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


May 4[edit]

01:50, 4 May 2024 review of submission by 49.204.111.73[edit]

the above article is correct made as per the current development but still the wikki have declined it i request for assistance 

49.204.111.73 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have one source, which is merely a timetable. Even if it were an unimpeachable source, one source by itself cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 06:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:35, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Johirkhanarif[edit]

Please Approved this Article, this is a cricketer article. Johirkhanarif (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johirkhanarif please be patient. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and there are currently over 2500 drafts submitted for review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johirkhanarif, the references now in the draft do not show that this person is notable. Being listed in a sports database is not significant coverage. When notability has challenged by an editor acting in good faith, then it is incumbent on you to convince reviewers that the person is WP:PERSON as Wikipedia defines that term. You have work to do. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okk, thanks Johirkhanarif (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:25, 4 May 2024 review of submission by DarkTwentyFive[edit]

Hey there! I'm new to Wikipedia and recently tried making my own autobiographical page. However, it got declined due to insufficient reliable sources. As I'm not that famous online, most of my supporting documents are from GitHub repositories that I've created referring to me.

Any tips on where I should the supporting sources and what they should be? DarkTwentyFive (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait sorry, I accidentally put the wrong URL. My article is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruben_Roy DarkTwentyFive (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Ruben Roy has zero independent, reliable sources, they are what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Genifferave[edit]

It has been quite some time since I submitted this article for review. Appreciate some feedback. Thanks. Genifferave (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genifferave Your draft is submitted and pending. As noted at the top of your draft, there are many drafts awating review, and reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 4 May 2024 review of submission by QamarSiddiqui07[edit]

why you are rejecting my page.? QamarSiddiqui07 (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for rejection of my page. QamarSiddiqui07 (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QamarSiddiqui07 The reason was left at the top of the page, "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves. If you intend to be a Wikipedia contributor, you may use your user page(User:QamarSiddiqui07) to tell limited information about yourself in the context of you as a Wikipedia contributor(but for your security please consider carefully how much personal information you want displayed in this very public forum), though not anything and everything about yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Bhairava Raama[edit]

how can i create my wikipedia page. im a writer and director in kannada film industry. Bhairava Raama (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are strongly advised to not do so, please see the autobiography policy. YouTube is not generally an acceptable source. Any article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Bhukya Gangadhar Naik[edit]

hello then how we should we have to write the article please suggest me tell me what exactly i have to improve in the article Bhukya Gangadhar Naik (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No improvement is possible, it has now been deleted. Please learn more about Wikipedia by reading WP:5P and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot we've had four of these weird sales-related drafts submitted - all today and all by new users. Are you able to shed any light?
Qcne (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to hazard a guess, it might be a non-WikiEd class who was told to put an essay on Wikipedia by an instructor who has no clue how Wikipedia works. This is why you co-ordinate with WikiEd first, people! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 17:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense. Qcne (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it. :) 331dot (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just rejected Draft:Sales Blunder, an odd mix of how-to-guide and neologism. And before that, rolled back the resubmission of the already-rejected Draft:Traits of a Successful salesperson. Wonder if these are part of the same activity, then? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a thread at AN about this; any further discussion about this should probably go there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 4 May 2024 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:1F1D:8400:E380:59DC:A938:B683[edit]

Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Please do not resubmit the draft for review again unless you create a same list of power outages in article namespace. Thanks. 2607:FEA8:1F1D:8400:E380:59DC:A938:B683 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected for the third time and will not be considered further. Don't try and twist what the reviewers have been saying; they said nothing about creating a similar list in mainspace and flat-out said "Do not submit this again."[emphasis added] If you submit this again, the odds are very good it will be taken to WP:Miscellany for deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Ruth Bader Yinzburg[edit]

Hi, my AFC was declined because the subject was not deemed notable enough. I cited two book reviews and a significant book award that the subject won. How much more material would I have to find for the subject to be deemed notable? Or is this one of those cases where it might make more sense to do a draft on the book, as opposed to the author. Or is the problem that wiki doesn’t consider the pen/Faulkner to be a major literary prize within the notability guidelines for authors? Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruth Bader Yinzburg: No, the issue is your sources are not in-line. For biographies of living people, you cannot just slap a references list on the end and call it good; you need to cite your sources at the end of every claim that a reasonable person could challenge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have formatted the references to be inline for you, some more sourced content might help the reviewers. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I’ll see what other sources I can add. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added more sourced content and moved it to main space. Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It looks great, and now I know how much more these should be filled out. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:05, 4 May 2024 review of submission by 82.18.131.62[edit]

Hey! Trying to create a new page for a company called Pharmlogic and looking for any assistance and suggestions in how we can improve this so it's approved. 82.18.131.62 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a business directory where mere existence is sufficient for inclusion. There is nothing in this draft to suggest that the business is even remotely notable or noteworthy. You need to produce independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of this business, to demonstrate notability per WP:NCORP.
You also need to disclose your conflict of interest (COI). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:38, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Drxhemant[edit]

WHY THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CAN'T BE SUBMITTED ? AS SUITABLE REFERENCES HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED

"DR. HEMANT JAISINGH" Drxhemant (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your self-promotional autobiography has been rejected and will not be considered further. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 5[edit]

05:48, 5 May 2024 review of submission by 2601:589:4300:3E61:A571:99F7:A0FD:8EF3[edit]

Hello. I am creating a page for a graphic designer with a notable 50 year career. How do I create it without using his website biography. [1]2601:589:4300:3E61:A571:99F7:A0FD:8EF3 (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone is notable isn't enough, you need to provide evidence of this. They need to satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:ARTIST guideline. Both require independent and reliable sources; the person's own website is not enough. If that's the only source you have, then you need to search further, and if more and better sources still cannot be found then notability cannot be established.
That said, this draft has been submitted and is awaiting review, so you will find out in due course whether it has been accepted, and if not, why not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost 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.
As far as I can see, not one of the sources in the current version of the draft meets the triple criterion of being reliably published (blogs are not), being entirely independent of Kretzchmar, and containing significant coverage of him: see WP:42 for more about those criteria,.
The very first step in writing an article is to find those reliable, independent, substantial sources, because if you can't find them, then there is no point in spending any more time and effort on this article. ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.hubertart.net/chapters-projects

06:54, 5 May 2024 review of submission by SouthPole5423[edit]

There is a problem with Wikipedia's reviewing system. When I write something a little incorrectly, the admins delete the page in 2 seconds, when I put an enormous amount of effort on an article, it doesn't even get looked over! I know that there are thousands of articles posted for review, but it is very irritating. So if you could please take a look at the article, it will be much appreciated, thank you. SouthPole5423 (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthPole5423: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk; the draft has been submitted and will be reviewed when someone picks it up.
And no pages are deleted for something written "a little incorrectly". Or if you have evidence to the contrary, take it up through appropriate channels. (Spam is deleted on sight, but that's a different matter.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Kishor Alo was deleted as blatant promotion. Yes, we do delete blatant promotion when identified. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 5 May 2024 review of submission by Drxhemant[edit]

it has been edited...Now kindly approve it

Thank You with regards Drxhemant (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drxhemant: as explained already (and please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the previous one), your promotional autobio draft has been rejected, which means that it will not be considered further. You are also starting to veer dangerously close to the definition of promotion-only account, which may result in sanctioning. My advice, therefore, is to stop now, and focus on editing non-contentious topics in a non-promotional manner only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drxhemant Please see WP:NOTWEBHOST. I suggest you place your biography on LinkedIn. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drxhemant Your sandbox has been deleted, Please do not seek to re-create it. Wikipedia is not for you to promote yourself. If you happen to be notable then someone else will document this 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 5 May 2024 review of submission by 117.252.146.24[edit]

