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
Requesting assistance regarding User:Pioussouls/sandbox/Oleg_Parashchak
Requesting assistance regarding User:Pioussouls/sandbox
Line 361: Line 361:
kindly help me to improve my article to be eligible to be publish. I am new on Wikipedia though i followed the guidelines. but still i need assistance.Please help me!!!
kindly help me to improve my article to be eligible to be publish. I am new on Wikipedia though i followed the guidelines. but still i need assistance.Please help me!!!
Thanks [[User:Pioussouls|Pioussouls]] ([[User talk:Pioussouls|talk]]) 12:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks [[User:Pioussouls|Pioussouls]] ([[User talk:Pioussouls|talk]]) 12:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

== 12:35, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls ==
{{Lafc|username=Pioussouls|ts=12:35, 6 September 2023|draft=User:Pioussouls/sandbox}}
kindly help me to improve my article to be eligible to be published. I am new to Wikipedia, though I followed the guidelines. But still, I need assistance. Please help me!!! Thanks [[User:Pioussouls|Pioussouls]] ([[User talk:Pioussouls|talk]]) 12:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:35, 6 September 2023

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
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


August 31

04:10, 31 August 2023 review of submission by Sankar raja 123

I am new here, I have done the things best of my knowledge and made that article and still it has some flaws.....so, kindly request for help Sankar raja 123 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sankar raja 123: your article needs to be based on reliable published sources, and you need to cite those sources so that readers can see where the information is coming from and verify it if needed. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:52, 31 August 2023 review of submission by 111.92.125.131

How we can publish this wikipedia page? 111.92.125.131 (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please log into your account when editing.
Secondly, who is "we"?
As to your question, you could and should have listened to all the advice that was offered during the numerous reviews, and improved the draft. You didn't. Therefore it has now been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 31 August 2023 review of submission by Jujupiter

I would like to add a picture of the artist unfortunately, I don't know where I can get a picture free of rights for Wikimedia. I have messaged him on Instagram, contacted his music label and even the studio that did a movie with him and no one has replied. How do people usually do? Is there a specific service or a way to get in touch with photographers...? Thank you for your help 🙏 Jujupiter (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jujupiter: we can't really help, as we don't have any special access to images here at the help desk. If you cannot find a suitable image, then don't add one; it isn't important, in that it has no bearing on this draft's chances of being accepted.
Just to say also that contacting third parties asking for photos is a bit pointless. Even if they send you a copy, you still wouldn't be able to use it, because it remains under their copyright. They would have to expressly release it under a compatible licence, which they are probably unwilling to do, and even if they did, you would have hard time proving this. In fact, they as the creator and copyright owner would have to upload it and release the rights. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you. I did ask them for a picture free of rights, hoping maybe they would be happy to release one but indeed, it was pointless. Jujupiter (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 31 August 2023 review of submission by 117.121.211.195

We include several external links, not limited to those from Wikipedia or our own sources, as recommendations for the Wiki page and request permission for publication. However, the commit button is invisible, and our only option is to 'Ask for advice.' Could you kindly offer your guidance? 117.121.211.195 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The submit button is unavailable because I have rejected this draft, rather than merely declined, meaning you can no longer submit it for review. At the time when I reviewed this, the only references were to the university's own website and to Wikipedia articles. I can see that you have since then added a few other references, but these are still not enough to establish notability, and I therefore stand by my rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 31 August 2023 review of submission by Bavile

Hi, it's the first time I have created an article. I'm not sure how to create the table of contents so that I can then populate this with the summary and other information? Bavile (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bavile: the TOC gets created automatically, once there are four (IIRC) or more section headings. You can also force it (on and off), although normally you shouldn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Apologies but I don't yet have any section headings and not sure how to begin updating my draft article with these? I looked for guidance information on this but it didn't seem obvious where this info is? Bavile (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bavile: never mind no section headings, you don't seem to have any content, if this Draft:Mellatron is the draft you're referring to. Create the content, divide it into sections with MOS:HEADINGS, and the TOC will follow. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Yes that's the draft that I have opened. Many thanks I will creating content and try using the MOS: HEADINGS to divide it as you have advised. Bavile (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you again for the technical advice earlier but apologies again I unfortunately accidentally prematurely submitted my draft article before I had finished adding citations etc. I fully understand you rejecting it. I will endeavour to not submit it again before it's ready for submission. Just checking apart from lack of citations and links, whether the layout is ok now? If it correctly has the MOS Headings etc as you explained earlier? Bavile (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bavile: it has no section headings, other than the 'References' one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 31 August 2023 review of submission by Hisonlysoneditor

please accept it sir . this is a famous artist and a actor who has workvery hard and he has reknowed as Artist Ashish Rawde He Has Work In Many Films And Many Songs in current he has worked as Ishamel ( in only son) and the indian film bande utkala janani please accept it sir Hisonlysoneditor (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hisonlysoneditor: we don't review articles on demand; this is awaiting review, and will be assessed when a reviewer happens to pick it up. Although having said that, I can tell you already now that it will not be accepted, as there is no evidence of notability, and it is also entirely promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hisonlysoneditor What is your association with him, since he posed for the picture you took? 331dot (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are zero reliable independent sources in the draft and the content is laughably promotional in tone. Theroadislong (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 31 August 2023 review of submission by Bilaldj7

