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 Why was my draft declined?
Line 606: Line 606:
{{Lafc|username=162.201.121.103|ts=00:08, 13 September 2023|draft=Why was my draft declined?}}
{{Lafc|username=162.201.121.103|ts=00:08, 13 September 2023|draft=Why was my draft declined?}}
Hello, i have created a page under the url "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wii_003_error". i know that it is kinda crappy and was written in just a few miniutes but i just want a little more details on why it was declined, what i did wrong and what i can do to make it fit for submission. thank you. [[Special:Contributions/162.201.121.103|162.201.121.103]] ([[User talk:162.201.121.103|talk]]) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, i have created a page under the url "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wii_003_error". i know that it is kinda crappy and was written in just a few miniutes but i just want a little more details on why it was declined, what i did wrong and what i can do to make it fit for submission. thank you. [[Special:Contributions/162.201.121.103|162.201.121.103]] ([[User talk:162.201.121.103|talk]]) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

:P.S you don't even have to answer that third question [[Special:Contributions/162.201.121.103|162.201.121.103]] ([[User talk:162.201.121.103|talk]]) 00:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:16, 13 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


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]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Oleg Parashchak Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text is highly promotional. 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. Which independent commentator has described him as "renowned"? Which independent commentator has described his career as "illustrious", or written about his "commitment to innovation and excellence". No Wikipedia article should ever use such evaluative language except in a direct quotation attributed to an impeccably independent source. ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 7 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]

Are you sure you linked to the right page? User:Pioussouls/sandbox has never existed. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 6 September 2023 review of submission by David0296

I don't understand why the submission got declined due to non reliable sources and "not meeting general notability guidelines" while there are similar comparable articles like MGP Junior (Danish TV series) with less and worse references David0296 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David0296 Please read other stuff exists. It could be that this other article is also inappropriate and simply unaddressed. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. See WP:GOODARTICLE. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article you mentioned is marked as problematic(since March). It is inadvisable to use articles with maintenance tags as examples. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David0296: 1TV is not an independent source, Eurovoix by their own admission is "written by Eurovision fans, for Eurovision fans", and the sources cover individual entries or years, rather than discussing this programme in significant depth and extent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)David0296, Wikipedia has over 6.7 million articles, many of which are of poor quality. We do not accept new poor quality articles just because other poor quality articles exist. Instead, editors work 24 hours a day worldwide to either improve or delete poor quality articles. Maybe MGP Junior should be deleted. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERCONTENT. I suggest that you focus on improving your own draft. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, a large majority of articles related to Eurovision need to be deleted because 99% of the sources are websites of broadcasters, social media posts or fanpages like Eurovoix or escplus David0296 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative to deletion, David0296, is to add references to better sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 6 September 2023 review of submission by Misraaa

Keeps getting rejected. Pls advice is needed on what to di Misraaa (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Misraaa: there is nothing you need or can do; this draft has been rejected (after multiple previous declines) and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:06, 6 September 2023 review of submission by 4Corry11

I would like to know exactly how much information this article needs to be Notable for inclusion. Adrenaline peak has its own page so I was thinking the Timberhawk would be nottable. 4Corry11 (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

07:37, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Arpitkhandelwal810

How to Improve ? Arpitkhandelwal810 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arpitkhandelwal810: there is nothing to improve; this draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:PROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling about my self i am publishing my article for the world Arpitkhandelwal810 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...about yourself, correct? Anyway, it has now been deleted; please don't create more of the same. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Atchayampage

pls help me to create Wikipedia for Atchayam trust organization Atchayampage (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Atchayampage: sorry, but the onus is on you to create the articles of interest to you, and especially as a paid editor you shouldn't expect volunteers to contribute to a task for which you are being paid. If you have a specific question, you can come back to this help desk and we will try to answer it, but "help me create" is far too vague and open-ended. Meanwhile, you can find everything you need for article creation at WP:YFA, and useful advice for referencing and notability at WP:REFB and WP:GNG, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Ganovak3

Hello! I would like add connections to other wiki pages on my page about binding energy (vezavna energija), but i can only add the ones in English. I click on the word and then on the symbol chain and all the suggestions i get are in English. How can I find the ones in Slovenian? I checked and the ones that i want actually exist. Thanks. Ganovak3 (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link(you were missing the "Draft:" portion). 331dot (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ganovak3: I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to do (please elaborate?), but just to say that your draft seems to be in Slovenian, whereas this is the English-language Wikipedia and we can only accept content in English. So either you need to translate that into English before submitting, or else submit it to the Slovenian Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thank you. Ganovak3 (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 7 September 2023 review of submission by 204.109.64.61

why isn't this published? 204.109.64.61 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been rejected for failure to demonstrate notability due to inadequate sourcing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Hermodorus

Well there are no other sources except the fact that it is an occult society I created literally a few days ago so I'd like it to be known so what's happening in this occasion Hermodorus (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hermodorus, please read Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Misraaa