Why the article was rejected 117.252.146.24 (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't suitable for publishing. If you're providing advice for sales people, please note that Wikipedia does not publish how-to-guides or instruction manuals, etc. If you're instead writing about the term or neologism 'sales blunder', you would need to show that it is notable in its own right, which wasn't shown in this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 5 May 2024 review of submission by RobertoDelgado07[edit]

i was wondering if there was anything missing from my article that wasn´t good enough for me to get the wikipedia page so i can add it, and also i was told that i wrote the article in spanish, does that have anything to do with the decline? is it very relevant? if advised by you i will reedit the article on the spanish wikipedia and resubmit, do you recommend me to do so? RobertoDelgado07 (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertoDelgado07: first and foremost, it is in Spanish, whereas this is the English-language version of Wikipedia and we can therefore only accept content in English.
Secondly, there was no evidence that you are notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word.
And in any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place; see WP:AUTOBIO.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, I'm not quite sure how this works. I think Wikipedia is an incredible platform to be a part of, due to its notoriety and the growth potential and reach it can offer my brand. As an independent content creator, I'm doing what I can to figure things out and manage myself on social media and handle everything on my own. I apologize in advance for the lack of professionalism. As I mentioned earlier, I'm handling things alone, so I have very little knowledge of how these things work. Nonetheless, thank you very much for your time and recommendations. If God permits it in the future and things are done right, it would be an honor for me to be part of Wikipedia. RobertoDelgado07 (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RobertoDelgado07 I apologize for being frank, but Wikipedia has zero interest in helping you to promote your brand. Wikipedia is not a form of social media. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic, not what it wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 5 May 2024 review of submission by 182.182.127.226[edit]

Hey there, I want to work on this draft and then submit it for WP: Articles for creation. Kindly guide how can I submit it once I add citations in it? 182.182.127.226 (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting a rejected draft will involve speaking to the reviewer to convince them that enough has fundamentally changed about the draft to warrant its being resubmitted(as opposed to purely cosmetic changes/additions). In this case the reviewer is still active so they will be able to weigh in. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice.182.182.127.226 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 5 May 2024 review of submission by NikolaiVektovich[edit]

I drafted this out of the remains of an older draft, but I'm unsure about it. I have sources, yet I'm not sure if including the explicit description of songs from the sources would meet WP:NOT. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:44, 5 May 2024 review of submission by GalacticalCosmics[edit]

Is there a way to completely delete the draft? I'm not going to work on it anymore. It was declined even though it has for citations than players like Callan Rydz so I'd rather not waste my time working on it.

Kind regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to delete it, you can just leave it, and it will get deleted after nobody has touched it for six months. But, if you want to, since nobody but you has made significant contributions to it, you can put {{db-author}} (including the double curly brackets) at the top, and an admin will come along and delete it. ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my article seems to have been removed. What do I do and how to extract the content?[edit]

Hey people, my article seems to have been removed. What do I do and how to extract the content please? Max Elliott1 (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article do you mean? ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the one that's removed ))(( 95.158.42.217 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you expect anybody to be able to find any information about it if you won't tell us what it was called? ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Karry G - that's the name of the page 95.158.42.214 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Draft:Karry G? ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! 95.158.42.214 (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please only edit while logged in.
To find your contributions you should use the "Contributions" link at the top of any page while you are logged in. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 5 May 2024 review of submission by OrganizationTheory[edit]

Hi all! Looking for some advice. This draft was declined with the reason that the subject of the article didn't meet notability guidelines for academics/professors (WP:NPROF). But, as early as the first line, the article draft demonstrates using reliable sources that the professor is an endowed and named chair at Stony Brook University, which is a R1 university (the classification for universities with very high research output) and thus clearly meets notability Criterion 5. As the WP:NPROF page notes, only one notability criterion is needed for a professor to merit an article (although I do note other criteria on the talk page of the draft). So I'm not sure what to make of the reason for rejection. Any advice on how to proceed? Thanks in advance! OrganizationTheory (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrganizationTheory: I agree, the named chair would seem to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #5. I've marked a few things that require citations, but otherwise this should be good to go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Thank you so much for your prompt and very helpful response. I made all the changes you noted including moving the article to the appropriate name. How would you recommend I go about getting it published? Should I just resubmit or is there a quicker process now that an editor has looked it all over and ensured it meets academic notability criteria?
Updated link: Draft:Sthaneshwar Timalsina OrganizationTheory (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:35, 5 May 2024 review of submission by WXSharkius[edit]

My page was not accepted for submission. I don't know what is wrong with it? WXSharkius (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WXSharkius: You created a draft for a fictional tornado that you made up. That kind of thing is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I left a message of your talk page for a better place to work on that kind of thing. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you. I was just curious, why is that so bad? WXSharkius (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WXSharkius: As the message says, it's contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Articles on this site are to be about well-documented topics that are Notable and verifiable. This would include real things and well-known fictional entities, but not stuff that random people just dreamt up. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WXSharkius: you write about a completely made-up topic in an encyclopaedia, and you need to ask "why is that so bad?" Seriously? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 6[edit]

02:20, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Ruth Bader Yinzburg[edit]

Hi, I was wondering how to turn the novel reviews and the long list of “best of the year” lists the novel mentioned in this article appears in into single footnotes that have a bulleted list of citations in them for readability purposes. So the footnote would say [1], and the linked citations would be bullet points for a series of reviews / a series of best book of the year lists. Thank you. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruth Bader Yinzburg: firstly, this is a question on general editing, not about the AfC process, therefore you should ask at the Teahouse or the general help desk. Secondly, I don't know that it's possible to do what (I think) you're describing; nor do I think it would be a good idea. And thirdly, reviews of a book this person wrote are arguably not all that relevant in a draft about the person, they belong rather in an article about the book. In any case, this draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, and as such matters don't have much or any bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted, I suggest leaving this for now and seeing how the review (and the ongoing MfD discussion) goes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Sravanthi chekka[edit]

I have published a page on Sales pitch on 4th may but it is rejected and it is saying that it is not suitable. What does it mean not suitable Sravanthi chekka (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sravanthi chekka: your draft  Courtesy link: User:Sravanthi chekka/sandbox is a how-to-guide, which isn't something we publish here at Wikipedia.
Are you doing this as part of some sort of school or university assignment? We've seen a lot of drafts on similar subjects over the past few days. If so, I hate to tell you that your instructor has given you an impossible task! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 6 May 2024 review of submission by 2003:E7:6705:A000:D594:3DDC:8B09:D41A[edit]