Please let me know the reason for rejection. Bilaldj7 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilaldj7 I fixed the link to your draft(you were missing the "Draft:" portion). Your draft was only declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted. The reason for the decline was left by the reviewer at the top of your draft. Do you have a question about it? 331dot (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bilaldj7, I am the decliner. Your draft does not read like a Wikipedia article, it reads like an essay. That is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 31 August 2023 review of submission by Falia2

What can I do to get this article accepted? Falia2 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Falia2- nothing, sorry. It has been rejected and won't be considered further. Qcne (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Falia2: what is your relationship to this subject? I asked this on your talk page a week or so ago, but you have not responded. Please do so now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no relationship with it, its just a company that created a snowboard machine for Quebec winters Falia2 (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what can i do? Falia2 (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, nothing, as the draft has been rejected. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:29, 31 August 2023 review of submission by Bine Gruen

Hi, I am currently creating a new article. Here are my questions: 1. In the menu, "cotnribute" is not active and I cannot access the function. 2. I would like to work in the visual editor mode, but it this function is not visible to me, only read and source mode. 3. I would like to insert in the article a picture, but without the visual editor I do not know how to manage. If my question 2 cannot be solved, I would need the source code for inserting the image. Thanks for the help 

Bine Gruen (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bine Gruen: I can't help you with regards to the visual editor, but someone will hopefully come along shortly who can. In the meantime, I can't help noticing that your draft is entirely unreferenced, which means that the information cannot be verified, and also that there is no evidence that the subject is notable. Those are both hard requirements for a draft to be accepted (whereas images and other 'nice to haves' aren't), so my advice would be to focus first and foremost on referencing your article fully. Please see WP:BLP, WP:GNG and WP:REFB for advice on articles on living people, the general notability guideline, and referencing, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your advice. It is meant to be a biography rather than a topic article. I try to gather some references and try to argue the importance of the person. Bine Gruen (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bine Gruen: I'm not quite sure what you mean, articles are articles regardless of the topic; if anything biographies on living people have stricter referencing requirements, as explained in WP:BLP.
It sounds like you may be trying to go about this BACKWARD, by first writing what you want, and then trying to support it with sources. What you should do is find some sources that are reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage of the subject, summarise (in your own words) what they have said, and cite each source against the information provided. This gives you both your article content and the necessary referencing. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 31 August 2023 review of submission by LittlePerson10

I don't know, I cited the most reliable source I could find. Maybe do I need to cite a link to the game on the Google Appstore as it says what the game is about on there? LittlePerson10 (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LittlePerson10: no, linking to the app store blurb would not help at all, as that is merely the app developer/marketer telling you what they think you want to hear in order to download the app. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I cite it to then? Theres not really much places to cite it to. LittlePerson10 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a strong indication that the topic is not notable so we do not require an article about it. Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 31 August 2023 review of submission by Askthebamaphoenix

I am trying to understand why my article was deleted about a social media presence. There are many Wikipedia pages dedicated to other social media personalities yet mine was deleted. What I was attempting to do is set up a few wiki pages regarding social media personalities that fight for social justice and equality. So, can you tell me what is wrong with that? When y'all literally have a page dedicated to. ones that have done nothing other than just become popular. If it is simply a question of reformatting or adding notations. Please let me know because these are people who have put themselves in danger to fight for and stand up for other people. This was the first of several that I was going to add but I did not want to go through all the trouble of adding them if they were going to be deleted. Please advise and if possible, not in technical terminology please. Askthebamaphoenix (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Askthebamaphoenix: if you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Bama2Dads, that was deleted as promotional. And I can see that in  Courtesy link: User:Askthebamaphoenix/sandbox you're about to repeat that. This is a pretty sure-fire way to get yourself blocked, so I would advise caution. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Askthebamaphoenix, I rejected your original draft and marked it for speedy deletion. Unfortunately you do not meet the very strict WP:NPEOPLE or WP:NORG criteria. Further attempts to make these articles will also be rejected, I am afraid.
Wikipedia has millions of articles and unfortunately many are poor quality and would not be permitted on Wikipedia if submitted today. Qcne (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about people who do good things. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure is a difference between an article on people like this and people like Charli D’Amelio? Both are articles about social media presence. However, your platform is yours to run as you see fit. It’s worth noting that there are other social media personalities who do more than just review clothes and makeup. Some try to help communities and make the world a better place. It’s similar to mainstream media; if you’re not famous for being famous like the Kardashians, they don’t care. This was just my attempt to add articles about people who are trying to make the world a better place. That way when kids are searching for information, they can see other examples besides the ones that live their lives for the drama and scandals. Again, thanks for the consideration.
If nothing else here is a list of a few people that are trying to make a difference and they are doing it without the scandals. Bama2Dads, Ileavebreadcrumbs, Zman, Pottymouthpollyanna, Juanfoster, and lioness.with.the.mane2, etc. These were some that were going to be articles but at least maybe you can look at them and see their contributions. Thanks Askthebamaphoenix (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Askthebamaphoenix The difference is likely to be that the articles that remain have people saying things about them in multiple reliable sources that are independent of them
I do good works, but an article about me would not be accepted
We do have a significant number of articles that are below our standards. We are but few and they are many. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 31 August 2023 review of submission by Falia2

