Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Scsbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
239,857 edits
edited by robot: adding date header(s)
No edit summary
Line 894: Line 894:


= November 21 =
= November 21 =

== 04:53:05, 21 November 2022 review of submission by Asaad991 ==
{{Lafc|username=Asaad991|ts=04:53:05, 21 November 2022|page=
Om Pay
}}

my page gets declined i need help why it's happened and who can i have one i am writing about the company i am working with need support

[[User:Asaad991|Asaad991]] ([[User talk:Asaad991|talk]]) 04:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:53, 21 November 2022

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


November 11

02:14:30, 11 November 2022 review of submission by 174.27.66.83


174.27.66.83 (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Why did you reject this page? Why do you think that this is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL? This is a page with refs and you are serious? Okay, please answer.[reply]

As it has been explained, this fails Wikipedia's crystal ball policy. Nothing about Windows 12 has been confirmed, and it is all based on rumours. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:26:49, 11 November 2022 review of submission by WikiHow0

I feel like this is still capable of being accepted WikiHow0 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiHow0: No, this subject is not notable. Please do not attempt to resubmit again. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you got it, sorry for resubmitting it. WikiHow0 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:48:06, 11 November 2022 review of submission by Septemberam1988


Septemberam1988 (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Also help me to write an article about Digav Aaditya Singh Rajput.

@Septemberam1988: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You resubmitted without making any significant changes, and none of the references in the draft establish notability. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:42, 11 November 2022 review of submission by LRExpertsen


Get my article published - How to improve references?

Hello. I wrote the following article (Sandbox), but Wikipedia declined its publication. It is about LatamReady, a solution provider company of Oracle NetSuite ERP.

Wikipedia declined it because the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia Article. In the message, they say the sources don't have 1)in-depth, 2)reliable, 3)secondary, or 4)independent.

However, I edited the article by adding new well-known references such as New York Times and The Guardian, but Wikipedia rejected the article.

LRExpertsen (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LRExpertsen You have gotten a reply at the Teahouse, please only use one method of seeking assistance at a time, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LRExpertsen You are now on your third warning for potential WP:UPE. The question is a mandatory question. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:40, 11 November 2022 review of submission by Technologysam

Hello! I wrote a userspace draft about the new splatoon 3 idols, (similar to Pearl and Marina). It was declined when I sent it through the AfC process. From what I understand, it is a sourcing issue. I have a few questions:

  1. I assume that the article does not have enough sources to be published, is that the issue?
  2. I also wonder if the Newsweek article I used as a source is reliable. I saw on the "Perennial sources" list that after 2013 the articles that they had published had a little more clickbate, I am wondering if the one i linked to is good or not.

Btw, The article is at Draft:Shiver, Frye, and Big Man Thanks a lot for your help! -Technologysam (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Technologysam (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@technologysam: you need at least 2 or 3 sources, not just 1. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 04:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:05:56, 11 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Arosa


Two editors believe the draft might merit to be an article but that it's incomplete. I believe it merits to be an article. Can it be moved somewhere so others can add more to it? It would be wasteful to let it die so somebody else has to start all over. Arosa (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arosa: there is nowhere better to move this to than the draftspace, which is the preferred location for drafts in development. It has been tagged with the WikiProject Computer science template; feel free to tag it with other relevant ones, if any, in case that draws some more attention to it. But ultimately the onus is on the draft creator to create a viable article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arosa, this has circulated mostly through internal publications (Microsoft) and self-published papers. There aren't enough reliably published sources for an article. Consider incorporating it into the Compiler article. Make sure what you are saying is correct. The law is about compilers. What supports your leading statement that the law is a rule of thumb in computer science that says that programmer time spent on optimization might be misspent. I don't see that in the sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryGrandma @DoubleGrazing

I'm certain I'm misformatting this reply and botching this procedure. Does this link count as not internal and not self published? https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/900525 If so, can one of you add it? Arosa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arosa, no. It is just a link to the abstract, with no information on how to even locate the paper, not a link to an article in a peer reviewed journal. It is just Technical Report CS-2001-12 from his department of Computer Science. Think about how to make this an article of several paragraphs, or a section of another article with a redirect to it, not just a definition. It would be better to start with a short section in Compiler or Optimizing compiler. You may have missed the important point about the law, which is not that optimizing might not be worth it - in the world of embedded programming it is terribly important - but that Proebsting is making the point: "Perhaps programmer productivity is a more fruitful arena." Try searching in Google Books for sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryGrandma no, I did not miss the point, but I agree my summary misses it. This law says that the progress on compiler efficacy is very slow. That's actually the useful tidbit. I agree it would fit on the "optimizing compiler" article. I'll let it expire. Perhaps you can move this there. Cc0 jic. Arosa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

17:06:02, 12 November 2022 review of submission by Nishantkasana77


Nishantkasana77 (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishantkasana77: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

00:24:30, 13 November 2022 review of submission by Cbz123


We have now been notably reviewed a few times, can you publish the article now?

Cbz123 (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbz123 There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that have written about it given in the draft, there isn't even any indication of the significance of the podcast. It fails WP:GNG and is currently far to promotional to be approved. Until you can provide 3 sources that are independent, reliable and provide significant coverage of the podcast and rewrite in a much more neutral tone, I will recommend the rejection does not get over turned. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:13:17, 13 November 2022 review of submission by Johnsomark2

I received a notification that I may have a conflict of interest for this article. Can you tell me what that might be? Thanks. :) Johnsomark2 (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@johnsomark2: see wikipedia:conflict of interest. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 04:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the executive summary of that page, you are considered to have a conflict of interest with the topic if you have a professional, familial, personal, or financial link to the subject of the article or those working directly on the subject's behalf. We discourage editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest because it's next to impossible to write about those topics neutrally, as Wikipedia requires. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:06:50, 13 November 2022 review of submission by Pasmanda Waseem Raeen


Pasmanda Waseem Raeen (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pasmanda Waseem Raeen You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have a question, please post it in this section. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pasmanda Waseem Raeen Your "references" aren't cited what-so-ever. We also do not allow significant tracts of Hindi (or other non-English) text in articles, as this is the English-language Wikipedia and our audience generally cannot read/comprehend Hindi. The Hindi text should instead be put on the Hindi Wikipedia, but they're also going to require you to provide sources and properly cite them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 08:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:03, 13 November 2022 review of draft by Hamzamkf


Hi there,

I'm a beginner and I've tried many time to fix Artist biography page but always the photos and reference appear randomly and not as I did! Please can anyone help me to fix that.