Can anybody help. Is something wrong with the references? I cant find anymore references about this film festival from the past. All references are independent and not from the website of this film festival. I dont know exactly what is wrong? 2003:E7:6705:A000:D594:3DDC:8B09:D41A (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see significant coverage, directly of the event in question, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the source. This draft cites no such source, with the possible exception of the Taz article (and maybe the BZ one, at a pinch), which isn't enough. The rest of them are primary sources, apparent rehashes of material put out by the event organisers, non-reliable sources, and/or passing mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the references. There are two significant coverage from two different Film magazines in German (PRANKE Magazin and Gory News) AND two multiple secondary sources in newspaper (Berliner Zeitung, T.A.Z). I deleted the references from the einzweidrei.info because it is just about the organisator in person and it is not about the film festival. Tromaggot (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:38, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Ryry10 0[edit]

I'm trying to write myself a biography as a musician named GOOD NGHT. My submission was declined for 'lacking reliable resources'. I don't understand how to resolve this issue and require support. Ryry10 0 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryry10 0: are you writing about yourself, or a personal acquaintance? If so, it's not enough to write what you know about the subject, you need to be summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about them, citing those sources against the information they have provided. Your draft has no such sources (or indeed, sources of any kind), and cannot therefore be accepted.
Also, the subject must be notable in Wikipedia terms to be published in the encyclopaedia. There is nothing in this draft to suggest that is the case.
And finally, if you are writing about yourself, don't - see WP:AUTOBIO for the reasons why. And if you're writing about a friend or family member, you have what's known as a conflict of interest (COI), which must be disclosed – see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 6 May 2024 review of submission by 182.252.69.230[edit]

Bangladeshi Journalist 182.252.69.230 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do you have a question? Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Some of the information seems to be fabricated, as the sources do not seem to mention this person at all. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Diegoriccio98[edit]

Hi, I would like to ask if the critical issues, written by the last reviewer of this draft, remain in this latest version. I would also like to ask you to promptly highlight the parts that still need improvement. Diegoriccio98 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diegoriccio98: the first thing that jumps at me is that although this draft is meant to be a biography, it veers heavily into chemistry. I would suggest sticking much more closely to the topic. By all means mention his work and research interests, but don't elaborate on them too much. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing Thank you I was thinking the same. I am going to move same of the current content to some articles about chemistry. I am going to contact also the thematic project.--Diegoriccio98 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Shhrikantta[edit]

Dear Wiki

My name is Shrikanta Jilla, I have authored 2 books and co-authored 1 book. Today, I had to send a reply.

Wiki; the "Draft:Reckoning with the Vector Axe- I", have been written by me and it was declined for third time today, Wiki; one thing I want to make clear that the information regarding the book was passed by me, and first of all I authored that book, if I give adequate information about my book, then who will give?, I request you to accept the draft, since the information in the draft is about "my" book, I have adequate proofs like: website, blog, fandom, alternative publishing platform info. ,I would like a response from you, hoping for early replies.

Thank You Regards Shrikanta Jilla Shhrikantta (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shhrikantta.
Your draft fails our notability criteria for books. Wikipedia is a collection of topics that we deem "notable" by our notability criteria and you have not proven your book is notable.
Your draft also contravenes our neutral point of view policy. Please note that promotion of any kind is prohibited on Wikipedia. I have therefore tagged your article for deletion.
I would recommend finding a social media website - not Wikipedia - to promote your book.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot[edit]

Can anybody help. Is something wrong with the references? I cant find anymore references about this film festival from the past. All references are independent and not from the website of this film festival. I dont know exactly what is wrong? Tromaggot (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered above; please do not duplicate postings. Please place further comments in that existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Wolfboy8989[edit]

i wana rename my artical Wolfboy8989 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted as a misuse of Wikipedia, this isn't a place for you to run a website allowing others to post materials. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Imoutofchoices[edit]

I believe that this topic is reasonably notable, as it is a page on the ZH Wikipedia, however, the topic has been rejected for concerns of notability, and lack of citations, however, I have modeled the citations in a way that resembles other published articles, such as the Muse Dash and Arcaea articles. Pleasehelp. Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imoutofchoices Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, all with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others, especially in terms of notability. If this text is an acceptable article on the ZH Wikipedia, I suggest that you edit that version. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I did before was I took some of the sources of the ZH article and paraphrased the article, which is why there are some citations that are written in foreign languages Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Imoutofchoices: Different Wikipediae have different standards for notability and the reliability of choices, and the English-language Wikipedia tends to be one of the strictest ones. At a glance (and discounting the Chinese-language sources; automated translaton with those is unreliable) the only sources you really have are app stores, content-free profiles, and a YouTube video from an unverified channel. None of these are helpful sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be an example of a website that would be seen as reliable, as I said before, the Arcaea page has most of it's sources are App Stores and one actual article Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An independent game journalism website could be reliable, as long as it is fairly mainstream and the article is not being sponsored by Pigeon Games. Qcne (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been seeing articles from a website called lakevalor, is that a reliable spot? I usually edit on a school chromebook, so I don't usually have access to these sites on a daily basis Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lake Valor is a Pokémon forum? If so no you cannot use Forums, sorry. Qcne (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Thank you! Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to realise is 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.
The majority of sources - and all those used to establish notability - need to be wholly unconnected with the subject and its producers, distributors etc, as well as being reliable. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, a question that popped up is the reliability of foreign language citations, would those be useful for an English article? Imoutofchoices (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, assuming they otherwise meet the criteria laid out in WP:RS. We also accept offline sources, if cited properly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you did find a "reliable website" we assess sources not primarily on the outlet that publishes the source but on the character of the source itself. Kotaku is an acceptable source in most circumstances; the issue you have here is that you linked to a profile for the game on Kotaku (as opposed to one of its game reviews or journalistic articles), which has pretty much no information that can be cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 6 May 2024 review of submission by 67.183.4.58[edit]

Can anyone provide more detail on why this submission was not accepted for publication? Here are the reasons I was given: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

I included 3 reliable primary sources (published books), I am independent of the subject, and the article is entirely dedicated to it (not just a passing mention). Thanks for any guidance you can provide! 67.183.4.58 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). Remember to log in when posting. Your draft does little more than document the existence of this facility and describe its offerings; you instead need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this facility, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Crazytiger954[edit]

Having difficulty understanding what this article is lacking. I have cited a source, made references to external sources and links. The latest response was this individual does not meet the criteria for a page. He's an accomplished musician and has appeared on a major TV shows and performed in bands with major artists. Furthermore, this individual has an approved page for Wikipedia-Norwegian which was the inspiration for creating a page for en.wikipedia (https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Cheznovitz) Crazytiger954 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crazytiger954 Please know that each language Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another.
You only have one source, and many unsourced claims. Every substantive claim about a living person must have a source, see WP:BLP. An article must summarize multiple sources. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see the definition of a notable musician, which you must show he meets. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Suhashini2024[edit]