What can I do to make this page work? I am not affiliated to this product Falia2 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Falia2: why do you keep asking the same question, and opening a new thread? As already advised (twice), this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 31 August 2023 review of submission by The Phil Pixie

This is my first article I've created from scratch....Is this now ready for review, is there anyhing else that needs to be added? The Phil Pixie (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Phil Pixie. Your brief draft fails to make the case that this company meets the notability guideline for companies. An acceptable Wikipedia article about a company summarizes significant coverage of the company in reliable, independent sources. Neither of your references meet that standard. Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 31 August 2023 review of submission by Ogoos11

Remove this article from draft section Ogoos11 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you were to attempt to place it in the encyclopedia yourself, it would likely be deleted. You'll need to move on from this. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogoos11 Have you thought about being somewhat more polite. It will not affect the outcome, but it leaves us with a better impression of you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

03:37, 1 September 2023 review of submission by Queenvictoria

I would like to know how to communicate with the decliner (Jamiebuba) so that I can correct the article. Do I contact them directly on their talk page? Do I add an AFC comment below theirs on the article? Or do I communicate on the subject here? Or on the articles talk page?

I see that they view the NYT and Forbes articles as trivial mentions. Should I remove the sentence that cites them and remove the citations?

Thanks in advance. Queen Victoria (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Queenvictoria You do not need to remove them, you just have to provide additional sources that discuss the subject indepth. NYT is a Reliable sources but we require sources that demonstrate the subject is indeed notable. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:58, 1 September 2023 review of submission by 31.223.116.133

I have recently communicated with the artist. He states that he has now an interview online, as well as credible accomplishments. Is this enough for a Wikipedia page 31.223.116.133 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what draft you're referring to, as your edit history shows nothing, and there is no Draft:Georgie P. But no, an interview cannot be used to establish notability (assuming that's what you're asking about?), so this wouldn't help in any case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 1 September 2023 review of submission by 39.34.177.206

they have many valid citing. 39.34.177.206 (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your article has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:52, 1 September 2023 review of submission by 39.34.177.206

I have recently communicated with the artist. He states that he has now an interview online, as well as credible accomplishments. Is this enough for a Wikipedia page 39.34.177.206 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. We need independent sources (so not interviews) and accomplishments alone don't help either (an independent, secondary source about those accomplishments would be fine though). -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 1 September 2023 review of submission by Incognitopublisher

Please assist me in eliminating unreliable sources from this article. Incognitopublisher (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any such effort would be academic, as your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


September 2

00:05, 2 September 2023 review of submission by Starlighsky

I found some citations outside of the IMDB. What are acceptable sites for references? Starlighsky (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Starlighsky: the concept of reliable sources is explained at WP:RS, and some specific sources are rated at WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:24, 2 September 2023 review of submission by 87.0.57.85

Hi, can you give me some suggestions on how to make it accepted? 87.0.57.85 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why? Have you ever seen this character? Do you something about it? 87.0.57.85 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is relevant. Rejection means it won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 2 September 2023 review of submission by TechGeek105

Can you please find more references for the draft I was working on a few months ago, in order to find more information about Nothing OS? Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 07:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TechGeek105: no, for two reasons. Firstly, we don't do that here at the help desk, it is the draft proponent's job. Secondly, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I will do that myself, @DoubleGrazing. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just edited Nothing Phone 1#Software to include Nothing OS 2.0 information, maybe that could be added into the draft. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 2 September 2023 review of submission by Dr-Manuel-Kuehner

I am not sure I understand the meaning of secondary sources, so I gathered some examples for the article of Frank Mittelbach, see below, is that good enough?