Many thanks,

Best regards,

Hamzamkf (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamzamkf: you need to be more specific, what is the problem with the pictures? Although having said that, the pictures aren't important at this stage, as they don't affect the draft's chance of being approved.
What does affect it, is referencing: in articles on living people, we require inline citations, which need to support each material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details such as DOB. Currently your draft has no inline cites, as everything is piled together at the end. Please see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice.
Finally, you need to disclose any relationship you have with the subject of this draft; I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:57:01, 13 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Ajo47


Hello, I would like to reply to your editor clarityfiend's last comments to me and to supply the names of Ockner's colleagues listed in Wikipedia. I understand I'm supposed to reply on my own Talk Page, but I can't figure out where to put my reply. Please advise me on how to get my reply to this editor. Thank you. Ajo47 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajo47 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping @Clarityfiend, if this is appropriate. David10244 (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied at Ajo47's talk page. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:30, 13 November 2022 review of submission by Sportyinfo142

Hi, I am requesting a re-review because Emily played hockey nationally and also won a Queens Jubilee award for services to the country in the voluntary sector this year. She writes blogs for the global mental health charity Mind and also Shout that are seen by 100 000's of people. She also does talks to large audiences about mental health and most recently was invited to an event with Ed Sheeran to talk about mental health. Regardless of her Granddad being a professional footballer with his own Wiki page, Emily has also achieved national success of her own merit. Sportyinfo142 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:47:55, 13 November 2022 review of submission by Sportyinfo142

I don't understand why this keeps getting rejected, Emily has competed nationally at sport for England Hockey, and is a major blogger in the mental health sector. She is also in the middle of setting up her own charity to help others struggling with their mental health. Please accept!!! Sportyinfo142 (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportyinfo142 the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Notability is not inherited, and nothing else in the draft suggests that they are notable. None of the references meet WP:42, and I can't find any news articles about this person online. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:07:47, 13 November 2022 review of submission by IsaacGang


Why was my article declined because it is a biography, but there is an option for a biography during submission? IsaacGang (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IssacGang It was not specifically declined for being an autobiography, though you were advised it usually is not a good idea to attempt to write about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Trying to force the issue of an article isn't often successful; it's best to allow independent editors to organically take note of coverage of you and choose to write about you on their own. If you wish to proceed anyway, you will need to radically rewrite the draft to only summarize what others say about you- this is usually difficult for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 331dot. This makes sense and I agree. I am a newbie and I am still learning about Wikipedia policy on "notable person." I was totally ignorant of this. And in my defense - not that it is necessary, I didn't write the contents of the page. Someone else did, though I did agree with what they said about me when they approached me. They were just intimidated with the process of submitting so I thought I could do the submission myself (again, refer to my ignorance). I appreciate the feedback. I did include several independent sources in the last submission hoping this will improve the chance. No biggie if it does not. IsaacGang (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:48:32, 13 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Marthature


Hi there - after several edits, today I am informed that my article on pedal steel guitarist Bobby Black has been declined because it lacks reliable sources and much of it is unsourced. I dispute the statement that it lacks reliable sources and I dispute the statement that much of it is unsourced. I recommend pointing out to me what your people think is unsourced and unreliable sources.

I also wish to state that I have experienced repeated instances of rude, unprofessional communication from Wikipedia editors. I have made this clear to Jimmy Wales. Marthature (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marthature Argumentum ad Jimbo doesn't work nowadays as he is little more than a figurehead. Bear in mind this list is primarily about the claims that would require a source per WP:Biographies of living persons.
  • Bobby Black (Robert Lee Black) was born in Prescott, Arizona in 1934. - Source? For biographies of living and recently-departed people you can't slap the source on the end of the paragraph and call it good; the citation must be at the claim itself.
  • During his childhood, Black listened to pop and big-band music on the radio. - Source?
  • Black also listened to Western swing as played by Bob Wills and his Texas Playboys Bob Wills and Spade Cooley, whose steel guitar player Earl “Joaquin” Murphey caught Bobby’s attention. - Source? This is also a bit of a run-on sentence.
  • In 1947, the Black family moved to San Mateo, California[.] - Source? (For links to other Wikipedia articles you don't include the full URL; you instead write [[(article name)]] or [[(article name)|(display text)]].)
  • In 1948, on his 14th birthday, Bobby received a six-string Rickenbacker[...]steel guitar and amplifier.[Malformed external link removed] - Source? (The external link provided, even if it weren't malformed, cannot be used to confirm this specific claim.)
  • He toured widely with Crawford, traveling in Texas and all over the mid-west. - Source?
  • Black and his wife settled in San Mateo, and he went to work for Pacific Bell; Larry married soon after and worked at Lockheed. - The first claim definitely needs a source, the second one needs one if Larry is still alive and should have one anyways if he has departed.
  • [...]a widely watched San Francisco Bay Area live television show. - Irrelevant. 86 this.
  • Both men were holding down day jobs, supporting their families, and working in two bands. - Source?
  • They shopped the tape around Los Angeles[...] - Source?
  • [...]in early 1961, Dore Records issued several vocal singles of the Blacks under the name The Tides[...] - Source?
  • The Dolton label issued three of the Blacks’ instrumentals under the name the Five Whispers from 1962 to ’64. - Source?
  • ...Black was not happy with the material the band was playing, and he returned to the Bay Area. - Source?
  • Black joined the band, transforming it from a bar band to a highly polished and professional troupe of musicians. - Editorialising. You're documenting his life, not writing as if he was a saint. Even rewritten this would require a source.
  • Black has played continuously since leaving Asleep At TheWheel. - Source? The sentence that follows this should be 86'd as irrelevant; at best it's a claim of notability-by-osmosis which we do not accept and which hurts an article.
  • Black married Marlene Bender in 1953. - Source?
  • They have two sons... - Everything represented by the ellipsis needs to be deleted as irrelevant.
  • They divorced in 1959. - Source?
  • In 1973 he married Sheila Ann Owen. - Source?
  • Nothing in the discography section should require a source (we consider looking at liner notes/credits to be enough to verify these barring an uncredited appearance or one under an unfamiliar pseudonym). However, it needs to be drastically cut down to his most important/notable credits, as proven by news reports and reviews of those performances/albums.
In short, you have a few unsourced biographical claims that need to be sourced, and you need to convert the Wikipedia URLs to internal links. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:45, 13 November 2022 review of submission by Rockoutto


At the time the band which I am writing about wasn't significant. Now PHELIXX Lake has over 6,500 monthly listeners on Spotify, 1000+ Tik Tok/Instagram/Facebook Followers. Rockoutto (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify/Pandora audiences and social media subscriptions/followers are irrelevant. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
In essence, you have only three sources, two of which are cited three times and none of which are helpful for notability. The copypasta'd sources are churnalism at best and more likely payola. The only source that is unique is MusicHitBox, and even then it doesn't provide a byline. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

01:26:35, 14 November 2022 review of draft by Sandiners


Why my articles always been declined? Sandiners (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandiners Welcome to the AfC Help desk. One source to Youtube is not reliable, independent or prove notability. Submitting it multiple times with no improvement will not work. If you don't improve it, but submit it again, it will be rejected. This means you will not have the option to submit again. Learn more at Wikipedia:Verifiability. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandiners We don't cite music videos. Repeatedly submitting a draft without making a serious effort to address its issues is grounds for it to go to MfD. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:52:37, 14 November 2022 review of draft by Karmaker