Can you please let me know what needs to change for this to be accepted? Suhashini2024 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suhashini2024: We can't accept text taken from elsewhere, and you have zero usable sources (all your sources have a connexion to the subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 21:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the speedy response. On my end, it states the content is still being reviewed. Can you kindly confirm? The content inputted has not been copied from elsewhere, rather gathered information from multiple websites. Suhashini2024 (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been deleted since as plagiarised and closely paraphrased from https://dornsife.usc.edu/profile/titus-galama/ . —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 21:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for letting me know. I just submitted a revised version. Kindly review and let me know if this is acceptable. Suhashini2024 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't submitted anything, you just added content to the deleted draft's talk page, and that content is thoroughly promotional. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I believe I resubmitted. Kindly confirm and let me know if I havnt. Please let me know the steps. Thank you. Suhashini2024 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suhashini2024, in its current form, your draft is very poorly referenced and cannot be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for letting me know. I added citations. Hope I did a better job. Suhashini2024 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the exact same sources I called out as being unusable in the previous iteration of the draft, all of which were written on his behalf by organisations he has ties to.. Such sources are useless for notability as Wikipedia defines it and for the more rigourous sourcing requirements for content about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 23:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 7[edit]

09:29, 7 May 2024 review of submission by Aswin012[edit]

hii, i have created a article based on human resource management software now it has been removed from the review desk. what was the reason for the rejection Aswin012 (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aswin012 The draft is in your sandbox, so I fixed your post to link to it. Please examine the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:29, 7 May 2024 review of submission by Artem S. Tashkinov[edit]

  • The translation layer which now supports over 20K Windows titles under Linux is not "noteworthy"?
  • A software title which made Linux an actual gaming platform?
  • It's extensively used by Intel in their Windows GPU driver!
  • Something which is sponsored and used by Valve Corporation to enable gaming on Steam Deck?

OK, then, screw it! It's not my issue that "esteemed" media doesn't want to write about it. It's sad but I'll just let it expire if no one volunteers to make this article WP-compliant. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the review comment "Sources almost certainly exist for this, but they need to be found and integrated" you have not done this yet despite a list of possible sources being provided. Theroadislong (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources where DXVK is featured as the main topic. None. The links provided are only tangentially related to DXVK. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem S. Tashkinov: if you're disputing the AfC reviewer's assessment, you're free to move this into the main article space yourself, given that you have extended confirmed status (unless of course you have a COI?). New page patrol will then take a view on it instead (albeit that they implement the same guidelines).
If your issue is more fundamentally with Wikipedia's notability policies, then this is the wrong forum for that debate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to dispute anything TBO. I'm tired of arguing and disputes, there's just too much of it. I have no COI, it's open source software. I've no idea how to move it into the main article, and even if I knew how, I'm afraid someone would speedily delete it for the same "being unworthy"/"lack of citations" reasons. In short, would be great if you took it from here. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You use the "move" function to move the draft into the encyclopedia(it may be in a drop-down menu at the top). Yes, it's possible what you say could happen- which is the risk of moving it yourself against the advice of reviewers. This isn't the place to solicit someone to "take over" for you- if you want to see it in the encyclopedia, you need to do the work and be able to defend it. If that's not something you want to do(nothing wrong with that, this environment isn't for everyone), this is probably the end of the road for the draft unless someone else interested in this software finds it(possible but unlikely) and takes it up themselves. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:51, 7 May 2024 review of submission by 103.197.204.25[edit]

help me to make this article i have trouboling with references 

103.197.204.25 (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're Omagol, please remember to log in when editing.
There doesn't seem to be a problem with referencing, at least not in a technical sense; two citations have been successfully created (albeit to pretty useless sources). You probably have more of a problem with finding sources that would establish the subject's notability. No one can help you there, you should be citing the sources which have provided the information in the draft. What are they?
Or might you be writing about yourself, or an acquaintance? If so, see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 7 May 2024 review of submission by Azeilander[edit]

Please tell me how I can edit this page to be more objective and less like an advertisement. Thank you very much. Azeilander (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion is academic, as the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. I think that you are too close to this topic to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 7 May 2024 review of submission by 216.186.51.108[edit]

I'm wondering why it was not accecpted most of the time 216.186.51.108 (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for rejection was given by the reviewer, the topic is "not sufficiently notable". 331dot (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 7 May 2024 review of submission by Snenheh[edit]

Why man. This guy is a future athlete, he will be famous. He is already tranfering to a track prep highschool. His story must be heard...!!! Snenheh (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero evidence that they pass the criteria at WP:GNG also see WP:TOOSOON. Theroadislong (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He will be famous" is an admission that he doesn't currently meet notability requirements as Wikipedia defines them. No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 22:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 7 May 2024 review of submission by Ngmusic2222[edit]

My article got rejected - I want to know what I can do to help make sure that it can be approved for Wikipedia. Ngmusic2222 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected means that no further improvement is possible, it won't be considered further at this time. Furthermore, most of it was directly lifted from a source stating "all rights reserved", so I have deleted it as a copyright violation. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find where he was awarded a Grammy. He wrote a song for an album that John Legend won a Grammy for, but that went to Legend, not Fink. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:29, 7 May 2024 review of submission by 97.189.188.67[edit]

why was my article declined? 97.189.188.67 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 22:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 8[edit]

00:16, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Agron776[edit]

Hello. My article submission was declined due to lacking reliable sources. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'd appreciate some advice on which source(s) were problematic and/or which parts were inadequately sourced so I can fix them. Thank you! Agron776 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Agron776, welcome to the Teahouse!
  1. This source seems to be a brief mention of Kaleshi and does not provide WP:SIGCOV.
  2. An offline source I cannot access - which is fine to use! - but it would be useful to know if this source provides sigcov of Kaleshi?
  3. The same source as the first one.
  4. I've searched this book for "Kaleshi" and there are five very brief mentions, so unfortunately does not provide that sigcov again.
Hope that helps. Qcne (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:22, 8 May 2024 review of submission by DualSkream[edit]

Hey, I learned of the whole feud with this article and I wanna know why it's getting denied repeatedly. We have articles with Lewis Hamilton and Michael Schumacher's wins, so it doesn't make sense to me why an article for Max Verstappen's wins would get denied. DualSkream (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages by reviewers, as well as other stuff exists. If the article about Mr. Verstappen needs to have his wins split off, a consensus needs to be established first. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:40, 8 May 2024 review of submission by MARLOWE[edit]

Hi there. I need help. Been up with this all day and exhausted. Maybe you can help to correct some issues. Sincerely, Jon LaValle Jackson 5-7-2024 MARLOWE (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MARLOWE: We don't cite Wikipedia, we can't use either YouTube reference (unknown provenance), and each and every one of your newspaper cites is missing required information (page numbers). None of your sources are usable (in their current state). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 04:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-signing due to botched ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 04:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks indeed. I'll locate those items in my files and place the page number they appeared on as soon as I can, etc. Thanks Sincerely, Jon LaValle Jackson 5-8-2024 MARLOWE (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is hopelessly promotional, as usually happens when an editor ignores Wikipedia's strong discouragement of autobiography.
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 want to write an article about Jackson (whether that is you or not), you need to find several places where people who have no connection with Jackson, and have not been commissioned or fed information on behalf of Jackson, have chosen to write in some depth about him, and been published in reliable sources.
Then, if you can find these, you need to forget every single thing you know about Jackson, and write a summary of what those sources say - even if you disagree with them. ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Yeswhynot1234567890[edit]

i need to post this Yeswhynot1234567890 (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeswhynot1234567890: no, you don't. It was rejected already, and I've now requested speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed)