(1) https://tug.org/interviews/mittelbach.pdf (2) https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb42-2/tb131mittelbach-desouza.pdf (3) https://www.gutenberg-gesellschaft.de/die-gesellschaft/vorstand-und-praesidium/frank-mittelbach (4) https://www.latex-project.org/about/team/ (5) https://github.com/FrankMittelbach Dr-Manuel-Kuehner (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr-Manuel-Kuehner: secondary sources are explained here: WP:RS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dr-Manuel-Kuehner. I will go through your references one by one:
1) this is a secondary source, but it's an interview so cannot be used to prove notability as it is not WP:INDEPENDENT.
2) this is a secondary source, but it's an interview so cannot be used to prove notability as it is not WP:INDEPENDENT.
3) this is not a secondary source, because it's Frank's employee profile.
4) this is not a secondary source, because it is Frank's team profile.
5) this is not a secondary source, because it is Frank's Github.
If these are the only sources you can find, then I am afraid Frank can not have a Wikipedia article- sorry. Qcne (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Qcne for taking the time to help me. I will try to find better sources. Dr-Manuel-Kuehner (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Hello again. I did some more research and found several secondary references, could you please have a look at the updated draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Frank_Mittelbach? Please don't mind the not-nice flow of teh content/text. For now, I focussed on the references. Dr-Manuel-Kuehner (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry, @Dr-Manuel-Kuehner, but the added references don't seem to show WP:SIGCOV coverage of Frank. I simply don't think he passes WP:NACADEMIC at this time. Qcne (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening @Qcne and thanks for your continued effort to help me :). I had a look at the link that you provided and criteria number 4 states "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.".
One could argue that LaTeX is an instrumental tool for many academic institutions (assuming you are familiar with LaTeX itself) and the fact that Frank is leading the LaTeX development for some decades would make a good case - what do you think Dr-Manuel-Kuehner (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne@Qcne Proposal: I will prepare more references and get back to you once I am ready for another review, ok? Dr-Manuel-Kuehner (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once this talk page is archived (which will be in a few days) feel free to leave a message on my Talk Page. :) Qcne (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:27, 2 September 2023 review of submission by Visokoblagorodie

Respected,

Since Stevan Karanac is the champion of opera at the Serbian National Theater in Novi Sad, and he sang with great stars like Željko Lučić and Nikola Mijailović, and his guest appearances on numerous National television shows, documented by links from the National Television website, were not enough for you, please direct me to the specific ones you want additional evidence as your explanations are not clear or precise. If the National Public Service is not enough for you, what is?

Best Regards Visokoblagorodie (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is enough for us is places where people wholly unconnected with Karanac (not him, not his employers, not his agent, not the organisers of conerts or shows where he performs) have chosen to write at length about him. See notability. If the criteria listed at NMUSIC are met, that makes it likely that the person will be notable in Wikipedia's terms, but we still need several sources that meet the conditions in golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:48, 2 September 2023 review of submission by JamesKnight7

Hello, I've really improved my article and wondered if anyone would be so kind to review it again and let me know if there's any problems with it? Thank you. JamesKnight7 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JamesKnight7, the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia has much more extensive coverage of his entire career. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, thanks for the advice. I don't speak Russian but will try to make further improvements from that page [[1]] as suggested as I consider this an important missed topic. Perhaps someone who speaks Russian better than me can help contribute to the article more if you can help get it reviewed and approved? Many thanks in advance if possible. JamesKnight7 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could only really update his birth date because that's all that's sourced on the Russian Wikipedia. All the references there are broken - 404s or bad gateways, so I cannot really add anything from there. It's like all references to this Ukrainian guy have been deliberately deleted for some reason, perhaps to stop this page being created in English and showing the world that a Ukrainian was responsible for the Katyn Massacre of Poles and not Russian as everyone generally supposes? JamesKnight7 (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted @JamesKnight7, @Cullen328 the paucity of Russian references notwithstanding, I view this draft as having a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion. However, in view of the references having been cleansed on the ruwiki, may I suggest that any potential deletion discussion be closely monitored for !vote stacking 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, Ukrainian nationality in those days was a citizen of the USSR. While he was by birth from Ukraine, he was under Soviet leadership and control. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Ukrainian SSR back then but appreciated FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me. I've added another source from the UK government to try and get those chances to 52% or more. Will keep working to improve. Thank you for your assistance. Enjoy your day. JamesKnight7 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can only remember that Ukraine has had a more than difficult history with predatory invaders, controllers, and a lot else we may not yet have discovered, JamesKnight7. Thank you for creating a draft that could be accepted. Now you and the community can work together instead of your ploughing a lone furrow.
Every new cited fact you can produce is an extra weight in the scale pan to help the percentage rise. The reason I refer to the 50% is the reviewer are exhorted to accept anything with a better Than 50 chance of survival. We are usually generalists, and work with acceptance criteria rather than pure article content. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am a Conscientious Objector and understand difficult histories leading to wars and have great respect for both Ukrainians and Russians. I'm therefore also a "generalist" as you suggest and look forward to working with the community better as you have, leading by example. JamesKnight7 (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

