline notice? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 29[edit]

08:31, 29 April 2024 review of submission by QWproject[edit]

I submit a draft about a company which has been refused to be live please give me the reasons why this happen. QWproject (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QWproject: the draft has been declined because it is completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability, and therefore also entirely promotional. (Not to mention a copyright violation.) And you clearly have a conflict of interest which needs to be disclosed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 29 April 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:894C:7EDF:F0CC:DD53[edit]

I want to know specifically which citations in my article are problematic. The company I am writing about is a new company so citations will be limited. I have referenced everything that is available. 2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:894C:7EDF:F0CC:DD53 (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see significant coverage, directly of this organisation, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Your draft does not cite sufficient sources meeting that standard to demonstrate that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - this is helpful. I will find more citations and add them. I'm not sure what you mean by 'this draft was created by Kia Lewis'. Why is that an issues please so I can rectify. Thanks for your help. 2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:894C:7EDF:F0CC:DD53 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was created by Kia Lewis. One of the issues is the newness of the organisation.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all in-line links and adding more citations. When I compare my entry with Mulholland Books, a fairly recent publishing imprint which only has two 2/3 citations, I'm struggling to see the consistency here. All of my sources are viable and from reputable respected sources, eg The Charity Commission, The Guardian Newspaper, and The Bookseller, Books for Keeps Books for Keeps which are book-industry established and trusted news sources, and I have added way more then 2/3 citations at 12. 2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:894C:7EDF:F0CC:DD53 (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? What's this? Someone claiming their sources are good simply based on the pedigree of their outlet? Hold my drink.
You have one usable source; the rest are of marginal, non-notability use at best. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 23:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, although I don't know why Theroadislong felt the need to be sarcastic - so uncalled for! The only reason I use the Charity Commission as a source was because I saw that Oxfam had referred to the same, so saying this is useless for notability again feels inconsistent. But thanks, apart from the sarcasm, this is all helpful information. Kia Lewis (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think I was sarcastic? Theroadislong (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THis:
See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Oh? What's this? Someone claiming their sources are good simply based on the pedigree of their outlet? Hold my drink.
2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:9500:852F:82AE:9C2C (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kia Lewis: it's not sarcastic, it makes a valid point that we don't (and you shouldn't) assess drafts by comparing them to existing articles which may have their own issues, but instead to the prevailing policies and guidelines.
The Oxfam article may well cite the Charity Commission as a source, but it's unlikely to be relying on that to establish notability, which is what's at stake here. You need 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG / WP:ORG standard to show that the subject is notable; beyond that you're welcome to cite reliable primary sources to support factual, non-contentious information as much as you want. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Does that go for inline citations too, as I stripped them all out and see that all of charities in wiki have them in their articles? 2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:9500:852F:82AE:9C2C (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Manveerdulay[edit]

Can you review the article now? It's been rewritten. Manveerdulay (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, Facebook and Amazon are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Tangoueta Emanuel[edit]

i recently place an article on this subject but my review submission for the article was declined. I want to know how to write an article on a subject that was recently deleted from wikipedia. So i can move forward with my article. Tangoueta Emanuel (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tangoueta Emanuel: given that an article on this subject was deleted for lack of notability less than a week ago following the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Bonjawo, it is pointless to even try to create a new article unless you have significantly stronger evidence of notability than what the deleted article contained. The community has decided that the subject is not notable, and you should abide by that consensus until such time as you can demonstrate otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Mrc26wiki[edit]

Hello, I don't understand why my article is not accepted because of reliable source, because the links I provide are local press articles, so for me it's a reliable source. Mrc26wiki (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrc26wiki: the draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. I counted at least eight paragraphs that have no referencing at all. This would be far from ideal in any article, but is especially problematic when the subject is a living person. For privacy etc. reasons such articles have particularly strict referencing requirements, with pretty much everything needing to be clearly supported with inline citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 29 April 2024 review of submission by GrammyNoether[edit]

Hi! I've recently submitted a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Category_of_Markov_kernels, which has been declined. The reason seems to be the lack of reliable sources. Could I have some advice on how to bring the submission to an acceptable standard?