Need suggestions improving the article. TIA

Karmaker (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Karmaker. Good job on significantly expanding the article since it was declined. However, there are a few things that still need improvement. Mainly, it doesn't completely read from the WP:Neutral point of view. Phrases like focused on managing development programmes, building operational and financial sustainability, and creating partnerships. aren't neutral, and parts like this may need rephrasing.
Otherwise, the article is in pretty good shape. Good job! echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:07:34, 14 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by KP070707


Hello,

I created a draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PaykanArtCar and has been declined as the following reason:

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

  • in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
  • reliable
  • secondary
  • strictly independent of the subject

I just wanted to ask for help before editing it further. My questions are:

1. I have included multiple sources from big published including e.g. Washington Post, NBC News, The Guardian. I'm wondering if they are qualified to be included? 2. If you have time to review one or two sources, can you point me into the right direction of which example in the draft is qualified and which isn't? (I understood external links or the PR should be removed) 3. Is there any other room for improvement that I should considerate when editing it for resubmission?

KP070707 (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KP070707 (1) We do not judge a source solely by where it was published. As an example, an interview in The Grauniad is as useless for notability as an interview by Borat. (2) Get some coffee and refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have some usable sources but on the whole the weeds are choking the garden. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeske Couriano,
Thank you very much for taking time to go through all sources and helping me understanding the rationale of why they are not qualified. Really appreciated it!
If I remove all those non-sequitur and unqualified sources and keep the good one, do you think the topic is notable enough to be published on wiki as your experience?
And for the washing-post where you mentioned it was reposted from Bloomberg. If I use the original piece https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-04/iranian-artists-in-exile-find-a-vehicle-for-protest?leadSource=uverify%20wall, do you think it works?
Thank you! KP070707 (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KP070707 (1) You only have one good source. That's not enough. You need to replace them with much better sources. (2) No, and I invite you to reread the URL you posted and my criticism of the Washington Post source, as it answers this question. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! KP070707 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:11:40, 14 November 2022 review of submission by Septemberam1988


Septemberam1988 (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


hey, why my submission is getting declined again and again. I see many Wikipedia articles with less notability and also a very few reliable sources. i need help regarding this article, this's my first article on Wikipedia and also i want to know why many articles are here in Wikipedia with less reliable sources and why mine is getting declined.

help me to write more about him, i shall be thankful to you.

@Septemberam1988, they may have a few, you have none. You may need to read what a relaible source is and what is required for any biography. With that being said your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It is also currently nominated for deletion because of your tedious editing. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Septemberam1988 Please see WP:OSE. David10244 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:55:20, 14 November 2022 review of submission by Melliza Slippers Oh


Melliza Slippers Oh (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Melliza Slippers Oh: Hello, I've just added a new submission template to your draft, as I can see some coverage of it online. At the moment it has hardly any sources, so please add WP:Reliable sources, and re-submit the draft for review. Thanks, and best of luck. Storchy (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:55, 14 November 2022 review of submission by 124.123.163.235


124.123.163.235 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:18:12, 14 November 2022 review of draft by 94.86.60.198


Hello everyone, I read in WP:NPOL that "The following are presumed to be notable: [cut] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.", which is the case for this person: he was elected, but did not take office (opting for another office). However, an editor rejected the draft without mentioning WP:NPOL; he just said the person lacks notability. Could anyone please clarify why WP:NPOL has been ignored? 94.86.60.198 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've come across this before, where someone is elected but chooses not to take up their seat. The NPOL guideline is silent on this eventuality — the "yet" clearly implies that they were elected and are expect to go on to serve, which isn't the case here — but my personal opinion is that such a person should not be considered notable, because it is presumably the service as an assembly etc. member which makes them notable, not the mere fact that they were elected. Happy to be proven wrong on this, though, by someone who actually knows. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:47:34, 14 November 2022 review of submission by Elverovenexian

hello, I would like to know how can my page be edited in order to be published. thanks!

Elverovenexian (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review, the reviewer will either accept it, reject it, or decline it and tell you what changes are needed. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I actually followed a user advice, edited and now re-submitted Elverovenexian (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:46:01, 14 November 2022 review of submission by Mjansky2002

I changed the sources

Mjansky2002 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjansky2002: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I re submitted it Mjansky2002 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjansky2002 Why do five of your six sources all have the exact same title, content, attribution to a known PR agency, and (almost all) the exact same website layout and format? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:35:12, 14 November 2022 review of draft by JewelHL


Hi there. I recently created a Wikipedia page called 'Flicks (company)'. It was just declined because it says it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. All I can really reference in this company page are the news articles etc published about it, so I'm not sure what other sources I'm expected to reference. Can you help me clarify this please?

Here is the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flicks_(company)

JewelHL (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source and will need to be replaced, also we don't use external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JewelHL Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
On top of all of this, the article is blatantly promotional, and appears to be written as an investor-fishing exercise. We don't accept ad copy or investor bait. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

01:01:36, 15 November 2022 review of draft by SJSchiffer


I keep getting declined for this page. I have made sure that my sources are "from "magazines, journals, and news coverage (not opinions) from mainstream newspapers." per the Wikipedia guidelines, and he is a notable figure, an award-winning chef in Denver. I am modeling my submission after another page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Symensma . He is of similar renown (award-winning chef in Denver) and the pages are not different. Why do I keep getting rejected? Please help. SJSchiffer (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SJSchiffer DISCLOSE. (I saw your thread on WP:IRC/wikipedia-en-help where you mentioned that Guard and Symensma were your clients.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, learning how to do that now. SJSchiffer (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:10:37, 15 November 2022 review of draft by Jarpedro


my submission was declined due to "reliable sources" but I had included all sources correctly on the submission. I am not sure what i need to change. Jarpedro (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarpedro Your sources are not actually cited. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more details. Note that as this is a biography of a living person we cannot accept sources just blindly tacked onto the end of the article; they must be cited in-line. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:29:08, 15 November 2022 review of submission by Odurra


Odurra (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft has since been deleted as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion; matter now moot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:55, 15 November 2022 review of draft by Infinity6542


So I'll get straight to the point - my draft's been declined thrice now but my message isn't a complaint. I would like to know how I can improve my sources, as the feedback on all three denials were about in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent sources. So basically may I please have more specific feedback, as well as maybe a point in the direction? Thanks.

Infinity6542 (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Infinity6542 Welcome to the AfC Help Desk!
As the reviewer said, the article isn't shown to meet notability guidelines. If you can find more reliable, in-depth, independent sources, you may meet the guidelines.
For more info, check the links the reviewer left for you. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Infinity6542: as it says in those decline notices, we need to see significant coverage of the company, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources such as newspapers, TV, etc. Sources that merely verify their existence, such as the CoHo record, do not count; nor does routine business reporting (investment rounds, appointments, new markets or channel partners, etc.); nor do close primary sources such as the company's own website. The relevant notability guideline is WP:GNG, which has been further expanded in WP:ORGCRIT to cover companies and other organisations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also posted a COI query on your talk page, please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:01, 15 November 2022 review of submission by Dhivyaadhanu

The above page is kept on rejected. I have done the required changes and submitted all the proofs I have at this time. I couldn't get the reason clearly. Kindly, help/guide me to get the page published. Thank you!