01:12, 3 September 2023 review of submission by EMB1991

Greetings,

Per the guidelines I have completed all items necessary for submission approval. At this point in the process, what is the specific item that you are looking for and I'll get that to you pronto

Warm regards, Eric EMB1991 (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EMB1991, an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes the coverage that reliable, independent sources devote to the topic, and includes references to those sources. Your draft is poorly referenced and fails to make a convincing case that Miles-Baker is a notable person. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, strange language claiming that this person is highborn; thrice blessed of Name, Title and Genetic desirability is completely inappropriate for a neutrally written encyclopedia. Who says that sort of thing, after all, and on what basis? Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the summation. Albeit all things true, perhaps I could sanitize a bit more. Would you be able to cut that part out? Its a point, and distinction that should be kept internal.
Thank you kindly,
Eric EMB1991 (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:16, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Qaziquza

The article was rejected because it is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia—specifically, because "This is thing you google for home work qustions [sic]." I think otherwise, because Wikipedia already has many articles of the type in question. Could someone provide further input? Sorry if this is the wrong place/this is a breach of Wiki etiquette. Qaziquza (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaziquza May I suggest it be merged with Orders of magnitude (force) unless and until sufficient material can be found for an independent article? You may make these edits yourself. @OlifanofmrTennant: do you have any thoughts on this, since you rejected the draft? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a merger. I think none of these Order of Magnitude () pages make sense. Most of them are just example pages. :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 08:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're pretty typical List-class articles, no? I've found them helpful for understanding scale, anecdotally. Qaziquza (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
W.r.t a merge, I think I'll just find more material—I really think that the article could be useful distinct from force. I'm new to Wikipedia policy, so if that's not alright, please do let me know. Qaziquza (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've accepted it. I apologize for my unfair rejection :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 18:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Jverne2000

   Can you please help me with this article so that it is accepted?
   I do not understand why. All of the sources are footnoted with references to putlished articles and interviews.
   Thanks.  Jverne2000 (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jverne2000 The reviewer, Superboilles has referred you to WP:MUSICBIO. Have you asked them what they found lacking? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Jaiseva750

tribal hockey player Jaiseva750 (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaiseva750: that's not a question; did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined because there is currently no indication that the subject is notable under our WP:NATHLETE guidelines. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 3 September 2023 review of submission by EMB1991

Hi,

I just submitted a new edit, also, I need create an "Ancestors" portion to the wikipedia page and was wondering if I could be granted access?

Please assist. Eric EMB1991 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appearto be writing about yourself- while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged, at least in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Please read WP:AUTO.
I'm not sure what it is you want access to, but your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for telling fictional accounts about ourselves. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft deleted, user blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Inna Ogiievska

Thank you.@Qcne You checked it right away, and I really appreciate the time you spent on this verification. Please help me understand which specific source is unreliable among those mentioned in the article so that I can remove it. Inna Ogiievska (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Qcne (note to @Inna Ogiievska, just @'tting doesn't work). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have replied on my Talk Page :) Qcne (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Arian Tazwer

Why My Articale Rejected Arian Tazwer (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arian Tazwer: let's turn this around... can you tell me any reason why it shouldn't have been rejected? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Drthorgithecorgi

I'm fairly inexperienced at creating article. I think that this journal is notable, but I don't know how to provide more links to meet the standard. Some assistance would be appreciated! Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than half of your draft is a section labelled "Landmark papers", and is a summary of one paper published in the journal, with a citation only to the paper. As far as I can see, that section does not belong in the article at all. The article should be a summary of what independent sources have published about the journal. If you had an independent source discussing that article, then it possibly would rate a mention in the article about the journal, but not a whole paragraph, and it wouldn't contribute to establishing notability.
The only thing you should be looking for at this point is places where independent people have written at length about the journal itself (not just about particular content). If you cannot find any, then the journal is probably not notable in Wikipedia's sense. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:02, 3 September 2023 review of submission by Adaughe2

How can I make this public? I am running a campaign in my local school district called Friends of Andrew Daugherty. To me, this is a notable position as I would like to provide context to my background to the voters in my area. Adaughe2 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NBLP for what is notable to Wikipedia. Many things are notable to almost all individuals, but we cannot have pages on absolutely everything. @Adaughe2 — Karnataka talk 21:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. — Karnataka talk 21:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