I need few chances for improvement on this article and also opportunity to have it submitted. Misraaa (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Misraaa: as I already explained yesterday, this draft has had its chances, and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone deserve another chance and I thought this is a volunteer organization. I didn’t even know the number of submission time is capped as it isn’t stated anywhere the amount of trial anyone has for submissions! Misraaa (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Misraaa: indeed, everyone deserves another chance, but not indefinitely. This draft was declined no fewer than six times, before finally being rejected at the seventh review. We have thousands of drafts awaiting review, we cannot keep working on the same one indefinitely. My advice is to leave it for now, wait until such time as new and better sources have become available (assuming...) which demonstrate notability, and then try again.
Incidentally, what is your interest in this topic? I've posted a COI query on your talk page; please read and action as applicable. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And since there’s room for another chance, how do I update and submit new links when they’re available?? And FYI, I’ve got no any affiliation with the subject/topic, I’m just a fan of his works, that’s all. Misraaa (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no* Misraaa (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Misraaa: you can still edit the draft, you just cannot submit it. If you want new sources to be considered, you need to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. So in practice, you would probably add your sources to the draft, then approach the reviewer and explain how these new sources establish notability in a way that wasn't clear before.
Drafts which have not been edited for six months are automatically deleted. If that happens, you can ask for 'refund', ie. for the draft to be returned to you for further editing (the exact procedure will be explained on your talk page before the draft is deleted). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Misraaa. I am the reviewer who rejected it- if you can prove he can passes the strict WP:NMUSIC criteria then please message me on my Talk Page. If you can't prove that he passes the strict criteria then he cannot have an article at this time. Qcne (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 7 September 2023 review of submission by Hermodorus

How can I create a page for something literally new since the only source is me Hermodorus (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hermodorus: in short, you cannot. Wikipedia articles are created by summarising what independent and reliable published sources have said. Ergo, no sources, nothing to summarise, hence no article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hermodorus Wikipedia is not for telling the world about something you created one day. We want to know what others say about your organization, not what you say about it. You should use social media or a personal website to tell the world about your organization. There are other possible alternative outlets as well. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 7 September 2023 review of submission by 104.247.228.88

I am curious what about the text is specifically making it seem like an advertisement. Also why are the website references not considered reliable? They are not produced by the creator. 104.247.228.88 (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that the original reviewer made the comment that "This reads like press release material." You might want to ask them to elaborate? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 7 September 2023 review of submission by MirzaMukramullahBaig19

help me to create this page creation MirzaMukramullahBaig19 (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MirzaMukramullahBaig19: this draft has been rejected for lack of notability, and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:12:52, 7 September 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by DasKleinesPäckchen


I am hoping someone would be able to help me with the writing of this, since I have no experience in writing textbook-like stuff. I ended up writing it too closely to the articles that I was pulling the information from.

DasKleinesPäckchen (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DasKleinesPäckchen, this is regarding Draft:Worcester_Revolution_of_1774?
You state that The resemblance to that blog post is coincidental, I pulled the information from other pages. This is truly an outstanding coincidence considering your original text matched 97% of the alssar.org blog precisely. With this sort of luck I would suggest playing the lottery. Please don't lie about taking copyrighted materials, we view that exceedingly poorly. Qcne (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article that I wrote it from copied it from that blog post. If I must rewrite it, I will. DasKleinesPäckchen (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 7 September 2023 review of submission by ABDZee

Hey I am new to Wikipedia and I wrote an article about the commonwealth youth council and it got rejected cause there weren't enough references but i cant any info other then there actual website what should i do ABDZee (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ABDZee Nothing you can do, sorry. No references = no article. One of Wikipedia's fundamental pillars is that articles must be referenced. Qcne (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 7 September 2023 review of submission by DCM2015

Why is this page not getting through?? DCM2015 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DCM2015. Only authors who meet the strict WP:NAUTHOR criteria should have Wikipedia articles written about them. Paul does not meet that criteria, sorry. Qcne (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He does meet the criteria! DCM2015 (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our kids have done a project on his books in school, and there was no Wikipedia entry for them to consult! DCM2015 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not be used for scholarly work, at least directly- the sources used in Wikipedia articles are what should be used. If he meets the criteria, you have not yet demonstrated that. Please tell specifically which criteria he meets. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that's a contradiction, as the Wikipedia sources for an author are within their own page. Paul Linnet co-writes with Sue Hendra, and she has a page, so it made no sense to our school that Paul didn't! People wanted to add sources to his page, but there wasn't one, which is why we're trying to rectify that! Sue Hendra's page has similar content so if that page is valid, Paul Linnet's should be too. These people have sold millions of books! I'm not sure who allowed to dismiss an application, but they are clearly very misinformed in this case. DCM2015 (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DCM2015: as requested already, please specify which of the four criteria in WP:NAUTHOR Linnet in your opinion satisfies, and what evidence supports this?
I'm afraid your school kids thinking it strange not to find an article on him is not a criterion for inclusion. And comparing this draft with articles that may exist, which may well have similar shortcomings, is pointless, as we judge drafts with reference to applicable standards and guidelines, not by comparing to other articles. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of them! He has sold nearly 3 million children's books, appears at literary festivals all over the UK and Ireland, and his work has now been made into a BBC TV series going into a second series - which is what the criteria cover. This is someone who warrants a Wikipedia page. We have no affiliation with him or his publisher. Thank you! DCM2015 (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DCM2015: sorry, but without evidence, that's just your opinion. I will ask again: what evidence supports such an assertion?
Which is as good a time as any to point out that this draft is practically unreferenced. There are two sources shown as references, but they aren't of very good quality, and aren't actually cited anywhere in the draft.
We need to see referencing, not just to verify what the draft says, but to establish the subject's notability. This is a core requirement for all articles, but especially ones on living people (WP:BLP). This draft was declined several times on that basis, yet remains virtually unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe I need to work out how better to attach references! I will try to do that. DCM2015 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to thank you now! I didn't know how to add citations! I thought tagging URLs at the end was enough, so I'm learning a lot! ;) DCM2015 (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DCM2015, I'd also recommend the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! DCM2015 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 7 September 2023 review of submission by 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:22