Dhivyaadhanu (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhivyaadhanu: it hasn't been rejected, only declined, with the advice to wait until the film has been released and has become properly notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response @DoubleGrazing! Is there any way that I can make the movie published before the release? Dhivyaadhanu (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhivyaadhanu why are you in such a hurry to publish it? Has this something to do with your COI? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of my connections is working for the movie and they want to publish it before the film goes live. That's why I am looking for the possibilities. Dhivyaadhanu (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhivyaadhanu in other words, they/you want to use Wikipedia as part of your launch promotions. Nope, that's not how this works. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hooo... Thank you @DoubleGrazing! Dhivyaadhanu (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:59:16, 15 November 2022 review of submission by 2405:201:6815:A14C:4456:A308:1A67:4967

This Wikipedia Page Draft is about the Bulandshahr's News Publisher. Please help us to expanding this page. 2405:201:6815:A14C:4456:A308:1A67:4967 (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:21, 15 November 2022 review of submission by Raylaur15


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

Dear Wiki Editors: You recently accepted ny Wiki article on Vincentian musician Frankie McIntosh. However, the editor ONE1596 put up a Warning Heading regarding the possibility of “undisclosed payments” and that the article on Frankie McIntosh may need “clean up.” I assure you that I received no payments from Frankie McIntosh, the subject of the article, or anyone else. The page was written completely gratis by me. Is there a form I must sign to confirm this? I do not believe I violated Wiki’s “neutral point of view” policies. The laudatory language regarding McIntosh’s work as a music arranger does not come from me. These are published, direct quotations from well-regarded Caribbean Music critics Dawad Philip (Amsterdam News), Nelson King (Caribbean Life and the Vincentian), and Les Slater (Class Magazine). The final paragraph on McIntosh’s accomplishments comes directly from the remarks at the ceremony where he was awarded an honorary Doctorate from the University of the West Indies (as reported by Nelson King in Caribbean Life). I included these quotations as a way of summarizing his accomplishments and establishing his notoriety through outside sources. Are these quotations not appropriate? If so, I will remove them. I would greatly appreciate your advice regarding anything else that needs to be done to “clean up” the article. This is my first attempt at a Wiki article and would like to get it right! I am not sure about the best way to communicate with you is. I just removed the Warning Heading and tried to explain the situation to ONE 1596 when I clicked “Publish Changes” after editing out the Warning. Is there another procedure I need to go through?

My user name is: Raylaur15 Looking forward to your advice and thanks for your time!

Raylaur15 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Raylaur15: this is no longer an AfC matter, since the draft has been accepted and published, and your query doesn't relate to the AfC process; you may wish to take your query eg. to the TEAHOUSE instead.
You generally shouldn't remove maintenance tags just because you disagree with them, and you certainly shouldn't do so more than once. You should instead (and I would recommend doing this before going to the teahouse) take the matter up with the editor who tagged the article, on their talk page. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thaks for your response. I'm afraid I have already taken down the maintenance tag with an explanation.
So how do I contact the editor ONE1596 to discuss further?
Sorry if I am breaking protocol, I'm just very confused about how to contact the correct folks.
thanks, Raylaur 15 2603:7000:8106:B298:AC0A:75C8:FFF4:B952 (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every user has their own user talk page, just like you have yours at User talk:Raylaur15.
And please log into your account when editing/messaging. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:52:04, 15 November 2022 review of submission by Bainzy1978

Hi there i received a messgae saying that my draft looked to much like an advertisement and was refused when its just a company history and profile much like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrustmaster. Can someone point out what changes i need to make? sorry completely new to Wikipedia Bainzy1978 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bainzy1978: the short answer is, this needs to be rewritten pretty much entirely. You shouldn't write what you want to say about the subject; you summarise what reliable and independent published sources have said about it. This draft currently cites no sources of any kind, so the first thing you need to do is find sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard, and precis what they have said. See WP:YFA and WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your talk page question In 2021, the MOIN camera gimbal and W10 Pro wireless microphone were both released by MOZA, as well as a first look into their research and development of active car suspension, which debuted at the Shanghai International Auto Show (citation needed). is clearly copied from somewhere otherwise the citation information wouldn't be present. If you have a Conflict of Interest, please diclose it @Bainzy1978 Star Mississippi 19:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:02, 15 November 2022 review of submission by 2A00:23C6:1E9F:3001:78BA:7AEF:4EA2:C031


2A00:23C6:1E9F:3001:78BA:7AEF:4EA2:C031 (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I had the below Talk with PaulW who rejected the Wiki submission in May, I then added offline media coverage, because he said it would be accepted in good faith, and it has still been rejected, this is unfair. Please honour what PaulW said and accept the offline media coverage in good faith and accept this Wiki submission so it can be published:

Request on 22:02:14, 20 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by PressgirlV

PressgirlV (talk · contribs) Draft:Bukky Leo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Draft:Bukky Leo You rejected this draft on 13th May 2022. I have mostly offline sources for citations, but I have checked and I have scans of offline coverage in The Guardian, Jazzwise and The Independent from 1989 onwards. Will you accept scans, or can I show them to you? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PressgirlV (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian may have online versions of the content you mention (worth checking). Even if they aren't, then we assume good faith in you adding them as sources, so long as the authors of the articles, titles and dates, etc, are clearly stated. Please note that, if possible, they need to be substantial coverage of the subject, not just passing mentions. Paul W (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much Paul, yes I have The Guardian, The Telegraph, and other , all substantial coverage of Bukky , all offline scans and not available online as they were published in late 80s-90s- early 00s, so the early stuff was before the internet! Good that you will assume good faith, excellent news will add those in now as inline citations. PressgirlV (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