The current references include a standard monography published by Springer, and 4 published peer-reviewed articles in mathematics and computer science journals, some of which quite prestigious (like Advances in Mathematics). Should there be more references, or maybe references of different type (say, conference talks instead of articles)?

Thank you in advance, I'm eager to work on this. GrammyNoether (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrammyNoether: the problem is that while the sources are solid, all the citations appear in the lead section, with the rest of the content entirely unreferenced. This makes it very difficult to verify the information, when it's not clear which source has provided what. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you!
Let me fix that. GrammyNoether (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Fintechfraser[edit]

Thanks for the recent reviews of this article.

Could I ask for some pointers on which areas are hitting this problem: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement".

Any tips on this would be great ahead of any resubmission. Fintechfraser (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You state on your user page "I am the co-founder of Lyfeguard. I am neither paid nor directed by my employer to edit topics related to the company" I think as the co-founder, Wikipedia would deem you to be a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Theroadislong - while I am employed by Lyfeguard, I am not directly being paid to write or contribute to this article.
What options do I have available - as far as I understood it, being associated (with a clear COI statement) would be ok as long as the article was written from a neutral point-of-view, which I believe it is but if not, please help me understand which parts are coming across as not being neutral. Fintechfraser (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fintechfraser under the Wikipedia definitions you are a Paid editor. You have made a CoI declaration, but you must also make a PAID one by following the instructions at WP:PAID.
The draft is vaguely promotional in nature- it reads like something you would have on the About Us section of your website or in a glossy brochure. Qcne (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Qcne - appreciate the insight here - I've gone ahead and added this declaration too. Any insights on what to add/remove to remove any essence of promotional in nature? I'm new to Wikipedia so anything that could help helpful, I'd appreciate! Fintechfraser (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you've written the draft WP:BACKWARDS. Find the sources, then paraphrase or summarise them, instead of writing text and finding sources to fit the text. Qcne (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Qcne - appreciate it! Fintechfraser (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note it'll probably be really difficult for you to write dispassionately as co-founder. My suggestion is to write it like an autopsy report. Check WP:VOICE and WP:PEACOCK too. Qcne (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's really helpful - thank you @Qcne Fintechfraser (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Anjil dutta roy[edit]

i dont know what to do now Anjil dutta roy (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do with "Sashrik Hour" as a topic, they are clearly not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Grantsharples[edit]

Hello! I've created several drafts for this article, and I wanted to ask why it has been rejected several times despite meeting the general requirements. I have 20 non-primary sources in my references, and this is clearly in line with the quality of sources I've seen on other pages for organizations that are in the family-building industry. Grantsharples (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been rejected, it has been declined, you have been told that these sources [1] are not reliable, interviews and Reddit etc. Theroadislong (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grantsharples Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet. If you would like to help us address inappropriate articles, please identify them so action can be taken. We need the help, we rely on volunteers. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 29 April 2024 review of submission by 39.58.231.132[edit]

Filming 39.58.231.132 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, it is too soon for an article about this unfinished film. This is why the draft was rejected. Once the film is released, the article can then be written- or if you can show that the production of the film itself is notable. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 29 April 2024 review of submission by MP93CY[edit]

Hi! i am trying to re-submit the rejected draft for Curity but there is an error when i click on re-submit. Does this mean i have to wait a certain time to re-submit? The draft was rejected two weeks ago. MP93CY (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined not rejected, your changes are not an improvement so I doubt that it will be accepted when you do submit, also see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MP93CY: This reads like an advertizement. We do not accept blatant advertizing. As to your sources, the overwhelming majority of them are either routine coverage, written by people connected to Curity or associated firms, or content-free profiles. You have pretty much nothing to base an article off of other than the Devies and API Awards, and both of those are otherwise content-free. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 02:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Curity is a small b2b company, it's hard to impossible to receive national media coverage. This is an example of a similar product Keycloak with little reference to external resources. We will edit the submission to ensure it doesn't read as marketing material. MP93CY (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MP93CY: Wikipedia articles should by and large be composed by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. If such sources do not exist, it isn't possible to summarise their coverage, and it may not therefore be possible to write an article. In such cases, we don't just go on regardless and publish an article with whatever sources there are available; we don't publish an article at all.
BTW, who is "we" in your comment? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by one individual only. If more than one of you are working on this, you will each need to register separate accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With we I mean myself, just wanted to be more formal. MP93CY (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the royal we? :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Tuckerleejones7803[edit]