Is the title of the draft okay? Or should it rather be moved to Draft:Eating Our Way To Extinction? Or to phrase it differently: Would the final title of the article be Eating Our Way to Extinction or Eating Our Way To Extinction? 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:22 (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of the draft is not relevant to the draft approval process. Once the draft is accepted, it can be placed at the proper title- you can leave a note on the draft talk page regarding the title. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. But which version of the title (with "to" or "To") is correct according to the wiki practice and shall thus be used in the text of the draft? 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:22 (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on what the title of the film itself is. If the film itself capitalizes the "to", then it should be here, too. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:51, 7 September 2023 review of submission by 105.112.24.191

Notability 105.112.24.191 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a lack thereof. your draft has been rejected and will not be considered again. ltbdl (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

01:39, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Pathania1009

please suggest advice in changing the article Pathania1009 (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you will have been informed, this draft has now been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:16, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Deadstay

The message given "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is very broad and doesn't explain the issues with the page. Deadstay (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deadstay: without commenting on whether or not the rejection was done correctly, the concept of notability is explained in detail in the notability guideline to which the link in the rejection notice points (and further elaborated by the multiple links in the earlier decline notice). Please study those, and if you still have a question after that, come back to us. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still somewhat confused on the topic of notability. What does 'sufficiently notable' mean exactly? How notable does a topic have to be in order for it to mean the 'sufficiently notable' criteria? Deadstay (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Sufficiently notable" means "notable enough for a Wikipedia article". The vast majority of the sources in this draft are about routine activities about it- that it was in development, that it reached Beta, and that it was released- these things happen to every video game. Any article about this game must do more than tell of its existence- it must summarize independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the game- coverage that goes beyond basic information and goes into detail about the significance of the game. For most creative works(films, books, games, etc.) that means independent, unsolicited reviews of the work by professional reviewers. The award nomination doesn't really contribute to that unless there are sources that discuss the significance of the award(to the point where the award itself merits an article, like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks alot. Deadstay (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 8 September 2023 review of submission by ReverseDelay

My submission was declined and the reason stated was: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, my article does cite sources from major news organizations in the country where this article is most relevant. There is also a page on a similar topic that is already approved even if it has the same citation quality. When I looked at the talk page of the editor who rejected my submission, I saw that there were multiple discussions regarding issues about the editor's recent work in AfC. Given these, I think my draft was wrongly disapproved. Can I just resubmit again without further edits? (I'm worried about the note that the draft might be deleted.) ReverseDelay (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ReverseDelay: my take on it, FWIW, is that this draft has been correctly declined, although possibly for the wrong reason. I would have declined it for lack of notability, rather, because I don't think the sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, and as a very new release I doubt it would meet WP:NFILM, either. You may wish to ask the reviewer directly for their rationale in picking that decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:22, 8 September 2023 review of submission by A smart kitten

Hi! I’ve had my draft declined with the reason Fails WP:DISAMBIG. However, with no other explanation or pointers, I admit I’m struggling to understand exactly which part(s) of the guideline my draft fails, so I’m not sure how to improve upon/fix the issues prior to resubmission (or even if the issues are considered fixable). I’d therefore be grateful if an editor could provide me with some extra information on which part(s) of the dab guideine my draft fails.

For context, I created this draft with the intention of greatly reducing the length of the hatnote currently present at Adam West (Family Guy). As there are three links currently there to other ‘Mayor West’s, and a fourth ‘Mayor West’ I found while creating the page (that may also be otherwise added to the hatnote), I thought that this was a good opportunity for a dab page.

All the best

A smart kitten (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A smart kitten: the Adam West (Family Guy) article is considered the primary topic, meaning the majority of people searching for 'Mayor West' are likely to be looking for that. If there were several articles with competing claim to be primary topics, ie. each getting a significant proportion of searches, then a disambiguation would be needed. But I'd wager that nobody (or at least very few people) looking for, say, Ben West, would search for 'Mayor West'. That's my interpretation of it, at any rate; someone with better understanding of dabs may come along shortly. (I recommend reading that DISAMBIG guideline, BTW, if you haven't yet.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing for your response! I understand what you’re saying — all I think I’d really have to say in response to that (at least right now) is that the hatnote has been in place at the article since 2015, was reaffirmed by other editors in 2016 and 2019, and so I’d argue that the hatnote has an implied consensus to remain. I’d also argue that, as the purpose of this draft dab page is to take over much of the functionality of the hatnote, that this implied consensus would also in a way apply to this dab page.
In terms of reading the guideline, I often find it hard to read things like that all in one go; so while I have probably read (or at least skimmed!) a fair bit of it by now, my immediate recap of it isn’t yet enough to be able to refer to it without going back and checking/re-reading the specific bit I want to refer to.
All the best, A smart kitten (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A smart kitten, I have accepted this draft in accordance with my response on the Teahouse. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 10:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Visokoblagorodie

Dear all,

As I have added new sources of Serbian media, please reconsider the article.