17:40:07, 15 November 2022 review of submission by Lemonaka

Hello, reviewers. This article is a direct translation from a sub-stab of Japanese Wikipedia but declined here by AFC. I wondered that if the topic of this article is poor notability itself, or have not been cited enough?
~~~~ Lemonaka (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka: whether the topic is notable or not depends on whether it has been covered in sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. Currently the draft only cites two sources, both of which are close and primary, and therefore notability has not been established. (The fact that this exists on the Japanese Wikipedia has no bearing on the matter, as each language version is completely separate, with their own notability etc. policies.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:51, 15 November 2022 review of submission by 27 is the best number

If I remember correctly, notability alone is not enough to delete a draft. However, it has been declined many times... What should we do? 27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 19:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will know no mercy from this Neopet, especially as I've already Bastard Helper From Hell'd this draft. I'm seeing a wealth of sources - I.E. pretty much every source I critiqued back in September - that were already discussed and dismissed the last time I looked at this, so I am not going to repeat advice that has evidently fallen on deaf ears. Read the previous BHFH for information on those sources.
None of the new sources are of much use, and all of the old sources are still present. Stop wasting our time with junk sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed one: I have questions about the provenance of https://singularityhub.com/2012/04/15/the-scale-of-the-universe-2%E2%80%B3-animation-made-by-14-year-olds-is-mind-blowing/ as I question whether or not the newsletter would publish individual stories in this way, especially back in 2008. This seems more like it's a fragment that was clipped out of the whole. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:43, 15 November 2022 review of submission by 86.1.199.26


86.1.199.26 (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This will not be approved unless an independent editor works on it Star Mississippi 20:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:37:18, 15 November 2022 review of draft by 2601:246:5900:CEA0:75DC:B22:F979:CEC1


I thought I had the criteria correct for references but need help I guess. Perhaps I can just delete some of the references as most of the material is also in the newspaper articles sited. I'd appreciate help since I am just learning Wikipedia and want to learn it correctly. I am not sure when a reference citation is needed and when it is not needed. 2601:246:5900:CEA0:75DC:B22:F979:CEC1 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2601:246:5900:CEA0:75DC:B22:F979:CEC1 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my answer to your next question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:49:29, 15 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 2601:246:5900:CEA0:75DC:B22:F979:CEC1


I thought I was doing this correctly but need assistance. I read that you needed newspaper articles and such and thought I cited them correctly. Appreciate any help. 2601:246:5900:CEA0:75DC:B22:F979:CEC1 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2601:246:5900:CEA0:75DC:B22:F979:CEC1 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have listed some sources, that is true. However, they are not cited very clearly, so it is difficult to see what the sources actually are, and which parts of the draft they support. Our preferred way of referencing is using inline citations and footnotes, please see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice.
Having said which, this draft wasn't declined for lack of references, but for its promotional nature. Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral and factual manner, not like marketing blurb.
It is also obvious that this draft, and hence you as the creator, have some relationship with the organisation behind appreciationatwork.com, and therefore, before you do anything else, you must disclose your relationship with that organisation. I have posted a message on your user talk page with more information and instructions on how to do this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


November 16

00:09:38, 16 November 2022 review of submission by RowsdowerSavesUs

I'm reaching out to initiate the process for the article I created to be reviewed and approved to be migrated to Wikipedia's mainspace. This is my first time making an article before, so I feel really lost. This help page was the best thing I could find.

Unfortunately, the instructions on the Articles for creation page were not helpful, as I was unable to locate the "Submit for review" button, and the suggested code snippet did not make any changes that I could tell. Again, this is my first time, so please feel free to point me in the right direction, but I have tried to follow the instructions I could manage to track down. RowsdowerSavesUs (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RowsdowerSavesUs, Welcome to the AfC help desk.
Your draft has been nominated for speedy deletion as it appears to exist only to promote a person, place or organization. You can contest this speedy deletion on the page if you wish to improve it. If it isn't deleted, you can add{{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. This will submit it, and you won't have to click a button.
Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I have contested the nomination, and would love to hear specifics about how it can be improved. Also, I'm not sure why you advised me to add the code snippet when I already said that I tried that but nothing happened. I added the code to the top of the article when I'm in 'source editing' but it just puts it in the body of the entry. What should I expect to happen? RowsdowerSavesUs (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the CSD tag as I think the article can be improved and I have questions about the tagging as the draft does contain criticism of the article subject so it wasn't overly promotional. Like all biographies, it focuses upon the article subject and their work and ideas but it wasn't advertising. I'd appreciate it, EchidnaLives, if you and other AFC reviewers can advise this new editor on how to improve their draft. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RowsdowerSavesUs, it's important that articles on this encyclopedia present a neutral point-of-view so articles do not get labeled as promotional. I think you were able to do this but it's something to keep in mind if this is the subject area you want to work in. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @Liz, I'd be happy to help! (@RowsdowerSavesUs pinging in case you don't see).
  • First of all, I don't think notability or verifiability is an issue here. The sources present on the draft are sufficient. However, there is a bit of cleaning up that could be done to improve the article further.
  • In the Three Worlds Framework section, after the second paragraph, it becomes a list of time periods. This is proseline, and we want to try and avoid that. Could you turn it into body text?
  • A minor thing that should be fixed is the inline external links. It's small, but per WP:EXTERNALLINKS they should be removed.
  • Could you add some wikilinks? We don't want to overlink, but stuff like "The New York Times" and "Manhattan Institute" should be linked. Again, minor thing.
  • The only non-npov thing I'm really seeing at the moment is the proseline I mentioned above. It's unclear if it is a quote or not. If it is, then this isn't an issue, but quotation marks should be used. If not, it may need rephrasing to follow the guideline.
I believe when this is complete, the article will be ready for the mainspace. If you have any questions, issues or need clarification, feel free to reply here or ask on my talk page. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is very far from being acceptable as an encyclopedia article. It is possible that he is notable, but a review of the first ten references doesn't show any notability, and there is a ton of promotional fluff. An article can't say "X has been published in these places", citing only the person's own website; neither can a claim like that be sourced with links to the publications thenselves. Search results can never be used as sources. Please read these guidelines to understand the kind of sources that are required to a) show how the person is notable and b) verify the information in the draft.
You have not explained what happened when you tried to place the "submit" template, but since the draft needs a lot of work before it is ready to submit, that is a later question at this point. Maybe ypu included the "nowiki" tags by mistake? More importantly, what is your connection to Renn? --bonadea contributions talk 17:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RowsdowerSavesUs: in addition to what I said above: it is difficult to write a Wikipedia article from scratch, and for a new editor it is very difficult indeed. I suggest that you contribute by editing existing articles for a few months first – that is the best way to learn about the most important guidelines and policies. --bonadea contributions talk 18:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

00:59:50, 16 November 2022 review of draft by Shunya1508


Hello @Hoary.

Thank you for your corrections and advice on {Draft:Bunta_Inoue}.

Following your advice, I have improved the opening sentence, etc., and modified the links, etc.

If you are able, it would be appreciated if you could review it and offer your advice.

Sincerely yours

Shunya1508 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shunya1508, I tweaked it a little a few minutes ago. Please wait for some fresh reviewer to give it a review. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Hoary.
Thank you very much for revising the article.
I will wait for other reviews and advice.