I forgot the references, My apologies, This may take a month to fix, so please wait until it is done! Tuckerleejones7803 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References or not, being the great-great-great grandfather of Franklin D. Roosevelt, does not of itself make the person notable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tuckerleejones7803, there is nothing in your draft to indicate that he was a notable person. We only accept biographies of notable people. Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 30[edit]

03:01, 30 April 2024 review of submission by 666djbirl[edit]

leave me allone or i will report u 

666djbirl (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts (both the listed one and a userspace one) courtesy-blanked and tagged G10. We have zero tolerance for using Wikipedia to further your petty schoolground disputes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 03:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:06, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Stevienetto[edit]

Hi there, am reaching out to understand better why my drafts keep getting declined. It has been really frustrating because the editors/reviewers haven't been helpful to disclose where exactly the issue lies and how it can be remedied. I had the pleasure of communicating with this one person (CanonNi - sorry, don't know how to tag them) to sort out everything, but everyone seems to have their own standards and it feels impossible to get it right.

This is what I replied to the latest person who declined my article: I've disclosed said COI as I'm an employer of the company. Just wish to note how unproductive this nitpicking has been. Firstly, I firmly believe the words used describe the company as a whole, and they are all factual instead of advertorial. There are literally tons of big names/organisations out there with similar tone/language on their published articles. In fact, there are even many that sounds way too promotional and boastful to even be out?

Secondly, I've been in discussion with an editor over the past 24 hours trying to sort out the issue of adding more reliable sources and just earlier the person said everything seems to be in order. At this point, I honestly don't know what else is there to add on to prove? Everything is publicly available on our website and socials, but they're not deemed "independent" and "reliable". Is it expected that every single info has to be reported by the press or be talked about in some case studies?

Thirdly, wouldn't it be more helpful for experienced editors to actually provide direct feedback and suggestions rather than just stating something in general because it seems so difficult for us, contributors, to fulfill every single requirement here - especially when different editor/reviewer has their own interpretations and styles. What's stopping you for approving this and the next person from declining despite me going over and over again on the very same point. And let's not forget the inconsistency on reasonings - one minute it would be regarding COI, then the next one would be about sources (despite edits already been made) Stevienetto (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stevienetto You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
You have done a nice job summarizing the activities and accolades of the company- the thing is, that's not what we are looking for. An article about a company must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Some primary sourced information is acceptable(like location, staff, number of employees, etc.) but such sources do not establish notability. Wikipedia is looking for significant coverage- that goes beyond the mere reporting of the activities of the company and goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about the company, not what the company sees as important about itself. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Tony Award or Pritzker Prize).
Your draft just summarizes the routine business activities of the company and its accolades, nothing about how independent sources view this company and what they see as notable about it. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevienetto: this draft is basically the company telling the world about itself, which is the definition of promotion. Such content may be appropriate for the company's website or pitch deck etc., but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent and reliable third parties have said about the company and what makes it worthy of note. We have no interest in a blow-by-blow account of the company's milestones or business awards, etc. Give us something of encyclopaedic value, as defined by someone who isn't connected with the business. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:06, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Peanutlover2024[edit]

He is in the TV Show SHOGUN as a regular role. he was selected No.7 favorite character in the series. Isn't it enough to be acknowledge as a known person? He is also in the Hollywood Film Silent and others. Peanutlover2024 (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peanutlover2024 What is your connection with this actor? You took a very professional looking image of him(as you claim on the image page) and he posed for you.
Please see the messages left by the reviewer. The sources do not seem to support the idea that he meets the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 30 April 2024 review of submission by 190.21.171.147[edit]

I can't submit the draft, the article is protected and it has everything to be approved 190.21.171.147 (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is as intended- consensus is that a standalone article is not warranted for this topic, and the protection was necessary to prevent further disruptive editing. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Jagriti10[edit]

let me know the reason of rejection Jagriti10 (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jagriti10: this draft was declined (not 'rejected') for the reason given in the decline notice, namely that there is no evidence that the subject is notable. (Additionally, it is insufficiently referenced, but that's not why it was declined on this occasion.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out on the guidelines and you can check as well that i've done the film "KAASHI in search of ganga" by visiting their wikipedia. or refer below Kaashi in Search of Ganga Jagriti10 (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jagriti10 I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). What help is it that you are seeking? 331dot (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not create a new section for every post, please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi[edit]