Best Regards, Visokoblagorodie (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Visokoblagorodie, as your draft has been rejected you'll need to reach out to the reviewer directly via his talk page, User_talk:Taking_Out_The_Trash. Qcne (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:41, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Igreo

I don't understand what the non-referenced sources are, there are many sources and they are all online from referenced and important sites. Is there something to correct in the wikitext? Thank you Igreo (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Igreo: it's not enough to list sources, they need to be cited with inline citations, so that it's clear which source supports what content. Also, it's not enough to cite each source once, they need to be cited wherever you're making a material or potentially contentious statement, or disclosing some private personal information. There are currently several paragraphs, and the entire 'Private Life' section, without a single citation. See WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice on referencing, and WP:BLP on writing articles on living people. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for the answer, but I ask you a favor: could you give me an example? that is, point me to some statement not supported by a source. In short, I could use a hand to fix the draft. Thanks again Igreo (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Igreo: for example the DOB on the first line, and the 'Private Life' section. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 8 September 2023 review of submission by DCM2015

I have added citations and believe this to now meet the criteria required. DCM2015 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DCM2015: while this is an improvement, in that some of the information is now referenced, some remains unreferenced, and there is still no sign of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep going then! All of those citations make him pretty notable though! Thanks. DCM2015 (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DCM2015, it's not necessarily the amount of citations that make someone notable, but the quality. The sources must pass the WP:SOURCE criteria. We would rather see three good quality sources than 20 poor quality ones. Qcne (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... they don't. None of the sources meets the WP:GNG standard for notability. And I'm still not seeing any credible claim of, let alone evidence for, WP:AUTHOR notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added citations to virtually all the awards and are all reputable sources! Thanks. DCM2015 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will keep going! Learning a lot about Wikipedia in the process! DCM2015 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 8 September 2023 review of submission by NBhistory43

Hey there! I was just wondering what specifically was deemed unreliable (A NYTIMEs review, College Alumni Magazine, Website URLS, additional, etc?) Happy to accommodate what's needed to get this up there. NBhistory43 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NBhistory43: your draft is not referenced, which is required, but instead has inline external links, which are not allowed. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using inline citations and footnotes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

03:42, 9 September 2023 review of submission by EdgarBrown

The article was rejected for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." For this type of article, what additional corroborating information would be acceptable? EdgarBrown (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EdgarBrown: most of the content is unreferenced, with several paragraphs and even whole sections entirely without citations. (Also, at least a couple of the sources you've cited are non-reliable.) In all articles, but especially so in ones on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details such as DOB must be clearly supported with inline citations (next to each statement) to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I still get confused as to non-reliable sources. Could you please tell me which two non-reliable sources you refer to to help me gauge that? There are several of these that I think need to be hear as they are strong movers in the Progressive movement. This just happens to be a first and I am sure I will need much less help soon. Is a website with from the organization giving the Awards sufficient even if not on your reliable source list. How best to corroborate employment or serving on a board whose website in not on reliable list? Again, thanks for your help. EdgarBrown (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't lookekd at the draft or the sources, but it sounds as if you're concentrating on the issue of reliability of sources, but ignoring the equally important (for this purpose) independence. The website of the organization which gave the subject an award is not independent, and so cannot be used to establish that the subject is notable. It may be usable as a primary source; but if the only source for the fact that such and such an award was given is the awarder's own website, one must ask if the award is actually worthy of appearing in an article. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 9 September 2023 review of submission by 223.190.197.127

Whats the probkem . hes is famous in the state kerala 223.190.197.127 (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we don't care if hes is famous in the state kerala, we only care about reliable, independent sources that cover the subject significantly. the draft is only cited to a youtube video and a blog. those aren't reliable. ltbdl (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:32, 9 September 2023 review of submission by TheNewYorkTimesIN

What is the problem in this article, please explain to me in a simple language and if there are some minor mistakes so please suggest.., TheNewYorkTimesIN (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In simple terms, your draft was deleted as promotional. It was also completely unsourced- Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. Please use the new user tutorial and read Your First Article for more information.
If you work for The New York Times, that must be disclosed, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 9 September 2023 review of submission by 87.0.57.85

I made this draft, but what is not accepted? I mean why it's not accepted? What can I do? 87.0.57.85 (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left a message at the top of the draft explaining what the issues were and what you can do. Please also read the policies linked to in that message. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 9 September 2023 review of submission by Gornos

I have created an important article, but it needs grammatical correction and adding English sources because I don't know English well. Please help. Gornos (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gornos: from which source(s) did you get all that information? You need to cite those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a Google translation from Ukrainian and Russian articles. Gornos (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gornos: okay, then cite those. Sources don't have to be in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me, use, for example:
https://mil.in.ua/en/articles/first-trophy-how-russian-crew-passed-mi-8-to-ukrainian-intelligence/ Gornos (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Понял, добавлю Gornos (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I'll add Gornos (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gornos (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gornos Accepted It requires linguistic improvements and will benefit from additional references, but I believe the incident is notable and that the article stands a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process.
I've noted the source pages on the article talk page using the correct template. It is now also linked to Wikidata. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gornos (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 9 September 2023 review of submission by Englishseva

Some edits have been made to the article and would like to resubmit for approval ES (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Englishseva I see no reason to appeal the rejection. The gentleman fails WP:GNG, specifically WP:NPOL, certainly as presented here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my learned friend, in that there is no reason to resubmit, but if you were to do so, you cannot take this up with the rejecting reviewer, so please bring your case to me instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 9 September 2023 review of submission by Psychodrama-trainer