I'm very sorry for bothering you when you are busy. Shunya1508 (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:16:33, 16 November 2022 review of submission by ZeroApocalypse


I understood that the early drafts of this article may not appear to be notable for Wikipedia to accept. However, after the rejection of article creation, I have gathered more reliable and notable sources regarding the school. Especially in its high academic performance in the recent public examination of Hong Kong. (Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination). In addition to newly added notability, the school is also recognized as a top school in the region. However, as noted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(high_schools), the internet coverage of schools in Asia is not well. Regarding its school banding, I found multiple websites online ranking the school. E.g. https://dse.bigexam.hk/zh-hk/ssp/school/148 https://www.myschool.hk/secondary-school/Carmel-Secondary-School but I do not know if they are suitable sources to include. I hope to seek advice about how to prove its notability better. As the page already has its Chinese Wikipedia version, would it be better if I translate it directly? English and Chinese are both official languages of Hong Kong, and the school is an English-medium education school. Therefore, I think it is suitable for it to have an English article as well. I would appreciate any help, thank you.

ZeroApocalypse (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:25, 16 November 2022 review of submission by SteadfasterX

I understood that reliable sources are missing. Is it enough here to provide links from "reliable" websites in the "references" topic?

or is my draft rejected for other reasons? Still learning here ;)

SteadfasterX (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SteadfasterX: your draft wasn't rejected; it was only declined, meaning it can be resubmitted once you have addressed the decline reasons. These being:
  1. The draft is not supported by reliable sources — in fact, there are no sources whatsoever. Every material statement must be backed up by reference to a reliable published source; otherwise it's just your opinion (or worse, copied from somewhere).
  2. There is no evidence that the topic is notable. This is separate from the previous point, but related, because notability is established by citing sources (specifically, sources that meet the WP:GNG standard) — ergo, no sources, no notability.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @SteadfasterX, welcome to the AfC help desk!
I've looked at the sources, and here is a quick overview:
If you can find more sources that are reliable, independent and in-depth, add them and it may be accepted if notability can be proved. Unfortunately, as DoubleGrazing said, it will not be accepted in it's current form. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi  :)
thanks guys for the quick responses!
just one point to add: https://archlinux.org/pacman/ is just a tool (i.e. a package manager) which is used in that linux distribution and so referencing the creator of that tool should be not an issue (afaiu). it is more to provide details about what's inside.
ok back to my q. I am asking about these sources for example:
Is that enough to become notable?
do I have to remove the forum links then or can (should) they stay? SteadfasterX (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:47, 16 November 2022 review of draft by Drbluedude

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hello,

I am working on an article "Online Therapy Unit", and have had it rejected for reading more like an advertisement. Essentially, I am just wondering if the concern here is the actual content of the article, or if I need to include more reliable citations. I just don't want to keep submitting if I am not properly understanding the reasoning for rejection.

Thanks so much!

Drbluedude (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:58, 16 November 2022 review of submission by Sanjaychandrabarman9434


Sanjaychandrabarman9434 (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanjaychandrabarman9434: you don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected because it does not even remotely resemble an article, and is therefore clearly not ready to be published. Please see WP:YFA for advice on how to create an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:13, 16 November 2022 review of submission by Love bunnny bug12


 Courtesy link: User:Love bunnny bug12/sandbox

why did my draft get denined

Love bunnny bug12 (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Love bunnny bug12: TBH, I don't think this really requires an answer. I will request that the draft be deleted. Please don't post such content again. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:45, 16 November 2022 review of draft by 151.68.132.59


Where in the draft sources are needed?

151.68.132.59 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere. All the material content must be referenced. Currently nothing is, apart from the last section which is copypasted from this source. Please see WP:REFB. See also WP:N and WP:V to understand why we require information to be supported by reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:17:43, 16 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by WikiEditor242


Hello, it would b super if another editor could review the article I submitted. From the two sets of comments I received from the current editor, his comments and responses feel very biased. Especially the notes that the coverage is insufficient and the sources are not well known. Having been recognized by a university, an industry standard, and international telecommunications body and a a local org are surely worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Please help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiEditor242

WikiEditor242 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor242: my advice would be not to start throwing around accusations of bias etc., at least not without solid evidence. You may not agree with the reviewer's assessment, but that doesn't mean they aren't doing a good job.
On a quick glance, the referencing seems to consist mostly of primary sources, interviews, blogs, and routine reporting; at least one doesn't even mention her. But since you will probably disagree with my evaluation as well, let's turn this around: can you please highlight the three sources that you feel are strongest in terms of the WP:GNG notability standard, and I'll be happy to take a closer look at them. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback!
Have trimmed the citations... happy to trim more :) WikiEditor242 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also to be very clear, Simpsons' efforts at each of the levels (Technovation, TechWomen and the UNHLP) have been on a volunteer basis - acting as their advocate and ambassador. So the cited sources are independent in that sense WikiEditor242 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

00:17:47, 17 November 2022 review of submission by Artecollectic


Artecollectic (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Dear Sir/Madame...I recently submitted an article (Alexander - Art & Holography) for consideration/review. One day following submission I received a response from Wikipedia stating that the article may not have beene written in the required Encyclopedic manner and, more importantly I feel, that it had been plagiarized from an article appearing on askart.com. I independently and solely wrote and submitted the article to askart.com. I am the owner of copyright. I am assuming that you may have determined that askart.com may be the copyright owner due the publication of the article. Most importantly, in that the article appears on askart.com, does that mean that it cannot then be published on Wikipedia? That being the case, I will need to rewrite the article. Please let me know.[reply]

@Artecollectic That is the long and short of it. Wikipedia's content is licenced under two copyleft licences - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 and the GNU Free Document Licence. Both of these are mutually incompatible with Berne-standard all-rights-reserved copyright. As such, pretty much anything copied from another website is completely unusable here and will be summarily deleted, regardless of whether or not you wrote the original and can prove it, since that is the only immediate way to address the breach of copyright. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood and thank you Jeske Couriano. I will endeavor to write another article on the artist Alexander, and submit it for consideration. In addition, I will, as recommended, seek advice and input from wiki members regarding the proper way to write the article. Artecollectic (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:54:07, 17 November 2022 review of submission by Keepitsweet


Jyoty has been a continuously well noted figure in her field. This year she has sold out large capacity events globally as a performer. Of whom her counterparts who Wikipedia consider "notable" have not even been able to achieve. She has been covered in some of the largest

She has since sold out KOKO in London, a venue which played host to Charlie Chaplin, The Rolling Stones, The Clash and Madonna, Prince, Amy Winehouse and many more

She has also since sold out Paradiso, a venue who has hosted acts such as AC/DC, Adele, Arcade Fire, Arctic Monkeys, David Bowie, Coldplay, Daft Punk, Dua Lipa, Lady Gaga, Jamiroquai, Pink Floyd, Public Enemy, Rage Against the Machine, Red Hot Chili Peppers and many more

She continues to be considered a notable figure by multiple magazines and outlets, and has received multiple millions of views on YouTube and has received millions of likes on TikTok.

I am not sure how else she can prove she is notable. People who are also DJs and much smaller than her are considered notable with Wikipedia pages active, yet she hasn't been approved for one?