Hello, I still do not understand your comments. I am looking at other artists and cannot see any differences of what I wrote. Please tell me where I did wrong. Where something is not right according to you that other artists are OK like this. Thank you for a more detailed help or comments Jpgroppi (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and we simply haven't addressed them yet. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on others that themselves may be inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. 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 and have been vetted by the community. If you want to help us identify and address other inappropriate articles, please identify the ones you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help.
Please note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Student7y335[edit]

Hello, I have attempted to respond to the feedback provided with over 20 independent, primary sources, exactly as indicated by this user. This one of the world's most prominent investment firms. Why was this draft rejected without explanation? Student7y335 (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student7y335 A reason was left, "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". It just describes the routine business activities of the company and tells about the founder. These things do not establish that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. That would require significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the company or its personnel and goes into detail about what independent sources see as important/significant/influential about this company. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to provide that - if I add those details can I submit? This is one of the fastest growing venture capital firms in history, with over $2 billion in assets. It is more noteworthy than 80% of the existing VC firms on Wikipedia. This rejection seems extremely biased and selective. Student7y335 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Student7y335: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Discounting the two paywalled sources, you have nothing for Bedrock and a couple of sources for Lewis. Assuming he doesn't already have an article, you'd be better off pivoting to writing an article on Lewis. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 04:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources in biography of an artist\band[edit]

Hi beautiful people, my question is, what can be considered as a 'Reliable Sources' in case I’m writing an article about am emerging artist\band? Max Elliott1 (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Elliott1 Your use of the term "emerging artist/band" strongly suggest that this artist or band is not yet notable. A band/artist (I assume "artist" in this context is a musician) must have already arrived and been noticed by independent reliable sources in order to merit an article, as sources must show that the band/artist meets the definition of a notable band/musician. Another way to put it is that Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 331dot, thanks for that. Out of the definition of a notable band/musician I have a paragraph 5 that complies with that rules: 'has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)'
Can I somehow confirm this in the article? Should I provide links to releases? Max Elliott1 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Max Elliott1 If the band meets criterion #5, that means that they would merit an article- then you just need to gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage that discuss the band(i.e. not interviews, not just announcements of their performances/release of albums). You can link to something showing that they released the albums(but not something offering it for sale or a music video). 331dot (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'(but not something offering it for sale or a music video)' - Would an interview or a review of one of her latest releases work? Max Elliott1 (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for example,
https://www.esccovers.com/karry-g-releases-hot-new-shadow-ep/
or https://stylefocus.eu/2023/10/27/karry-g-dj-from-ukraine-presents-a-trilogy-of-tracks/ Max Elliott1 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interview might be okay just to show that an album was released, but a review by a music critic/professional reviewer would be better. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think inline citation of the interview inside the article would be sufficient? Max Elliott1 (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while I don't myself write articles about musicians, that should be the way to go. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, it will work out. Thanks very much for helping! Max Elliott1 (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Iyoung24[edit]

The organisation I work for has changed its name - I am trying to get this clarified on Wikipedia, either by renaming the page (Big Society Capital) or creating a new page (Better Society Capital) and redirecting from the old page (Better Society Capital). I have not written any new content myself so cannot be accused of lack of neutrality! Iyoung24 (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyoung24 A title change is accomplished with a page move; that may be requested at Requested Moves- though be advised that we don't necessarily go by official or legal names, but what the most commonly used name is(it certainly could be your orgnaization's new name, just saying). 331dot (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft names are also provisional at best. If the subject is better known by a different name or the name is typo'd, then that will be taken into account by the reviewer who accepts the draft as they move it into mainspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Solaristhemainvocal[edit]

What needs to be corrected? Solaristhemainvocal (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Solaristhemainvocal: You have one source. That is not enough to support an article on any topic on Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 30 April 2024 review of submission by 155.186.0.51[edit]

i want the text to speech to pronounce the word 155.186.0.51 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has no references, and has such been declined. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 30 April 2024 review of submission by XSSDestroy3R[edit]

How can I edit my article so it will be accepted?