This page draft that I submitted to Wikipedia was denied. This is not a personal business; it is a professional non-profit membership organization, much like the American Art Therapy Association and similar membership groups. I do NOT make any profit in relationship to this group in any way. Please help me find out how I can get this page listed. Psychodrama-trainer (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychodrama-trainer Have you asked the reviewer who declined Draft:American Society of Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama? It's a good place to start. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will look to see if I can locate that person. Psychodrama-trainer (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion in Wikipedia's terms is not limited to commercial promotion. If you are trying to use Wikipedia to tell the world about something, that is promotion. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which the world has already been told about in independent reliably-published sources, and its articles are supposed to summarize what those sources say, nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:29, 9 September 2023 review of submission by Ewhauss

I re-submitted this draft page, adding more sources and details. Can you tell me where it is in the review process? Ewhauss (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it. It is therefore in the unstructured heap of drafts waiting for a reviewer to decide to look at it. ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 9 September 2023 review of submission by Zayani55

i wanna an accepted review pls for this page Zayani55 (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zayani55: the draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

08:02, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Dermacorrect11

How can i Approve this Article Dermacorrect11 (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dermacorrect11: this draft has been rejected and will not therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:07:10, 10 September 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Harshrane21



Harshrane21 (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshrane21 It was deleted as a copyright infringement and as advertising, as your user talk page tells you. You have also been warned there against auditing promotional material 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:43, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Averus19

I have made some changes regarding the lack of notability in the previous draft, can my changes be reviewed and hopefully verified. Averus19 (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Averus19: this draft was rejected and won't therefore be reviewed again. If sources are now available which establish notability, you can make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have posted a query on your talk page about paid editing, please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:13, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Malayalamauthor1

Hi everyone, I’m trying to create a page and it’s getting declined. I have cited the reference from the various indian medias to support the texts (the cited links include times of India special feature about the person in the article and the remaining links are in our Native language malayalam) . Please help me to complete the submission Malayalamauthor1 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Malayalamauthor1: to establish notability per WP:GNG, the sources must be independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject. Of the three sources, the first has the subject commenting on something, the second is an interview, and the third a book review, none of which meet the GNG standard.
BTW, what is your relationship to Mannarkkad? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Naniu9hei

my submission was declined on September,8 but I have since updated it. Can you confirm if the submission is still under review? Thank you for your time and attention Naniu9hei (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the notice on the draft indicates, you have successfully resubmitted it. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Millicentatasie

Hello, Everyone My recent publication was rejected because I included the references from a press release. But that's the only reference I have that talks about DivVerse. Is there any other way I can published an article by citing references about the terms used in the article.. Millicentatasie (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Millicentatasie: Wikipedia articles are created by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. ('Independent' emphatically excludes press releases and other primary sources.) If you cannot find such sources, then you cannot summarise them, and therefore aren't able to draft an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Pakistannewshere

We want to make young talents appear globally using wekipedia 

Pakistannewshere (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pakistannewshere: that may be what you want, but Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting anyone or anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Hubertgromny

Dear Wikipedia Community,

I wrote a draft for a public sculpture "Reversed Dunk" which was constructed in Berlin just recently. I find the topic important as it does reflect on the changes in the city and especially on the construction of EastSide Tower and hosting Amazon headquarters, which will have significant impact on the neighbourhood and the city at large.

As the construction was just built there is not yet proper secondary sources and I referenced the website of artists, the BKK which is association of artists in Berlin which organised competition and website of architecture buro which organised the competition for the sculpture.

From the feedback I understand that my referencing is not accurate, nevertheless I was thinking if to simplify the text to limit it for facts and withraw opinions and readings of symbolic dimension of the artwork. In this case however I wonder if the primary sources will be enough to accept the article---from my perspective it should be all right as they state facts that the sculpture was built and it was a result of the competition.

I would appreciate advice how to make article publishable with this limited amount of sources which axist at the moment, as I believe that wikipedia entry will help other writers to create the secondary sources while researching the artwork and the article will grow with time.

Best wishes, Hubert Hubertgromny (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertgromny So what you are trying to do is get an article created so that others will then see it, write about the topic, and then create the references to put in the article. That's not how this works. If the references do not exist, the subject does not merit a Wikipedia article. A topic must be shown to be notable first- you can't create an article to generate notability. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

Hello! Kindly help me out. Why is this so??? This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Assist me to improve this. Pioussouls (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pioussouls You may appeal the rejection directly with the reviewer who rejected it. Be aware that promotional pieces are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, so consider why they say is is promotional 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pioussouls your article is promotional in nature- it is full of WP:PEACOCK language and is not written from a WP:NEUTRAL point of view.
Despite three declines the language has not improved, which leads me to suspect your only want to promote this person - use Wikipedia to WP:SPAM. This is not permitted. Qcne (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:26, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Seihlanunez22

How do I edit a citation already entered? Seihlanunez22 (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:29, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Melindam15

This was rejected, but don't understand why listing the episodes of a podcast (similar to a tv show) is not the purpose of Wikipedia? Thank you. Melindam15 (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a podcast must not merely list the episodes, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

05:45, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Amcdougle

Hi Im requesting assistance for this article because I was denied. I'm not to sure how I can make the article more credible even with the links I provided and wikipedia citations with the producers name in the other artists wiki page. Amcdougle (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've documented his work, but not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. If you have no such sources, this person would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Raymondsiyluy05

Could you review my draft? Raymondsiyluy05 (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymondsiyluy05: we don't do reviews on demand here at the help desk. The draft has been resubmitted, and will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:10, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Ashok Dhoble

unable to understand why is my submission being declined Ashok Dhoble (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashok Dhoble: the reasons are given in the decline notices, those grey boxes inside the larger pink one; please read them carefully (incl. the linked content), and come back if you still have questions.
I should add that I declined this on those grounds before I noticed the copyright violations, otherwise I might have declined for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 11 September 2023 review of submission by AnglistEd

Hello,

Thanks for your work on this! Can I ask why, precisely, the sources I used are not "reliable"? Do I just need to include more of them? I have now added some more.