07:40, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Newlywo

Hello, I am writing again because I believe the reviewer is mistaken and although I did what I can do and tried explining, nothing helped since his mind was made. I ofcourse respect that but I want to know what can be done since he rejected the draft? I insist sine I know Zvi, an award wining director, is noteable. I want to point out that when I resubmitted the draft, I didnt make changes to it but on the talk page I expained about each source after the decline reason was sources. Maybe this was the case and the reviewer was very very wrong with what he wrote about the sources (i.e calling the award minor or the festival). To sum this: what can be done at this stage since there got to be something to do? Thank you all. Newlywo (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will naturally recuse myself from this discussion, but just to say that if an experienced AfC reviewer in good standing is prepared to accept your draft, I will stand corrected and revert my rejection (although I will be curious to hear the grounds for such a decision).
I won't rehearse again my decline/rejection reasons, they can be found in multiple previous threads on this page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, I wrote this inorder to get a fresh reviewer and although you wrote a few times you wont give your time for this anymore, you write again. Do you want to review this or you just wrote here so an experienced AfC reviewer will see what you wrote and wouldnt want to address this? why this feels very personal? I will repeat what I wrote: this is not personal for me, I dont think what you did is in purpose and I sure do not want bad blood and any negetive feelings what so ever. I simply want someone to look this over and see what I wrote and check it again and not the same reviewer (you) which already formed an opnion... calling the awad minor or the TLV fest minor, is very wrong! it is big in Israel and in the LGBT community in general. Also, the "review" you gave per source is not 100% right.
I wish you would see this and be able to say ok maybe but it seems you have something against it no metter what and this I dont understand.. Maybe Israel is a small country vs the US but if you will scale this in % and check the raniking of the sources I placed, you will see you werent right about everything (and just to make it clear, you were right also). anyway, this is was my last chance so please allow this to be a real chance. Thank you. Newlywo (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was declined 6 times and finally rejected. Your draft uses Amazon as a source (unreliable), some sources result in 404 errors, other sources do not mention the subject, it has user edited profiles, it doesn’t show that the subject passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:27, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Raves2023

Hi everyone, my draft was rejected and although I tried and wrote the reveiwer, I cant understand why. What can I do now that it's rejected? please dont say nothing because I looked at similar magazines and it seems we rave you should be excepted if they are on wikipedia. I am aware the reviewer doesnt want to do anything since according to him it's taken enough of his time (i didnt understand that remark as well but ok) but I believe there other reviewers that maybe can help. Raves2023 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raves2023 Rejection typically means that a draft will not be considered further. Please read other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you are welcome to identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.
If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new information from new sources that the reviewer did not consider, typically the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer, but in this case please tell us what has changed about the draft that now addresses the concerns of the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raves2023: this draft was reviewed by five different reviewers, and finally rejected. We've discussed this at least twice before at this help desk, and I can see that you've raised it with the rejecting reviewer. I get that you would like to have this article published, not least because of your financial interest in the subject, but that is not going to happen, I'm afraid. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other things. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's time to move on from this. I hadn't looked to see your edit history here. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot The whole reason I came here is due to the history since I saw it and think it's not right but both of you saying it's time to move on so I am without options.. correct? Raves2023 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's our advice to you. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am part of it and I want it but I did the checks and it seems its worth of a page. I understand what you wrote and if I will find something new, I will try again. Raves2023 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 4 September 2023 review of submission by 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25