Hello! I recently made my first wikipedia article about a website, called pwn.guide (Draft:Pwn.guide). It got rejected because "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 passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.". Do you have any idea, what exactly to edit, so it gets approved? Thanks! XSSDestroy3R (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XSSDestroy3R I fixed your post, you had a question where the link to your draft should go, The whole url is not needed, either. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have no sources in your draft other than the website itself. A Wikipedia article about a website must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the website, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable website. We don't want to know what it says about itself, we want to know what others choose to say about it. Please see Your First Article. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; I might also suggest using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia, and perhaps spending time editing existing articles, to get a feel for what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XSSDestroy3R: All of your references are to Pwn guide itself. We require in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss Pwn guide at length, are written by identifiable authors, and have been subjected to rigourous editorial processes, including fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Hamid barani[edit]

Hello dear, is this article well written? Hamid barani (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanid barani Hello. What is your connection with this person? You claim to have taken a very professional looking image of this man, and he posed for you.
The reviewer will provide you with feedback. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Jemecee02[edit]

What do I need to do? Jemecee02 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ths reviewer left you a message as to what needs to be done. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jemecee02: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
The sourcing isn't all that great, but you do have some usable sources. The draft's composition also needs work; it reads like an advertizement for the book rather than a neutral summary of it and its reviews (contrast Drama dari Krakatau or La Peau de chagrin). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted
Thank you Jemecee02 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Desearcher[edit]

I don't quiet understand why I can't use descriptive method to describe what the company does. Also why is it considered spam if the company is real? Please help me navigate to publish info about my company Desearcher (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Desearcher: DISCLOSE. This draft reads like an investment brochure aimed at businesspeople, not an encyclopaedia article aimed at Mark from Miami. You're conflating "spam" with "scam". Your sourcing is also incredibly poor; anything the company puts out is useless for notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Desearcher as you say you own the company, it is mandatory that you make a paid editing disclosure by following the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so is a breach of the Wikimedia Terms and Conditions and will lead to your account being blocked.
Please note that only companies who are notable by our standards merit a Wikipedia article. Qcne (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 30 April 2024 review of submission by LukeHahnsol0[edit]

I have included a source link for every piece of information referenced in the article. The individual has achieved hall of fame status in numerous organizations, thus demonstrating notoriety, so I am unclear on why the subject is deemed unacceptable for an entry. There are very similar entries for other individuals/athletes with less accomplishments and less sources cited, which have been approved. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. LukeHahnsol0 (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LukeHahnsol0 What is your connection with him? You claim to have taken the image of him.
Your sources document everything you state, but do not provide significant coverage of him, and largely are not independent of him. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the response! I am familiar with the subject through the water polo community, so obtained the photo directly. Are you able to clarify if the independence of the links relate to the hall of fame induction references, the coaching references, or the author references? I understand the references for the books are direct links to purchase them, but am unclear on how to better provide independent resources for a book available for purchase to substantiate that the subject is the author. Thanks! LukeHahnsol0 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Luke. 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 entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
So you need to find places where people who have no connection whatever with Hafferkamp have chosen to write in some depth about thim. Not one of your sources appears on the surface to meet this description. ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Articles for Creation (AfC) Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request expedited publication of the draft article titled "Blue Dream Group" that is currently pending review. The article highlights the significant achievements of Blue Dream Group as Bangladesh's top wholesale clothing company and its distinction as the first ISO-certified wholesale clothing company in the country. Given its relevance and importance to the industry, I believe this article will be valuable to Wikipedia readers.