Among them, there's a reference to a book which Werner Habicht co-edited, which grew out of a conference he co-organized; his obituary, published in an academic journal; a tribute to him on his 70th birthday, again published in an academic jorunal; and his biographical profiles on at least two reputable websites -- one of which is the website of the Mainzer Akademie, and the other to the Bayerische Akademie: two of Germany's leading scholarly 'academies'.

I will admit that there *is* the problem that most of the sources are in German -- which is inevitable, as the article refers to a Germanist of a generation when a lot of work in English studies published in Germany (not to mention its reception in the form of reviews etc.) was published in the German language itself.

There doesn't seem to be a way round this -- but I want to assure you that Werner Habicht was an extremely eminent and influential figure in the field of English Studies in Germany. User:AnglistEd page. (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AnglistEd: based on a quick glance, the referencing was quite sparse when this was reviewed (still is, to some extent), so it may be a case of "not adequately supported" rather than the sources being non-reliable, per se. That said, I'm only guessing, so I'll ping the reviewer Idoghor Melody in case they can shed more light on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not required that sources be in English. Sources can be in any language. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Nothing wrong with using German-language sources; sources don't have to be in English, per WP:NONENG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer, which may go some way towards explaining the request for revisions. I'd be extremely grateful for Wikipedia NOT to delete the article while I work on revising and adding to the sources. Thank you! User:AnglistEd page. (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be rest assured that it is not going to be deleted. Since you've added more sources and submitted for review, someone else is going to look at the article sooner or later. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Werner Habicht meets our notability criteria.. I have linked to his Wikidata record. You will see a banner at the foot with links to his academic works, or a catalogue thereof. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 11 September 2023 review of submission by TheProEditor11

I wrote a article on Wikipedia about a famous personality, Indian YouTuber and Music actor - Ujjwal Chaurasia, who have currently over 35.4 Million subscribers on YouTube which is one of the largest individual channel in Asia was rejected. Why was it rejected on baseless grounds which states "it does not qualify for Wikipedia's creation since the article is not about a famous person'. My article was written in neat and clean way and the personality is also very famous. (Draft:Ujjwal Chaurasia) Need assistance ASAP because I am feeling sad and depressed since I was working on this article for 6 months (since April) TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheProEditor11 The good news is your draft was declined, not rejected. Here, "rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means it may be resubmitted if you can address the concerns of the reviewer. Note that the decline reason is not as you state- it was "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". Fame and notability- what we are looking for- are not the same thing. A person can be notable but not famous, and famous but not notable. Please read the comments left by reviewers on your draft. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the good news ? I am so sad. I think that the person is both notable and famous. The references added were from DNAIndia, RedBull India, India.com and LiveMint which are said to be the best and powerful news websites from India (except Redbull). Also, I have read all the comments by reviewers. TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is that your draft may be resubmitted, the decline is not final as a rejection would be.
Several of your sources are interviews. Interviews do not establish notability(though they can be used for other purposes). Most of the other sources describe his being included in a video game, which doesn't add to notability unless the significance of this is described(and that sounds more relevant to the game, not to the person). 331dot (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheProEditor11 Please take a pace back, and read carefully. You may resubmit after making the required and recommended changes 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheProEditor11: the draft wasn't rejected, only declined. And the reason it was declined was lack of apparent notability, as defined in Wikipedia terms. We don't care how many YT subscribers he has, or whether it was "written in neat and clean way", or if the person is "very famous". We care whether they satisfy the notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:59, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Chickenb4Egg

I cited the source of the text at the end of the paragraph but got declined. How do I fix this? Chickenb4Egg (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chickenb4Egg Your question is imprecise. Please be specific, and ask again. Ask in this thread.
Thank you for declaring that you are paid for this article. I have migrated the template to your user page where you ought to have placed it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got it answered in the live help, thank you though. Chickenb4Egg (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Xuppu

When I type something, like 1 January 2022 (2022-01-01) How do we make it go in a go like a box? It only says those words on the page when I’m done editing! Thanks! Xuppu (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xuppu Try as I might I do not understand what you have been attempting. Please ask again, with more detail, and ask in this thread. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I want a box like here, List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes if you go to the section that says Series Overview, below that, when I try to make a box like that, it says the code, it doesn’t show to box! If you don’t understand, I’ll try to explain later, thanks! :) Xuppu (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xuppu: your immediate problem is that you haven't closed the template call, it needs the double curly brackets }} to complete it. Try it yourself. (I don't know if that's the kind of 'box' that you actually wanted to create, though.)
That being said, this question isn't really related to the AfC process, this is just basic Wikipedia editing skills, so you should probably ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! :) Xuppu (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Hadley99

Just updated sources. Thank you Hadley99 (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hadley99 If you feel it to be ready for review, please submit it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just submitted. Thank you Hadley99 (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

05:34, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Raheel.Abbas5

Dear Concern,

I hope you are doing great. I have submitted the details about Transparent Hands but it's not getting approved after several attempts. I made a few changes a couple of days ago and am still not sure if this will be approved or rejected. Could you please help me in submission.