07:26, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Clare Nassanga[edit]

Hello, I would like to improve this wikipedia article to the standards of wikipedia. Could you help me highlight the necessary areas i have to edit and work upon, Clare Nassanga (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: the draft has been resubmitted so you will received feedback when a reviewer gets around to assessing it.
Please remove those external links, however; they are not compliant with WP:EL. Social media links are expressly prohibited by WP:ELNO. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Student7y335[edit]

Hello, I misunderstood the reviewer's request and would like to add additional references for publication. I have spent a lot of time responding to these requests and would appreciate a chance to respond and improve the entry. Thanks! Student7y335 (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Student7y335, rejection usually means the end of the road for a draft; but if you think you have made substantial changes you can reach out to @CNMall41 directly who was the rejecting reviewer and see if he would take another look. Qcne (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Student7y335: whatever you do next, if anything, please first read and respond to the paid-editing query posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot[edit]

Can anybody help me. The sources are not reliable sources - but Die Tageszeitung, Tageszeitung and the Berlinale are realiable sources. It is useful to use only these sources and delete the other sources? Tromaggot (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "Berliner Zeitung" and not a second "Tageszeitung" Tromaggot (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tromaggot: please don't start a new thread with every comment, just add to the previous one. This was already pointed out to you at least once before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to cite whatever sources provided the information in the draft. If the source is not reliable, then you shouldn't be using its information in the first place. In that case the answer does not lie in removing the citation and hiding where the information has come from, but in using a reliable source instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Student7y335[edit]

Hello, I've added 10 references, can my submission be considered once again? Thank you. Student7y335 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Student7y335: this was already answered not half an hour ago. Please do not start a new thread with every comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry for my confusion. Student7y335 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing that you need to do is slow down. You are rushing to get this approved instead of taking the time to understand the reasoning for the many declines from editors. It is not about the quantity of sources but the quality but from your edit summary ("Added 10+ references, now totaling 30 references") this doesn't seem to be understood. I will point you to WP:ORGCRIT which is the relevant guideline for sources you need to show notability. I will be happy to answer questions regarding that guideline if you wish. In the meantime, I would also address the concern raised on your talk page. It is fine if you are WP:PAID, but not disclosing so is not. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-checking the current draft with the last time I looked at it, I will again point you to my /Decode subpage.
None of the new sources you've added are any good, and if anything demonstrates an inability to actually read and assess sources, given what I said last time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Student7y335: Signing for ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing what CNMall41 says, for each source that you consider citing, see if it meets all three parts of the criteria in golden rule. If it doesn't then it is useless for establishing notability. If it is not reliable, it should not be cited at all. If it is non-independent or does not have significant coverage, it is possible that it can be used to support some particular piece of information in the draft. ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 8 May 2024 review of submission by 14.201.9.231[edit]

Hi, I attempted to follow the guidelines and to make an equivalent entry to another author/ activist similar to myself but have obviously failed. This is the person I tried to emulate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Birch

The feedback I received is that my entry is like an essay. Are you able to highlight those parts that are like an essay so I can rework or remove them? The feedback was also that there was not "significant coverage" rather than "passing mentions" but the supporting links I shared included Ruth Clare as the primary focus so I am not sure what this means. Is someone able to clarify this for me or to give me an example of what they mean by these terms and what makes something "good" or "bad" as I am confused. Many thanks. 14.201.9.231 (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually bigger problems with this draft than it being essay-like. Firstly, as noted as the primary decline reason, there is no evidence that the subject is notable, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.
Secondly, you should not be writing about yourself in the first place; please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please remember to log in whenever you're editing (anything, on any page, including talk pages). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Itzdeep2[edit]

I am writing in response to the deletion notice regarding the draft article on Dhritideep Pathak. I respectfully disagree with the suggestion for deletion and would like to address the concerns raised.

The draft article provides comprehensive information about Dhritideep Pathak, covering various aspects of his personal and professional life. It highlights his achievements, educational background, career trajectory, and contributions to different fields such as cybersecurity, gaming, and programming.

Moreover, the content adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding notability and verifiability. Dhritideep Pathak's accomplishments, including his certification as an Ethical Hacker Professional, tenure as CEO of Garina Free Fire, and service as a special Secret Agent of Para Commando, are well-documented and supported by reliable sources.

Furthermore, the draft article has been meticulously crafted to ensure accuracy and neutrality, presenting information in a balanced and factual manner. It does not contain any promotional or biased content that would warrant deletion.

In light of the above, I kindly request that the deletion notice be re-evaluated, and the draft article on Dhritideep Pathak be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Should there be any specific concerns or areas for improvement, I am more than willing to address them promptly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Itzdeep2 (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Itzdeep2. Your draft is absolutely promotional in tone and it is completely correct it has been rejected and marked for deletion. It does not comply with our notability and verification policies.
By any chance did you write this appeal using ChatGPT? It is wrong, if so.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing there to suggest that they are notable? Correctly rejected and tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:27, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Itzdeep2[edit]

i have edited some of it so it do not violate any terms of wikipedia Itzdeep2 (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Itzdeep2: no, you haven't. And in any case, this has been rejected already, and is awaiting deletion.
I'm guessing you're the subject of this draft? If so, please see WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why you shouldn't be writing about yourself.
And please don't start a new thread with every comment, just add to the earlier one. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Itzdeep2 I love that all your "sources" were generated with ChatGPT. That really is great. Qcne (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Arp678138[edit]

Dear Authority, Hope this message finds you well.

We humbly request you to accept this page because "Arindam Kumar Paul" was a young multitalented researcher. He died by a road accident (aged 28) and but he had made significant contributions in research sector during his short lifetime. He was above all a mathematician, a hard coder, a problem solver and last but not least, a great researcher. We believe that people of all ages read Wikipedia, and therefore if this current page get approved, young students would get motivation to do research works in their early life by going through the page:"Arindam_Kumar_Paul". This is the main reason why we made this draft and submitted to the Wikipedia authority to review. We are not prioritizing a person, we are prioritizing the research works made by the person. Therefore, we once again gently request you to verify this submitted page, look into all the details given in memory of "Arindam Kumar Paul", and help us in this process. We accept and abide by all the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Finally, thank you so very much for understanding the fact why we made this draft.