Keepitsweet (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is not notability as Wikipedia defines it. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Only one of your sources comes close to being usable for notability, and thus also for WP:Biographies of living persons. This isn't enough to meet the former and doesn't come within a country mile of hoping to meet the latter. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:26:02, 17 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by FrankoSayHi5


Dear Fellow wiki members and seniors i am working on this article and such article to atleast give a identity since long as i believe in our day to day life many people do make difference in society but no one knows that and i am writing this to my dear helper for 2 reason. 1) What is the issue with this article with precise points & with example. 2) Genuinely need help to make my self better with wiki and i want to contribute more.

since long i am trying this company article. my edit got rejected or turned down because some people doubt my intention and some feels i am paid. i am clarifying them again and again that i am a student not wiki or any other coder or PR professional. i just liked this fellow who came to our college and gave wonderful advice on life and most selfless fellow of city and his life it self is message. I am trying to shape that and want to show to the world about this fellow. WHo is literally doing good for the city, community and society at large and giving employment at large in Surat, gujarat .

let it be one will think why i am having lots of praise for him & his company ? i am making changes in athlete Neeraj Chopra to but people has no issue in that but edit for this Dholakia who's article has been attempted many times and deleted again and again his company's page also have been tried but not accepted. even i got to know this thing lately through wikipedia but back than someone had made mistake but i am trying my best to follows everything.

i might sound pissed off but seriously now scene is quite same because being editor and approved and auditor to such vast community is big deal understoon but when one is holding such massive responsibility in wikipedia one should help at large. one should come up on this platform and understand and extend help not just tag and share link. genuine help means genuine help and straight forward help or push to get it through there is no in between or dilemma..

respect for the all editors and reviewers and auditors for their contribution to keeping wikipedia safe but giving opportunity at wikipedia and protecting wikipedia both task should be treated well and equally.

i want to contribute more and more towards this wiki community.

FrankoSayHi5 (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrankoSayHi5: to be clear, the draft was deleted because it was promotional, not because your intentions were in doubt. My advice would be to drop this now and move on to other topics, not least because Wikipedia has been spammed with this and related topics hard for a long time, and at some point the mere association with these topics will start to bring negative connotations. In any case, since you say your desire is to contribute, you presumably will be happy to contribute on something else. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Arangretam 2022

 Courtesy link: Draft:Arangretam 2022

Lexsaugust (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)== 08:43:17, 17 November 2022 review of submission by Lexsaugust == {{Lafc|username=Lexsaugust|ts=08:43:17, 17 November 2022|page=[reply]

Lexsaugust (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Lexsaugust? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:17, 17 November 2022 review of submission by 120.21.190.14


CAN WE FINALLY PUBLISH THIS?

120.21.190.14 (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might actually be a record of some sort — rejected three times — so I think we can safely say, no, it own't be published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:54, 17 November 2022 review of draft by Adventures In Accuracy


Hello, I just clicked the 'publish' button on an article draft (Draft:Ikorta) for which I had declared a conflict of interest on my user page (Adventures In Accuracy). I just want to be sure that this conflict of interest declaration is actually necessary, because now I am seeing that conflict of interest refers to topics about one's own self, business, or employer. The subject of the article I wrote is an organization for which I have been volunteering. No money has been or will be exchanged. Do I still need to keep my COI declaration on my user page? If not, how do I remove it exactly? Thank you

Adventures In Accuracy (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adventures In Accuracy: COI can arise from any external relationship, not just the ones you've listed, and there is no requirement for payment to be exchanging hands (for that we have a special type of COI, namely WP:PAID). Based on what you say, you quite clearly have a COI, and therefore my advice is to just leave the disclosure there. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly.
-Adventures In Accuracy Adventures In Accuracy (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:33, 17 November 2022 review of submission by Adamtb24

The film's first teaser trailer has just been released and some changes have been made to the page so I believe that the page should be published. Adamtb24 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adamtb24 Unreleased films generally do not merit articles, see WP:NFF- unless there is something very unusual about the production of the film itself(see Rust (upcoming film)). The release of a trailer is standard procedure for a film and nothing unusual. When the film is released and there are some reviews about it, the draft article(not a "page") can be placed in the encyclopedia then. Curious as to your interest in the film, as you don't seem to have edited that draft recently. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that on the WP:NFF that it clearly states that for animated films, the page "must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." The film is out of the pre-production phase as we have seen final renderings of the animation and have heard some of the voice overs. I hope that this will be enough to publish the page. Though if you have any suggestions for the page to improve it, let me know and I can add reliable sources. Adamtb24 (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamtb24 You said "...we have seen final renderings of the animation and have heard some of the voice overs". For you to have that level of access, you must work for the production, or otherwise have a WP:COI, or else you fall under the rules for WP:PAID. You are required to declare either of these conflicts on your user page; this is non-negotiable. Please read those two linked "blue words" and make the appropriate declaration. David10244 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:10, 17 November 2022 review of submission by BMA-Nation2020


Teaser trailer dropped, need draft improved for Pixar.

BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BMA-Nation2020 I invite you to read 331dot's responce above. Same draft, same answer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BMA-Nation2020 Do you work for Pixar? 331dot (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sorry. Just saying about the film. I mean, im a pixar fan but i didn’t mean to confuse you over this. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

14:06:56, 18 November 2022 review of submission by ZX2006XZ


Hello. My name is ZX2006XZ. So the trailer for Pixar's Elemental came out yesterday, alongside a new teaser poster.

Trailer link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-cT495xKvvs&t=2s

Poster link: https://twitter.com/Pixar/status/1593292209758953475?s=20&t=bs9Jk2YZhTKeZ5CDFe7hvA

I'm requesting for this draft to get a re- review, as it has been rejected for article submission after 3 declines.

ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZX2006XZ well there certainly seems to be plenty of interest in this, at least from the supply side of things (see previous two threads). Please refer to the earlier comments by 331dot. If, after that, you still wish to pursue this, you need to take the matter up with the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:47, 18 November 2022 review of submission by Madyoshi01

Hello, I'm writing today to ask for a re-review of this article. It has been rejected before and I'm not well-versed when it comes to article submissions but as the film's marketing campaign has begun I'd appreciate if you could take another look into it. Best regards, Madyoshi01 (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@madyoshi01: read the previous 3 threads. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 14:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out I hadn't read the requests above mine. Worth mentioning I'm one of two active editors for the draft. Should I take it to the person who originally rejected the submission then? Madyoshi01 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start reverting off requests for this draft if it's clear the person filing it hasn't acknowledged the responce to Adamtb24 above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 14:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thanks for letting me know. Madyoshi01 (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:32, 18 November 2022 review of submission by Ucfbrett


Ucfbrett (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Spec3 is an official racing class within the National Auto Sport Association. How can we legitimize this page?

@Ucfbrett: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have only one source that's any good; the rest are all unusable in some fashion. One source is not enough to satisfy our notability guideline, even if that source is utterly perfect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

02:47:27, 19 November 2022 review of draft by 24.187.119.44