Thank you Raheel.Abbas5 (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raheel.Abbas5: you'll have to be more specific – what help do you need, or what question do you wish to ask?
Also, please don't remove earlier AfC declines and comments, they need to stay there until the draft is accepted.
Finally, I've posted on your talk page a question regarding any relationship you may have with this organisation; please read and action it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Jitendrajmaurya

what is missing in it Jitendrajmaurya (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jitendrajmaurya: speedy deletion tag? I'll add it.
Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. This is not the place to tell the world about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 12 September 2023 review of submission by 111.92.45.241

My draft has been rejected for many times now. I have only added reliable sources in the reference. My subject Newton Cinema has produced movies and short films which has got significant coverage and won several prestigious awards. Please let me know the reason behind the rejection 111.92.45.241 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please log into your account when editing. Thanks.
Secondly, please do not remove the earlier AfC tags and comments, as they form a part of the reviewing record until the draft is accepted.
Thirdly, this draft has not been rejected, only declined. The difference being, with a decline, you get to resubmit the draft once you've addressed the decline reasons. With a rejection, that's the end of the road.
As to your question, the latest decline was for lack of notability, as explained in the decline notice, esp. the grey box inside the large pink one. Please read that, incl. the various guidelines that it links to, carefully, and come back if you still have questions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Taibhseoir

Hi, I hope to resubmit this draft - this literary journal and publishing house has been an active part of the Irish literary scene for nearly ten years and I think I've made their significance clear in the text and citations. Is there any other reason this page might be rejected? Taibhseoir (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted if you can address the concerns of reviewers. I'm not clear on how this publisher passes WP:ORG- you've done a nice job telling what the publisher does, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize independent reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage- coverage beyond merely telling of their existence and what they do- showing how they are notable. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 12 September 2023 review of submission by 37.238.91.9

I want to know how I can avoid rejection and accept this article . Please help me or teach me how can I submit the article without rejection. 37.238.91.9 (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that the process for this draft is now at an end, it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Cptcopy

Hello, I would like someone to help me review my new article submission. The initial article was declined because it "read more like an advertisement". I have now rewritten it in a more neutral/encyclopedic tone using citations of articles as the basis of proof of notability. There was also a challenge of 'Conflict of Interest', which there isn't. Thanks in advance for any further input. 

Cptcopy (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cptcopy I fixed your link(it was missing the "Draft:" portion). You have resubmitted it for a review and it is pending.
You didn't pick Mr. Martin at random to edit about him. How did you come to edit about him? 331dot (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the link. Good question, I was looking for a subject that didn't already have a page, which can be tricky (I tried lots of searches based around my interests including publishing, history of my local area, TV Series and Books but didn't find a gap anywhere). I am interested in Typography and Design - and I knew of Pablo Martin when he was working at Atlas studio, and saw that his then business partner Astrid Stavro does have a page. I Googled, and there were a number of articles online about him that I figured would help me write a page, so I gave it a go. It was a challenge I set myself to edit a page from scratch, although I'm starting to question why myself now! Cptcopy (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just quickly looking, I would suggest that the "teaching posts" and "Recognition" sections just be removed. Awards do not usually contribute to notability unless there is an article about the award itself(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award) or if there is otherwise extensive discussion on the significance of the award and its being given to the subject. The Teaching posts section adds nothing to notability.
I'm also concerned about "While in Majorca he partnered with the charitable foundation Esmet, set up to support people with intellectual difficulties, suggesting the EnsaimadArt concept as a means of celebrating the foundation's 50th birthday and raising funds. The project brought together a who's who of the visual arts to design a sticker to be placed on boxes containing ensaïmadas - a Majorcan sweet pastry. The small-scale charitable initiative ended up a global phenomenon, attracting the participation of international stars such as Wim Crouwel, Vince Frost, Paul Sahre, Javier Mariscal, and three-star Michelin chef Carme Ruscalleda". This adds nothing to notability as it just describes that he was involved and associated with notable people. Notability is not inherited by association, and this passage does not describe the significance of his involvement. Did the charity raise more money because of his involvement? You describe it as a "global phenomenon" but I see nothing that attributes this to his involvement. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take your point on Teaching Posts and Recognition, I will remove those. Thanks
I had a few reasons for including the EnsaimadArt section, it was an article in Wallpaper magazine - which I thought lent gravitas. The article implied success, although I can't find any further detail on the amount of money raised. I also thought that his association with such international stars would add notability - but I see that isn't the case. The Wallpaper article also features some of the gorgeous designs these international contributors came up with, which I thought made nice further reading for design geeks like myself. Cptcopy (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that a particular outlet publishes about a person doesn't contribute to notability- that publication must go into detail about the significance of the person(example, John Public headlined X event and the organizers of X event said many donors gave money due to his speech/activities") 331dot (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to advise Cptcopy (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Ahmed.bn.hossain

What is the reason for this article to be rejected, despite all the reliable sources in the article, the article was rejected, please explain Ahmed.bn.hossain (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the rejection was given (the notices must remain on the draft), "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion". Rejection meams it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