Waiting for a favourable reply from you. Arp678138 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arp678138: I'm not the Authority, but I'll reply while waiting for Authority to get here... It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to memorialise anyone, or to "motivate young students"; you will need to find other outlets for that.
This draft has been rejected, and is pending speedy deletion (and if you wish to contest the latter, you need to do so on the draft talk page, not here).
Who is "we" in your message? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for one person's use only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Arp678138. Currently your draft makes no indication that this person is notable by our standards, see WP:NACADEMIC for the academic related criteria; or WP:NPEOPLE for the more generic people critiera.
Every single source is WP:PRIMARY, i.e. connected to Arindam in some way.
It would be worth reading WP:NOTMEMORIAL too.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your reply. However, we again request you to verify the deleted page. We can provide you some notable things of “Arindam Kumar Paul” below:
1. The person “Arindam Kumar Paul” is known for developing a significant graphical interface for solving “higher dimensional Optimal Control Problem.” The code that he developed is very unique. Mathematicians of the globe who work in Optimal Control Field would have less amount of time to solve their optimal problem in less amount of time by applying his codes.
2. Most of his research works or collective body of works played/are still playing major roles in public health sectors or other fields.
For example, one of his research works with the title “Modeling and Optimal Control Applied to Reduce the Effects of Greenhouse Gases Emitted from the Coal-based Power Plant in Bangladesh” was considered “unique and only research work” for solving problems in the respective subject area according to the reviewers and editors of well reputed HELIYON journal.
3. His another work “Modeling the Spread of COVID-19 Among Doctors from the Asymptomatic Individuals” was the best “unique research” where “the causes of healthcare system collapse due to COVID-19 situation” were examined Mathematically, and this research has been placed in the WHO COVID-19 Database and has been translated into German, Arabic and Russian languages.
Therefore, there is a humble request to the Wikipedia authority again, “Please look at the deleted draft page, and verify the significance of the works of the person”.
If you have any queries, please let us know. Also please let us know how we can improve the draft.
Thank you so very much for your support. Arp678138 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arp678138 Does Arindam meet the notability criteria at WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NPEOPLE? If not that I am afraid an article is not possible. Qcne (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 8 May 2024 review of submission by PsychologyAdvocate[edit]

Looking for input on what specifically was rejected. The Object Relations Institute has been a chartered organization with the New York Board of Regents for over 30 years, which I cited on the page.

It is also listed on the Wikipedia page "Psychoanalytic institutes and societies in the United States", and I linked to multiple other certification agencies that are independent of the Object Relations Institute.

This is my first time every attempting to write a Wiki article, so any feedback would be appreciated! PsychologyAdvocate (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PsychologyAdvocate: as it says in the decline notice, we need to see significant coverage of this organisation in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio programmes, etc.). Your draft cites no such source. Simply being a well-known or long-established etc. organisation isn't enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are available. Where should I link them in the article?
Should I create a new section header for “references” and list books, newspaper, or scientific journals where ORI is mentioned there? 76.189.211.123 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PsychologyAdvocate (please remember to log in),
If you follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE you can add in in-line citations and a References section will automatically be created for you. Qcne (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Ramsharaj2468[edit]

please im baging you dont block or delete this name or parsonality abdullah raj qureshi is filmmaker or youtuber influanser... please Ramsharaj2468 (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramsharaj2468: nobody is (not yet, at least) saying anything about deleting or blocking. I've meely declined your draft, because it's blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramsharaj2468: And in its present state it would be summarily declined. We don't cite IMDb, and we do not accept unsourced content about living or recently-departed people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Clementinaalcoba[edit]

Hi, I recently got a submission declined and I would like to have more detail about how can I improve the references of the article. The references included sources such as newspapers, blogs and other media, some in english and some in Spanish. The musician meets the criteria to be notable since she has released more than two albums on an important indie label National Records (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacional_Records). Thank you! Clementinaalcoba (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clementinaalcoba, I do think she is notable so have accepted the article. I think the decline by @Xoak was borderline, likely because of the use of lots of interviews. But even with those, I think it passes our criteria. Qcne (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you! I am going to continue writing about Latino women musicians! 24.232.168.3 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:48, 8 May 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener[edit]

I am asking about the recent decline of my works about this school (my work), I believe a big assistant can help me to improve the notability of this (work) school but for clarification this work is under the notability including the Awards and achievement of the school, the Visit of U.S Marine and Sailors, the school is even featured on Philippine National Television which other school not have. RexScrivener (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, if this school is your work, you are a paid editor, and you must make a formal declaration of that, as explained in the link.
Secondly, your article must be based on what people wholly unconnected with the school, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of the school, have chosen to publish about the school in reliable sources. Your own knowledge is not acceptable unless backed up by reliable published sources. It doesn't look to me on a quick look as if even one of the sources meets the triple requirements in golden rule
In any case, the draft has been rejected, and will not be further considered. If you have found some sources that do meet the requirements, and believe they are enough to establish notability, you will need to ask the rejecting reviewer on their user talk page. But nobody is going to help you find sources: that is your responsibility. ColinFine (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:13, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid[edit]

I would like to know if this article ready to be accepted. I've been editing for the last few weeks Rincemermaid (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. As noted on the draft, there is a backlog of drafts awaiting review, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 9[edit]

01:09, 9 May 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener[edit]

Hello Again, I have created another message because my other message was ignored, I am certified that my article about the School falls under the Notability guidelines and regulations as I said in my previous message, the Articles provide the Awards and Achievements of the school, the Visit of U.S Marines and Sailors and even featured on a segment in Philippine National Television that was premiered through GMA Public Affairs the biggest network in the Philippines. So, I Ask again to see and to double check my article so it would be release to the Article Page.

thank you for your consideration -Rex Scrivener RexScrivener (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener none of those points you have just made meet the requirements of WP:NORG or WP:GNG. As you have been told in every decline message. The awards and visitors do not indicate any sort of notability as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned. Please read through the decline messages links and the one in this message to help you better understand what is required. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thank you for replying on the issues regarding the article, i believe the sources that i use are reliable and certified, also with your response i edited the article base on the requirements and perhaps you or anyone can check the sources that i place to fully verified it is true.
thank you again - RexScrivener (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I would like to petition that this article is fine, I see other schools that are in Wikipedia, and it did not even follow the guidelines, but it was approve, so I'm asking for equality that this article may be uploaded to the article page. i am asking with sincerity. thank you RexScrivener (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener Please stop creating new sections and just respond in the existing location. At this point since you are not listening and the draft has been rejected it will not be considered any further. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry if i did not follow your instruction, maybe i was too exited the article to be publish or release. I offer my deepest apologies and i would like to continue to work on this project and maybe in the future you guys will approve of it. Again im very sorry for such in a hurry of this work. RexScrivener (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, in your previous post (which was not "ignored" - volunteers here are in different timezones, and have real lives) your draft has been rejected. I strongly advise you not to waste any more of your time on it. ColinFine (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:44, 9 May 2024 review of submission by 111.125.122.184[edit]

Good Day, Im a student at this school and I’m very happy to see this article on google and other search engines soon, regarding the issue that was raised by Rex Scrivener, i think he is too rush but correct at the same time. Regardless im very happy someone created an article about my school and thank you for the admins of help desk for being professional. 111.125.122.184 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like other reviewers have answered above, the draft does not meet WP:NORG. It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Also, please stop creating new sections for the same draft. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:10, 9 May 2024 review of submission by 178.135.18.17[edit]

helloo, thank you so much for your comments on my article, may i please know how can i add reliable sources? i already added 22 sources, can you give me example?