Thanks, Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem please do not write motivational messages using ChatGPT, it doesn't work on us. Your article was declined for not showing any evidence this company meets our special definition of a notable company.
What is your connection to Blue Dream Group? Are you an employee? Qcne (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir, I am an employee of Blue Dream. Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem: in that case, you must disclose your paid-editing status on your user page (and/or the talk page of every draft and article to which it pertains). I have posted advice on your talk page. Please read and action it promptly. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem: Tagged draft for speedy deletion as blatant advertizing. We don't accept promotional content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sir, I understand my mistake. Can I remove and re-upload promotional content? Abm Mojahidul Islam Nayem (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional content is not permitted here. You must make the paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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.
If you wish to pursue this, then once you have made the mandatory disclosure, you will need to .
  1. Find several places where people wholly unconnected with Blue Dream have chosen, off their own bat, to write about it in some depth.
  2. If you can find these, then forget everything you know about Blue Dream and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say.
ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was blanked for the second time today (actually, third, if you count my self-reverted unblanking!) and subsequently G7 speedied. The user has admitted paid editing and promised to make a proper disclosure, but we're still waiting for that to materialise. They've also registered a second account to edit the same, but I advised them to abandon that, which they at least said they would. It's probably now past office hours in their time zone, but I'm hoping they'll rectify all these issues promptly whenever they return to editing, otherwise it may be time to elevate this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Asa "ClarkShark"[edit]

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia. Asa "ClarkShark" (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asa "ClarkShark": that's great, welcome! Do you have a question you would like to ask? The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 30 April 2024 review of submission by EagleSleuth[edit]

"I am the author of this draft and am requesting its speedy deletion as I no longer wish for it to be published on Wikipedia. I have decided to withdraw the article and would like it to be removed promptly. Thank you for your attention to this matter. EagleSleuth (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as requested. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 30 April 2024 review of submission by Harwant Singh Arora[edit]

I need help in submitting my draft. Harwant Singh Arora (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harwant Singh Arora: you have successfully submitted your draft last week. It was reviewed, and declined. If you wish to resubmit it, you just click on the blue 'resubmit' button, but first you need to address the decline reasons, as well as taking note of the additional comments provided by the reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me to work on the declined reasons and resubmit? Harwant Singh Arora (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harwant Singh Arora: in a word, no. We don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. Also, I've no knowledge of or interest in this subject, you've not provided any evidence of notability, and the draft isn't written as a viable encyclopaedia article.
I will give you this advice, though: articles should be composed by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources meeting the WP:GNG standard have said about a subject. Find 3-5 such sources, summarise their coverage, and cite each source against the information it has provided. That will give you the appropriate content, necessary referencing, and proof of notability all in one go. Any other approach is pretty much destined to fail. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind and knowledgeable information. Harwant Singh Arora (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Harwant Singh Arora. The help I will give you is the advice I always give to new editors: don't even think about creating a new article until you have spent a few months learning about how Wikipedia works by making edits to existing articles. Once you have learnt about such fundamental concepts as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, it will be obvious to you why what you have written is nothing like a Wikipedia article, and cannot readily be turned into one, since you are working BACKWARDS.
At the moment you are in the position of somebody who has just started learning a musical instrument, and tries to give a public recital; or somebody who has just started studying engineering and has decided to build a car. You don't (yet) know enough about doing this even to understand the feedback you are receiving. ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 1[edit]

03:08, 1 May 2024 review of submission by 202.134.9.153[edit]

Can you review the article early? Major improvements has been taken.202.134.9.153 (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't do 'fast track reviews' here at the help desk. As it says on top of the draft, reviews "may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,439 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:02, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Dongiri. Ajay Kumar[edit]

What is the reason behind the rejection Dongiri. Ajay Kumar (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept copyright violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 07:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate what you consider to be copyright violations. Thank you. TrevorGlynLocke (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking? Over 90% of it was copyvio, and has now been removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As DoubleGrazing says, the violating content has since been forcibly removed from the draft. As to your sources, they're terrible - one is a Google search, which we cannot cite (too sparse) and I'm sceptical the other meets WP:MEDRS, which is the sourcing standard that applies here (since we're discussing psychiatry here). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 1 May 2024 review of submission by TrevorGlynLocke[edit]

New to Wikipedia, I might not have understood all that I have read. Am looking for major errors in the text I have made. If anyone would like to offer guidance, this would be greatly appreciated. TrevorGlynLocke (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored the advice given, namely... unreliable sources which include Instagram, Waterstones, YouTube, Discogs, Amazon and assorted blogs have not been removed. See WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting sources and see WP:YFA and WP:MOS for general help with article format. Theroadislong (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TrevorGlynLocke I've fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 1 May 2024 review of submission by ناشناس879[edit]

What do I do to get my article published? I've done everything you asked، but every time the article is rejected. ناشناس879 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ناشناس879: this draft has indeed been finally (not "every time", but eventually) rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Ethan Cale B. Domugho[edit]

Why did my article get declined? Ethan Cale B. Domugho (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethan Cale B. Domugho: it wasn't merely declined, but actually rejected. That was for lack of evidence of notability, as stated in the rejection notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 1 May 2024 review of submission by 159.242.125.170[edit]

Hi This page is based on the talk page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Max_Verstappen

This discussion will surround however multiple articles and rules regarding lists, and list sensibilities.