My username is RobertBLeck1 and I'm wanting to have our Robert Leckington page approved, but every time I go to submit for approval it keeps being denied and has a speedy deletion tag next to it. Something about duplicate pages. Well the current and latest one that I would like to use has been started by JonRusselCring users sandbox that I have helped to create. I'd like to know how to delete the previous and older versions so that I can get the latest and current one approved? StarMississippi has sent in a new update for us to submit for approval after finishing latest version. Don't know if I can do that because I don't know if the older versions are deleted yet. 24.187.119.44 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Robert 24.187.119.44 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you have a registered user account, could you please log into it, so we all know who's who. Thank you.
Secondly, the draft Draft:Robert Leckington has been speedily deleted, at RobertBLeck1's request. It appears to have been blank, at the time of deletion.
If you are now intending to work on User:Jonrussellcring/sandbox instead, that is fine, but please be aware that it will not be accepted in its present state, because a single source, only once cited, is nowhere near enough to support the contents or to establish notability.
It also seems that you may be writing about yourself, in which case you should see the advice at WP:AUTOBIO. TL;DNR = autobiographies are very strongly discouraged.
You also need to disclose your conflict of interest, and to that end I've posted a message on your (and Jonrussellcring's) talk pages with information on how to do this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:32, 19 November 2022 review of draft by Tristan Sterk


Hello, I am writing because I just received a notice that an article I am working on was declined before I submitted it for review. I need clarification because I did not press the request review button that sat atop the article in draft mode. I would like to know if it is possible to receive feedback on the piece before I submit it for review.

Tristan Sterk (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Sterk It appears someone submitted it for you as an alternative to speedy deletion(I hadn't checked this until now). We don't usually do "pre-review reviews". The way to get feedback is to submit it for a review. You may wish to see my comment on the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I will submit the article and keep my fingers crossed. I did not the comment on there being too many references, I removed a large number of them and can remove more if needed however I feel the number is appropriate. The references are all from secondary sources and were written by independent third parties (mostly journalists). Tristan Sterk (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tristan Sterk The issue is not necessarily the sources themselves, but their content. We are not interested in just documenting the things you have done- we want to know what independent reliable sources choose to say about your significance or influence in your field or fields. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:48, 19 November 2022 review of submission by 91.132.173.135


91.132.173.135 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:41:45, 19 November 2022 review of submission by Tensorproduct


Hello, the user User:Reading Beans moved my page of the Russian mathematician Sergei Vasilyevich Kerov to the Draft site with the explanation it needs "reliable" sources. I am using the Saint Petersburg Mathematical Society and Kerovs official website at the Steklov Institute as sources. Both have prestigious names in the mathematics world. How is this not reliable?

Besides Kerov is already referenced here on Wikipedia in other articles. I mean a lot of unsourced unimportant articles get approved but an article about a real mathematician mentioned on a prestigious mathematical society not?

EDIT: And besides there are things named after him in mathematics like Kerov's central limit theorem, Vershik-Kerov-Curve etc. Obviously he should have an entry because of his important work.

Tensorproduct (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have now added some mathematics journal where Kerovs work gets cited. One of them is a paper in the American Mathematical Society journal by a Fields Medal owner Okounkov (the noble price of mathematics). --Tensorproduct (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tensorproduct please do not post multiple places as that wastes editor's time and see the response I left for you at Theroadislong's talk page. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So this is my last attempt. I added english-speaking and prestigious journals where Kerov publicated. I also added a book from him that was translated by the American Mathematical Society. Also I have written a bit on the Vershik-Kerov curve. And also I added a paper by Fields Medalist Okounov mentioning some results (not just referencing) by Kerov.--Tensorproduct (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: also he fullfils the point 5 of WP:NACADEMIC as a professor for various universities including a mathematics professor at the Saint Petersburg State University (with the honor degree ScD) --Tensorproduct (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tensorproduct stating your reasoning here is not the helpful. You have resubmitted the draft so another reviewer will take a look but as suggested, now for the third time, post a note on the drafts's talk page with how they meet #5, named chair or distinguished professor. It may also be helpful to provide their SCOPUS profile (see #1). S0091 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@@S0091: Edit: Sorry, I thought you wrote on the user page.--Tensorproduct (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


November 20

08:30:47, 20 November 2022 review of submission by 2A02:587:8B03:4600:6547:4CB5:D477:265A


2A02:587:8B03:4600:6547:4CB5:D477:265A (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia is editing,only can have!

You don't really ask a question, but what you wrote is completely unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:53, 20 November 2022 review of submission by JOSEPH CARRARO

You have responded to the "decline" of a page I submitted that is equivalent to pages that have been submitted on my behalf recently due what is not considered as "notable" posts that have been continually vandalized for years. Mention is made of postS made "In paasing" as if they are not substantial enough to warrant meNtion. Just one example is a reference to "Katrina Resolution" which at the time was passed by the Louisiana Legislature on my behalf that was stated as the only resoLution passed by the Senate recognizing an individual. The problem is that I did not have a press conference or advertise in media my accomplishment but does not take away that it is real. JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JOSEPH CARRARO Please do not copy the contents of a declaration to this page. No one doubts it is real, but Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a person. If no independent sources write about something, it can't be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves and their accomplishments. If you were a state legislator, are there not independent sources about you? 331dot (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How absurd. As I stated I didn't inform the world of my accomplishments I was taking the time to provide absolute truth so when a disaster strikes someone oijows they can contact me. But you will continue to vandalize my account to diminish my work on behalf of others. That's what Wikipedias's become. Don't need to spend anymore time with you--since that's how you choose to spend your time and life.
DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE WIKIPEDIA MAZE YOU HAVWE SET UP SO NOTHING GETS DONE
How absurd . As I stated I didn't inform the world of my accomplishments I was taking the time to provide absolute truth so when a disaster strikes someone oijows they can contact me. But you will continue to vandalize my account to diminish my work on behalf of others. That's what Wikipedias's become. Don't need to spend anymore time with you--since that's how you choose to spend your time and life.
JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JOSEPH CARRARO: it's a bit difficult to understand what you're trying to say, but I would ask that you try to remain civil and constructive.
And please don't start a new thread with each comment; you can simply reply to the previous one.
Now, did you have an actual question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user decided to create a article within my userpage. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that, @Pizzaplayer219. An interesting approach. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can summarise: "Because you won't let me use this encyclopaedia for a purpose it was never intended to serve I'm going to be passive-aggressive in an attempt to make you feel bad." I've been seeing arguments along this line of thought a lot recently, and it's getting fucking old. Know your audience and your venue. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article Joseph Carraro already exists! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:26, 20 November 2022 review of submission by Cyberf1


Cyberf1 (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberf1: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:17:13, 20 November 2022 review of submission by Darth-Wiki-Man


Darth-Wiki-Man (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth-Wiki-Man Welcome to the AfC Help Desk. The draft is not notable for Wikipedia, and has been rejected, meaning you can not submit it again. You may to add some of the pages content to the existing article, 4 World Trade Center. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

04:53:05, 21 November 2022 review of submission by Asaad991


my page gets declined i need help why it's happened and who can i have one i am writing about the company i am working with need support

Asaad991 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1123001296"