The article draft was rejected with regards to encyclopedia tone. I need assistance with addressing this issue. 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25 (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was earlier declined for that reason. It has now been rejected as non-notable. Rejection means there is no option to resubmit, so there is no point in editing further at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I feel like declaring bias makes it seem like a witch hunt for contributors to achieve their own personal accolades by constantly rejecting article submissions without highlighting any of the sentences on which they are basing their decisions. The article I wrote, was actually written following the guidelines (the tone and format) of many other company Wikipedia pages that have been approved already. Someone flagged it citing encyclopedia tone; does it mean that these other Wikipedia company pages were not meticulously reviewed by the expats here, or have the writers already gained relevance by constantly bullying new contributors such that their articles are not subjected to such intense criticisms?
I'm just curious to understand why this level of dictatorship bully, with no intention to actually assist new contributors. I have read about some other contributor pouring out his frustrations for this same bully on here. If Wikipedia is open and free for all platforms, why will people constantly look for vague criticisms to frustrate other contributors? Why can't the criticism be a guide for the new contributor to successfully contribute to the stack of independent information on Wikipedia? 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25 (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See other crap exists, other articles may have been created before the AFC process began, they might need to be deleted. making personal attacks is unlikely to help your case, the draft was entirely promotional and was correctlt declined and then rejected, I should find another topic to write about, one that is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong, I'm not in any way pursing any form of personal attack, but merely trying to learn as a new contributor, which was the basis of my initial argument. The question is: why do people reject articles citing non-encyclopedia tone or advertising when other company pages clearly have the same kind of information, or even worse, on Wikipedia? You cited "other crap exists" probably before AFC; my next question is: will any company qualify for a Wikipedia article following the encyclopedia tone argument, because most I have seen are pure marketing? Kindly feel free to give an example of a company page that is not; I would like to learn more. Thank you. 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:15CE:393B:EF61:D25 (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't give you an example of a "company page" because we don't have those here. We have articles about companies that meet our definition of a notable company. I believe you that there are many examples of inappropriate articles that volunteers have not addressed yet; if you would like to help us identify inappropriate articles so we can take action, please do, we need the help. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, if you have a registered user account (Nsbfrank or otherwise), please log into it.
Secondly, I don't know who you're accusing of bullying, but please don't pursue that line of baseless accusations any further, as personal attacks will not be tolerated. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your comments.
First, I would like to sincerely apologize if my comment came across as a personal attack on anyone; it wasn't intentional at all; I was just trying to voice out my frustration that an educational forum open to all doesn't seem so in reality, because I can't understand how article criticism is done in a very harsh tone with no intention to aid new contributors.
Secondly, the truth is that I was constantly advised to declare bias for transparency (as a paid contributor), and that became my greatest error because no matter what I post here, it will be read as marketing, non-encyclopedia tone, and non-neutral.
Finally, I feel that you asked me to login so that you guys could comfortably label me with one offense and probably block me from contributing or commenting further. 2001:8A0:7C05:6F00:7857:2854:F599:7FCE (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing in good faith will not get you blocked, unless you repeatedly continue to try and do something which you have been told not to do. You're invited to login because it is easier to communicate with you consistently.
Almost every editor who begins editing here and immediately tries to create an article has a frustrating and miserable time, because they have not yet learnt a raft of understanding about how Wikipedia works; and most importantly, they probably do not yet appreciate what Wikipedia means by notable, If you think of an analogy of housebuilding, they have no idea of what constitutes a stable site for building on, or how to survey a site to determine if it is suitable: they want to build that house there, and they think that if they just try hard enough they'll manage it. After all, everybody knows what a house looks like, don't they? They might even point to some ramshackle jerry-built houses elsewhere that haven't fallen down yet, and say "Look, they built their house!".
For this reason, I always advise new members to spend a few weeks or months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try it. But of course, paid editors rarely think they have the time to do this. (In my view, they are saying that they do not have time to learn the skills that they need to do the job they are paid to do, presumably because they do not recognise that these skills exist or are important).
It is not impossible for a paid editor to write an acceptable article, but it is even harder than writing an article without a COI, because it is harder to recognise whether their writing is neutral.
The key is finding several sources each of which satisfies the golden rule, as without that, you cannot establish that the subject is notable. (I haven't looked at your sources in detail, but the first one does not make clear who produced the video, but I suspect it is BV themselves, in which case it is not independent, and the second one has only a short paragraph about BV. I didn't look further.) If you cannot find suitable sources, then you will know that the subject is not notable, and you cannot successfully write an article, however much you are paid.
If you find the sources, you then need to forget everything you know about the subject, and write an article based only on what those independent sources say. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Thank you so much! Honestly, this is the most helpful comment I have ever had since coming onboard. For a moment, someone in this forum made a positive criticism with the clear intention to educate and not just frustrate newbies. I totally understand your point, and I will try to focus more on editing and learning from other editors. I also see your point about the article rejection, and it does make sense. I will keep an eye on them and their publications moving forward. However, the company did inform me that they keep receiving emails from different agencies offering them Wikipedia publication services (I can provide a proof), which made me feel that I was maligned and unduely suffocated from publishing, just for an agency to swoop in and have a pay day. Nsbfrank (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:24, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Arunknmsb

I want to know for what reason exactly it has been deleted? since puravankara limited and sobha limited has their own pages ,but why can't this kind of a startup can not be ? Arunknmsb (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arunknmsb: this draft hasn't been deleted (yet), only rejected, although soon it might be. And the reason is that it is pure promo blurb with no sign of notability. Promotions are not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 4 September 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:B5B1:38B0:C5B7:AB97:901:1463

What exactly do I need to do to get this article published? 2600:1700:B5B1:38B0:C5B7:AB97:901:1463 (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal the rejection with the reviewer who rejected it, but you have to be able to show that is passes the Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) in order to make a successful appeal. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an earlier draft in the system, at Draft:Abraham and Mollie Froug House (and with the correct title, I might add), just for info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 4 September 2023 review of submission by Bananastander