User Tvx1 asserts a consensus has been reached that the draft list is not notable, however, whilst not wishing to use WP:OTHERSTUFF , there is a strong precedent for this type of list for Formula 1 drivers as 5 drivers of similar notability have featured lists in this format. If not for the pattern of featured lists here then I would not write, however, due to this I believe that Tvx1 is wrongly asserting there is a consensus against such articles. Aside from Tvx1 and user Bretonbanquet, this has featured list precedent and seemingly a consensus in favour of this submission. Tvx1 has a history of being overruled for their opinions on such lists, as evidenced in the talk pages for the featured lists for existing F1 driver wins.

I do not wish to ask for this list to be published, I wish for the submission rejection to be overturned to allow the original talk page to reach consensus (especially as on the talk page, Tvx1 wishes to delete the featured lists I have linked below also which is contentious as best as highlighted here on a deletion request page from Tvx1 for one of the featured lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Ayrton_Senna )

It is possible user Tvx1 does not fully understand LISTN guidelines and continues to push for their interpretation in spite of consensus as an honest attempt to improve the site quality, however, it seems to be of limited use for this draft.

The featured lists for precedent are below, implying a Wiki-wide consensus that such articles are in fact notable and that this denial is worthy of being appealed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Lewis_Hamilton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Michael_Schumacher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Ayrton_Senna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Alain_Prost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Sebastian_Vettel 159.242.125.170 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried discussing this with Tvx1? If you haven't, I suggest you do so, as rejection appeals would normally be made to the rejecting reviewer directly. If you don't get a response or can't reach a mutual understanding, you can then come back here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
As you can see I am an IP user so it is a little harder to hold conversations, but from the talk page and their previous deletion attempts it is clear that this editor does not view a compromise as possible otherwise that would have been my first port of call.
Other people in the talk however have made appeals which have been ignored, and this draft was denied with quite some haste with no time to discuss it on the page which doesn't help with this. If your advice is still the same, let me know and I can make an attempt.
Thanks! 159.242.125.170 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's certainly worth making an attempt, rather than assuming nothing would come of it, even if it only ends up proving that assumption correct. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, hopefully it will lead somewhere because having one of these articles missing from a full set of 6 just feels odd. As other editors note, it should be all 6 or none and currently having an odd one out makes for an inconsistency which seems strange. And apologies for taking your time! 159.242.125.170 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise at all, that's what I'm here for. Hope you find a resolution, but if not, do come back and we'll try to help. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:40, 1 May 2024 review of submission by 86.18.72.59[edit]

How does the article lack reliable sources when I cite newspaper articles and academic books mentioning the subject matter? 86.18.72.59 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft wasn't declined for lack of reliable sources, but rather for lack of evidence of notability (which requires sources to be among other things reliable, but there is much more to it).
That said, the offline sources are also cited in a way that makes at least some of them difficult to identify for verification. Offline sources are acceptable, but must be cited with sufficient bibliographical details, including page numbers, to enable them to be reliably identified. See WP:OFFLINE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson[edit]

Filing on behalf of DC1973 (talk · contribs). This autobiographical draft from late October 2023 (under G13 at this writing) has now become the basis of Draft:Wranglestone, a refocus/rework discussing his debut novel. Having tagged the latter with {{Copied}} on its talk page, I have half a mind to turn the precursor into a redirect before things get out of hand--but I don't want to take chances until I'm sure the coast is clear. Is this ploy an acceptable resolution? Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Slgrandson: are you saying you'd turn Draft:Darren Charlton (author) into a redir in order to preserve its edit history, but otherwise effectively abandon it by so doing? And then go forth with the Wranglestone draft instead? Or did I catch the wrong end of this particular stick? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting for preservation reasons. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1221721006"