sincerely,

Tonio F. Mrad 178.135.18.17 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are indeed 22 citations (speaking of which, do we really need 11 of them to support the last two short paragraphs?), but they are all in the last approx ⅓ of the draft, with most of the content unreferenced. This would be problematic in any draft, but especially so in articles on living people (WP:BLP) which require comprehensive inline citations throughout. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a citation is to verify a specific piece or pieces of information in an article, nothing else. If a piece of information is already verified by a citation, it is a waste of everybody's time to add another citation for it. See WP:OVERCITE.
Meanwhile, in a BLP, if there is information which is not supported by a citation, that is a problem. ColinFine (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:10, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Antwan123123[edit]

need assistance on what to do to make this article suitable for wikipedia Antwan123123 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After seven declines and a rejection there is probably nothing you can do, beyond accept that they are not notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antwan123123: also for future reference, when a draft has been declined, especially if it already has a history of multiple previous declines, do not resubmit it without any attempt to address the decline reasons. This signals to the reviewers that you are unable and/or unwilling to develop the draft further, which leads to the inevitable conclusion, like it did here, that the draft's current state is the best it will be, and if that isn't good enough for publication then there is logically no option left but to reject it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Jasmineanna[edit]

Hi, i've added new references for the page Simon Ree, can you please let me know if these reference are inline with what you are after? Jasmineanna (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasmineanna what is your association with Simon Ree? There is utterly no indication that he is notable by our standards. Qcne (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 9 May 2024 review of submission by B.sooshiant[edit]

hello dear friendI have tried my best to keep this article up to date. Could you please not delete it and help me complete it?

respect and regard B.sooshiant (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@B.sooshiant this draft has now been rejected, and will not be considered further. If you feel the draft has substantially changed since the last rejection, please reach out to @TheTechie. Qcne (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Thanks for the ping. I now know what to expect. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:06, 9 May 2024 review of submission by RadisonRathod[edit]

Hi , Can someone check and mark this page as reviewed. So that it would appear on google and search engine as well. Thankyou. RadisonRathod (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RadisonRathod please see WP:INDEXING. Qcne (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RadisonRathod: that's not an AfC matter, that's one for WP:NPP. In any case, it was reviewed two days ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Marisa at Klick[edit]

Hi. I'm feeling very confused as to why my draft was declined. There are 58 references, many of which are significant or in-depth coverage by independent, reliable global and business media or leading trade journals. There are also numerous industry-leading awards. This makes a strong case for notability, and I'd appreciate another review. Thanks a lot for your help, I appreciate your time. Marisa at Klick (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marisa at Klick: it is true that you have 58 (!) citations in your draft, but that's not necessarily a good thing, as you seem to think, it might actually work against you; see WP:REFBOMB and WP:CITEKILL. In short, 5 solid sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard are better than 58 that don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @DoubleGrazing. I believe it is the best of both worlds: we have several references that describe the company's history, operations, products, and awards… and Klick also meets the notability guideline. This draft cites major business news coverage, including Fast Company, Forbes (by a staff writer), Toronto Business Daily, and CNBC. Then we cite leading health and marketing trade publications, including Ad Age, Strategy, Clio, The Drum, Campaign, MM+M, PM360, and MobiHealthNews. Last, Klick is a multiple-award winning company with recognition from Cannes, Clio, Fortune, Fast Company, Ad Age, and MM+M. I think the case for notability is clear with the number and relevance of sources. Marisa at Klick (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list three and only three sources that you think prove the notability of this company? The sources must all be independent of each other, from reliable places, contain significant coverage, and be secondary to the company. Qcne (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Qcne, Here are three sources that are independent, reliable, secondary, and significant:
  1. Globe and Mail
  2. MM+M
  3. Toronto Business Daily
I'm happy to add more. Thank you. Marisa at Klick (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Marisa at Klick.
  1. I can't access this one (though it is fine to use sources that are paywalled) - do you have an alternative?
  2. My concern with this one is that it has quotes from the CEO and co-president (not independent), and is in the sort of gushing style similar to regurgitated PR pieces.
  3. Again, this is just regurgitating an award ceremony announcement. The source is fine to cite the award, but doesn't establish notability.
Got three more I can look at? Qcne (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qcne,
The Globe and Mail is available to read in full here: Globe and Mail at web.archive.org.
As for sources 2 and 3, respectfully, it doesn't make sense to me that we can't use media which quotes the principals of the company; business news quotes principals of companies as a normal practice – not a PR tactic. A source can still be secondary and independent even if it quotes the principals of the company in the context of reliable reporting.
In addition, here are four more sources you can use, which makes a total of seven.
a. Strategy
b. Campaign Canada
c. Campaign Asia
d. Yale School of Management
I think I have complied with every request you've made as well as what is required per the notability and verifiability policies. Thank you again for your consideration. Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Djmooyall23[edit]

I don't know why my article has not been approved and published although I have paid for this task to create the content for Daniel Marc Mouyal who is a famous rapper and hip-hop singer belongs to Florida, Can anyone please help me publish the right way if I have mistakenly do something against the policy, But I have all the references authentic... Djmooyall23 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djmooyall23: I'm confused, it seems you've written about yourself, but you say you've paid for someone else to write this? Only one of those can be true, but be that as it may, please see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:PAID. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No i am not writting this article for myself, actually i am a freelancer and my client have provided each thing about has self life detail and i have to create an article for him here on wikipedia... Djmooyall23 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear @Djmooyall23. I suggest you give Daniel a refund on your services. Qcne (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djmooyall23 I wonder if you have fallen victim to this WP:SCAM? Qcne (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have zero independent, reliable sources, and the draft is full of hagiographic promotion, fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 9 May 2024 review of submission by AndreiPPa[edit]

I would like to create a nice and complete encyclopedic page on Wikipedia about Samir Buzatu, I have read the conditions of Wikipedia and I believe that Samir is an encyclopedic person: he works and is in charge of production designer of several Marvel films (which have a Wikipedia page and they also mention him), but when I create the page with the minimum information, I am denied creation because I am told that the sources I provided concern the film and not him: but if it is an important film and he is the production designer, and is mentioned in the cast by several newspapers also giving information, why can't he have a Wikipedia page? AndreiPPa (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AndreiPPa To merit a standalone article about Buzatu, he needs to receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources- himself personally, not merely the things he works on. Sources need to tell what makes him important/significant/influential as a production designer- how he is either a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. Just the fact that he worked on a film that might merit an article is insufficient- we don't do notability by association. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 9 May 2024 review of submission by 24.191.217.79[edit]

Is there an editor who can help me revise this draft (or make suggestions) that would improve its chances of being accepted? 24.191.217.79 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. You can ask at one or more of the projects listed on the draft talk page, if anyone there is interesting in chipping in, but the onus really is on the draft authors to create the draft.
This was declined for notability, which is demonstrated through sources. You need to find multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, to show notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 10[edit]

00:52, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Snigdhakm[edit]

The person is a notable person and has multiple reliable sources of his biography. This age is not a part of self promotion and vandalism. I and Mayukh Mukherjee are two separate person. He is not in any direct connection with me or the other editors who are editing about hm. Snigdhakm (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snigdhakm, IMDb is not a reliable source. See WP:IMDB. Amazon is a dubious source. See WP:AMAZON. Another Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. See WP:CIRCULAR. Your first two sentences are copied directly from Moviefone. That is a copyright violation, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Things written by Mukherjee do not contribute to notability. The GoldPoster source is a passing mention. The District Court source is a passing mention. Movie credits do not constitute significant coverage. You draft is poorly referenced and has significant problems. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:14, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Tedolightnirvana[edit]