Hi I've made some edits to the page to make the language more neutral, just wondered if I am on the right track! Thanks Bananastander (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bananastander The major question you have to answer is in two parts: Do they pass WP:NMUSICIAN; have you shown that they do (if so)? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bananastander Further, on Wikimedia Commons, you have a question to answer about the picture. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I have answered the question on Wikimedia Commons Bananastander (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for the reply, I'll review that page. Though I can see issues meeting the criteria for documenting artists outside of mainstream genres, in this instance progressive rock. Though I think point 7 works though. Thanks a lot for your help tho! Bananastander (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for the reply, I'll review that page. Though I can see issues meeting the criteria for documenting artists outside of mainstream genres, in this instance progressive rock. Though I think point 7 works though. Thanks a lot for your help tho! Bananastander (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point 7, like the rest of the points, is an indicator that they might meet the criteria for notability. As it says there, you still need to find the sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 4 September 2023 review of submission by IvoJokić

What to do if the system deems sources as untrustworthy, all the while them being the links to articles created by the school representatives themselves

What to do if the system deems sources as untrustworthy, all the while them being the links to articles created by the school representatives themselves I was writing an article about the Gymnasium in Danilovgrad. The issues arose because of the invalidity of the sources – system thinks of them as a random vague link, but, in reality, they lead to articles about the institution created by the school representatives themselves. What should I do? IvoJokić (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Gymnasium Petar I Petrovic Njegos has no independent sources and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the sources are untrustworthy; they are not independent. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:11, 4 September 2023 review of submission by DogExpert

Please advice me to improve and make this more wiki article, I do not have to build anything like an advertisement. DogExpert (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DogExpert, there is nothing to advise as the article has been rejected so won't be considered further. There is nothing you can do.
I would recommend reading WP:YFA. Qcne (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

04:21, 5 September 2023 review of submission by Ikenagy

why was it bad? Ikenagy (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need to ask why your draft was unsuitable for an encyclopaedia? Please carefully read WP:PILLARS. Qcne (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 5 September 2023 review of submission by 87.0.57.85

Hi, I am trying to make this article for the company Weakend Productions, how can be the draft accepted? If I don't find news websites, what can I do, or what can I do in general? 87.0.57.85 (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers have left you advice at the top of your draft, please see it if you haven't already. If there are no independent reliable sources that give this company significant coverage, it will not merit an article, there is nothing that you can do to confer notability on a topic.
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not work for it, I just saw their content. 87.0.57.85 (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find sources then I am afraid there can be no article. Qcne (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 5 September 2023 review of submission by Athwartmisunderstand

How can I improve this article eg change or remove Athwartmisunderstand (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Athwartmisunderstand: you cannot; I've rejected it and requested deletion. Dhumik Pravin has been deleted four times, including twice at AfD, most recently only a couple of months ago. You're flogging the proverbial dead horse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess it should be deleted as there is no reliable sources. However, in future, if there is any reliable sources published, can there be a article on Dhumik Pravin? Athwartmisunderstand (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Athwartmisunderstand: if they demonstrably, as supported by reliable evidence are notable (almost certainly per the WP:GNG guideline), then it may be possible to have an article on them, yes. But I should warn you that because of the earlier deletions, the bar is probably higher than it would have otherwise been. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 5 September 2023 review of submission by Ray the Bearman

I'm having trouble understanding on what I said wrong 

Ray the Bearman (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ray the Bearman: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. You should not be writing about yourself, and any sort of promotion is not allowed. You can write limited biographical information on your user page, but it has to be within the user page policy, and you should not submit it for review as it will not be published as an article. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 5 September 2023 review of submission by Annomita

Why the article is rejected Annomita (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read WP:NOT. You have already had this draft deleted twice, please do not create further drafts or you risk your account being blocked. Qcne (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 5 September 2023 review of submission by Hale204

i didnt know how do i try again Hale204 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hale204: if by "try again" you mean resubmitting, then you don't: this draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. Promotion of any sort is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

01:57, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Demiboy609

Hi people that works for Wikipedia I need your help I log in Wikipedia two days ago im making a wiki article about Deimboy and Deimgirl but I need your help i only know how to edit. Demiboy609 (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Demiboy is user edited so not a reliable source. Sources need to be reliable and independent. Theroadislong (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Directorshahikabir

Wikipedia has declined again. How can I publish it again? Directorshahikabir (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Directorshahikabir: you cannot; rather than merely declined, the draft has now been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself and your career. See WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Iam1947

H, I have tried understanding the objections to the earlier draft and have worked on the content of the draft. I would like to move it to the articles space but would appreciate a review. Iam1947 (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iam1947: this draft cannot be resubmitted for another review, as it has been rejected. If you're saying that new sources have become available which demonstrate notability (which was the reason for the earlier declines and the rejection), then you need to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:31, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

kindly help me to improve my article to be eligible to be publish. I am new on Wikipedia though i followed the guidelines. but still i need assistance.Please help me!!! Thanks Pioussouls (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

kindly help me to improve my article to be eligible to be published. I am new to Wikipedia, though I followed the guidelines. But still, I need assistance. Please help me!!! Thanks Pioussouls (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1174115992"