Kindly check now!!! I revamped the whole content. Is it acceptable now!!!! Pioussouls (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means the draft will not be considered further. No amount of editing can change this. You will need to move on from this. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pioussouls 7 of your references are to Wikipedia articles - this is not permitted, see WP:CIRCULAR. Qcne (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:57, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Adambanks11

Edited to reflect feedback (main point was that the page read like an advertisement). However, the page has now been edited down to only include the intro and company timeline, which is historical fact. Adambanks11 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adambanks11: this draft has been rejected, and as there is no evidence of notability, there seems no reason to review it again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not apparent to me what I must do further to get the page accepted. Since the last rejection I have removed a whole section and now the page only has an introduction and a timeline of the company, short and factual, and does not read like an ad. Adambanks11 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing you can do further - rejection means that the page can not become an article. You can try to appeal to the reviewer directly via their Talk Page. Qcne (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adambanks11: every article must demonstrate that the subject is notable, which in most cases means citing sources which satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard. This requires significant coverage of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. (And in any case, the draft has been rejected.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Zabir939

This page is wright for PowerTe CEO. Zabir939 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zabir939: I don't know what you just said, but this draft has been rejected and is awaiting deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 12 September 2023 review of submission by 102.220.159.102

because everytime we try to create an article about him you guys delete it immediately 102.220.159.102 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wonder why that is... Could you stop, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Thedirtlover

Well, i was writing this about an event/death about Porshe Crash history Not for the news, its also to make people realize that driving fast, drinking, etc… is bad, i know wiki isnt a news page, but i want to make learn people that Driving fast, etc… is dangerous.

Thank you. Thedirtlover (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thedirtlover: did you have a question you wanted to ask? As you say, and did the reviewer, Wikipedia is not a news website, it is an encyclopaedia. Besides, your draft is entirely unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all i did is write a wikipage about a crash on the Autobahn 14, which i got information from polanddaily24 (news site) and they said to me that wiki is nor a news site, but i tried my best to make it a good page, plus im on a Iphone which annoy me more Thedirtlover (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I empathise. I don't like iPhones, either. ;)
I've now rejected this draft, so can we leave it at that, please. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dude, that’s why reverse wiki is better Thedirtlover (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's where you should go to write about this sort of thing. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok boz Thedirtlover (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 12 September 2023 review of submission by 62.255.128.58

Can you provide more detail on why the referenced sources are not considered reliable enough? 62.255.128.58 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because five of the seven citations are to works authored or edited by the subject; anyone can say whatever they want about themselves. We need to see what others have said; 'others' meaning secondary sources that are fully independent of the subject, and have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think you may have posted this while logged out- remember to log in when posting. I fixed your link(you were missing the "Draft:" portion). Five of your references are to her own works, which are not an independent source. The rest do not seem to be significant coverage of Alida, showing how she meets the definition of a notable creative professional. Notability is not inherited by association; if she had an influence on Charlotte Mew, that might be better placed as part of Charlotte Mew, not as a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:09, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Lo9999*

Please what can I do about this issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:197.148.73.155 Lo9999* (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lo9999*: you can't, other than maybe wait for the SPI to be done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Dukology

I need help to tidy up the references to have this article approved Dukology (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have far too many references for such a short draft. As I said in my decline comment, please find the three (And only three) best sources that demonstrate how this person meets the WP:NPEOPLE criteria. The sources must show significant coverage, be reliable, independent, and secondary - not interviews or PR pieces or passing mentions. Qcne (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dukology (ec) As noted by reviewers, you have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. Please choose the three best sources you have and summarize those three sources only. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dukology: you have four sentences, and 34 (!!) citations; almost every word is referenced. As the reviewer said already, pick the three strongest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 12 September 2023 review of submission by SaiSanF

I created an article about this artist, originally as a literal translation of the Spanish Wikipedia entry (I have experience as a translator and am interested in DIY/political and feminist art). The draft submission was declined because the article "read more like an advertisement". I fully agreed with that statement: when I started rewriting it, I realized that the original authors had copied and pasted a lot of content (from the references used) that had been posted in gallery websites and cultural media with the intention of promoting the artist's work to get visitors. Thus the "advertisement" tone.

I've done some editing to try to improve the point of view and keep it as neutral as possible. Also, no references are used that have been produced by the subject being discussed. Still, I'm afraid to resubmit because I'm unsure of whether the draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.

I would love to have another pair of experienced eyes take a look at the new version of the article and let me know if it reads like a proper encyclopedia entry, or what is there to improve.

Thanks so much to anyone willing to help out! Really appreciate it. SaiSanF (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews; the best way to get feedback is to submit it for a review. Drafts are not deleted merely for being declined or even rejected. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:48, 12 September 2023 review of submission by People for all

Because I keep making changes to this page, and its never getting approved. I want this page to be published as soon as possible. People for all (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@People for all: why ASAP? Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline.
In any case, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your user talk page for important information requiring a response. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:42, 12 September 2023 review of submission by DerekTheAnonymousWriter

Why was it rejected, and I have nowhere else to upload it too. DerekTheAnonymousWriter (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:08, 13 September 2023 review of submission by 162.201.121.103

Hello, i have created a page under the url "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wii_003_error". i know that it is kinda crappy and was written in just a few miniutes but i just want a little more details on why it was declined, what i did wrong and what i can do to make it fit for submission. thank you. 162.201.121.103 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S you don't even have to answer that third question 162.201.121.103 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1175129620"