Why is my article declined? I've cited enough sources not less than 10 which are totally independent and reliable. Tedolightnirvana (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedolightnirvana: it has been declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely that the sources are insufficient for establishing notability, and the draft is written in a promotional manner.
Several of the sources don't work. The ones that do, are either interviews, things written by the subject, or passing mentions, none of which counts towards notability.
You've also not cited anything, you've merely listed some sources at the end. Articles on living people require comprehensive inline citations throughout. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:38, 10 May 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:1690:46B0:38EB:1894:A4C6:803A[edit]

Then why Atlantic Records Russia 2600:1700:1690:46B0:38EB:1894:A4C6:803A (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps asking about  Courtesy link: Draft:Kuzzyy Music Records? ...an unreferenced mini-stub on an alleged record label founded yesterday – do you really need to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 10 May 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:1690:46B0:38EB:1894:A4C6:803A[edit]

Return my article 2600:1700:1690:46B0:38EB:1894:A4C6:803A (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the rejection notice. I have restored it for you. —Wasell(T) 09:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:19, 10 May 2024 review of submission by CSharpStudentToo[edit]

Comment has been left saying that the references don't qualify when they've in fact been lifted from the Finnish Wikipedia article and have been found valid there: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyrki_%E2%80%9DSpider%E2%80%9D_H%C3%A4m%C3%A4l%C3%A4inen CSharpStudentToo (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CSharpStudentToo: every language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements. I know for a fact that the Finnish version has much less stringent referencing and notability requirements than we do here at the English-language one (which, in fairness, probably has the strictest of any).
This is a common problem in translating content from other languages to English: the sources often are insufficient to qualify for publication here, meaning that you need to go hunting for more and better sources to make sure they exist, before even starting to translate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. The article still mentions "Review waiting, please be patient.". Will there be a second opinion on the article or is it just plain rejected? Plenty of UK and international sources, which makes you think it would be valid for the English Wikipedia as well. CSharpStudentToo (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CSharpStudentToo: the draft (not yet 'article') has not been rejected, which would mean that it cannot be resubmitted; only declined, which means that it can be, once the decline reasons have been addressed. (And given that it has now been declined three times, that gives you the second, and even third, opinion.)
As I already said in a comment on the draft, "plenty of sources" is good, if they are of sufficient quality. Plenty of poor-quality sources doesn't help, and actually hinders.
I see nothing there that would make this person notable per WP:AUTHOR or WP:MUSICBIO, so we're reliant on the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of both the subject and of each other.
One more thing: sources must be cited in a way that enables them to be reliably identified for verification. This means that offline sources must have full bibliographical information. Anything that is available online should ideally cite the online version, as this obviously makes it much easier for a global readership to access the source.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:41, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Huothak[edit]

I have an issue of my submission Articles for creation "Huot Hak". The reasons left by ToadetteEdit were: 1- submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources 2- submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage I would like to request to assist and double check on these issues. I am (Huot Hak) is the minister of Ministry of Inspection, Cambodia. In the references, they clearly shows I was appointed. If any reference you need, I will provide for you. This is the urgent case.

Regards, Huot Hak Huothak (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huothak Please be aware of the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. Wikipedia wants to know what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about you, not what you want to say about yourself.
Almost nothing in the draft is sourced; every substantive fact about a living person needs to have a source, per the Biographies of Living Persons policy. There is also much promotional language, "illustrious career"; "broadened his academic horizons", etc. Articles should be written very dry, without embellishment. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Huothak. Firstly, nothing on Wikipedia is urgent. Secondly, we really do discourage writing autobiographies about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY) and having a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
In order to show you merit a Wikipedia article, you must pass the WP:NPOLITICIAN criteria. You probably do meet that criteria as a senior Civil Servant, but the draft has lots of other problems too: it is full of promotional language (which is prohibited), and vast parts are unsourced (every statement in a biography must be sourced).
To resolve the issues in the draft you need to:
  1. Completely re-write it to comply with our strict neutrality policy.
  2. Cite every single statement, starting with your date of birth, to a published source. If you cannot find published sources, the statement must be removed.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the photo of you appears to be an official government photo, but you claim that it is your own personal work, that you created it. If you were not the photographer, you cannot say that the photo is your personal work. I do not know what the laws are regarding copyright in Cambodia, and if images taken by your government are in the public domain. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Tvfilmpodcastuk[edit]

first time adding a page Tvfilmpodcastuk (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft is completely unsourced. Please see referencing for beginners to learn how to add references for your information to the draft. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Gs6Kt1An7[edit]

Just now I was attempting to edit the draft titled Babu_Ezhumalai but wrongly clicked the submit button. My draft was submitted without any editing. I want to re-edit and resubmit before this article is reviewed. Kindly help me in this regard immediately. Gs6Kt1An7 (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gs6Kt1An7: I've simply undone your submission, which you can do yourself also, it requires no advanced tools or permissions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gs6Kt1An7 (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Devendrasingh365[edit]

i am Devendra Singh. i have a website of king peedia that i provide history, culture, king, temple on our website. it is help for need person and they improve knowledge through our website.

I summit my website on your platform and i provide all current information for my website that user understand of my website. but my wiki page had been deleted.

I request to you that check my wiki page that i provide all information is correct. 

Devendrasingh365 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Devendrasingh365, your draft is unreferenced and overtly promotional. It cannot possibly be accepted into the encyclopedia in its current form. Cullen328 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Devendrasingh365: your draft hasn't been deleted, although it soon will be. Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for your website, you'll need to find other ways to promote it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a blatant advert for your website and has no place on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Chitranshuagarwal[edit]

Why my article not qualify instead of providing many news and site references Chitranshuagarwal (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link for proper display. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 10 May 2024 review of submission by CProvat[edit]

PERMAS software is outcome from the University of Stuttgart-Germany, which was initially was developed by the team of the famous professor John Argyris, the pioneer of the Finite Element Method (FEM). In this sense, I strongly believe that it has to be a permanent record in Wikipedia. Personally, I am using it in my lectures at the University, and I confirm that I have not been paid to create this entry. I woud be glad if you could suggest me possible changes so as the entry becomes acceptable. Thanks! CProvat (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CProvat: the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, so you will get feedback once a reviewer gets around to assessing it.
The main thing that makes a draft 'acceptable' is that it demonstrates notability. That arises in most cases, including this, solely from sources, which need to satisfy the WP:GNG guideline. This requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject.
On that last point, independence: in the case of scientific software such as this, relevant sources are likely to be scientific papers or textbooks, and they should not be authored by anyone involved in the software's development or distribution, or published by publishers affiliated with the university in question. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:50, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi[edit]

I see that my page has this comment: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. I am suppose to go to the talk page. The talk page does not help me to prove that this accusation is wrong. What should I do? Jpgroppi (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your user name gives the impression that you have a conflict of interest, why have you chosen that as a name? And still not remotely clear how they/you would pass WP:NARTIST.Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Xfmol[edit]

I'm trying to insert an infobox person using {{Infobox person/Wikidata | fetchwikidata=ALL}}, as it is sugested in the tutorials, but the box is not being automatically filled from Wikidata, eventhough a Wikidata element does exists with the same title as the article. In the draft edit page, under Tools menu, I'm not finding any link to Wikidata. Xfmol (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1223216577"