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
Line 543: Line 543:


How to dispute? Please a new review. [[User:RJ SR-NL|RJ SR-NL]] ([[User talk:RJ SR-NL|talk]]) 15:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
How to dispute? Please a new review. [[User:RJ SR-NL|RJ SR-NL]] ([[User talk:RJ SR-NL|talk]]) 15:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

:You should first attempt to appeal to the reviewer directly to see if you can persuade them to see it your way. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


== 15:25, 19 September 2023 review of submission by MichaelAM ==
== 15:25, 19 September 2023 review of submission by MichaelAM ==

Revision as of 15:38, 19 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 13

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]
The first & second source are user-generated so it is unreliable. The third source is not independent nor give in-depth coverage. Ca talk to me! 04:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 13 September 2023 review of submission by SilverQuill27

I need help regarding character summaries for a movie. Can I use text from websites and are they allowed in the draft after providing citations?

I have removed the text blocks that a reviewer struck down and have replaced them with paraphrased sentences. It would be helpful to know if any further modifications are necessary! :) 

SilverQuill27 (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:16, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Maq Zeeshan

Hello,

I'm curious about the reasons for the rejection of my paper. If it was due to a lack of resources, I want to clarify that the subject matter is my hometown, and unfortunately, there is limited information and reliable articles available on this topic. Most of the content in my paper is based on my personal experiences, making it challenging to provide external references. However, I did include the few available references that I could find.

Thank you for your consideration. Maq Zeeshan (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maq Zeeshan I fixed your link(it was missing the "Draft:" portion). If there are no independent reliable sources about your hometown, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. No amount of editing can change that. Your personal experiences are not acceptable as sources, either. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I understand your decision to decline the submission of this page's publish, although I do not for sure agree the topic is not sufficiently notable. There are quite a few independent and reliable sources about Skycop in Lithuanian but those were not included because it is in different language. I was also planning on translating this topic to Lithuanian language (as it is a Lithuania based company and is rather notable in there) and including those sources then. However, sources that are used for this page are not promotional and were published independently. Please, let me know if I can change anything to make this topic public on Wikipedia. Iamlenaluna (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iamlenaluna This draft already existed before you began editing it, as a company employee created it. Are you in communication with the company about the draft?
Sources do not need to be in English- if the sources available are in Lithuanian, you can certainly use them. However, rejection typically means that a draft will not be considered further. If Lithuanian sources provide more information, please discuss that with the last reviewer.
Note that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. Any article about the company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the company, showing how it meets the definition of a notable company. There are certain claims made like "played a significant role" but it is not said who considers the role significant and what that role was. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Microarc

This article was declined by Superboilles, the reason given being: "...rather than describing her latest works need to focus on JZ's life that can then feed a biography."

When I replied, I never got an answer, so I thought I'd seek assistance here. Here's how I responded to Superboilles' reason for declining:

Thanks for your message. What I don't understand: Isn't a new entry on a filmmaker more valuable when it focuses on his or her work? After all, in the case of a filmmaker, the significant coverage that is required deals first and foremost with his or her work, not his or her personal life. That's what makes an artist notable (or not). Maybe I'm wrong? Microarc (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sources available are about her work, then it's likely that it is the work itself that is notable and not her personally. A creative professional can create notable works without being notable themselves. For an article about her personally, there must be independent reliable sources that discuss her importance as a filmmaker or person as well as her life generally. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification. This still doesn't make sense to me, though: "A creative professional can create notable works without being notable themselves." A body of notable work defines a person's notability as a creative professional, doesn't it? Microarc (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Microarc: it can do, but not automatically or necessarily; if you see the special WP:CREATIVE notability guideline, some works may be so significant that they make their creator inherently notable, but that is quite an extreme scenario, and applies in the exception rather than as a rule. For example, a book may be notable by simply being critiqued in a few publications, but that would still fall far short of being so important or even seminal as to make its author notable per CREATIVE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, according to the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline, a creative professional is notable if:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) Microarc (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Microarc: you don't need to quote verbatim what it says in the guideline, we all know if, and if we don't, we can always look it up. Instead, what you need to do is demonstrate – including producing the necessary evidence – how the subject meets this standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What DoubleGrazing is telling you (correctly) is that criterion only applies in very rare cases- and as I say below, generally that work would have to be on the level of Shakespeare or Edgar Allen Poe or even Stephen King. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's just not what the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline says. If a person has created well-known work that is also widely reviewed, that's apparently sufficient for that creative professional to meet the standards of notability. Or maybe I'm wrong? Microarc (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show that the work is "widely reviewed"- and again, that is going to need to be on a very high level. Perhaps Shakespeare is an extreme example, but the point is her work will need to have been reviewed and analyzed very extensively, and you haven't shown that yet. A few reviews here or there are insufficient. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was helpful now. (What concerned me in the first place was this reviewer's insistence on the subject's life being more central than his or her work, which I found strange in the context.) Microarc (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE is a subset of the notability guidelines for people which itself is essentially a subset of the general notability guidelines. Most other articles rely on the broader guidelines, not the narrower ones. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably her work would need to be on the level of William Shakespeare's work to merit an article merely based on her work. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the benchmark, 99% of entries about creative professionals alive today would have to be deleted. Also, that's not what the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline says. Microarc (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There likely are many inappropriate articles among our millions of articles. We can only address what we know about. Most of those 99% probably merit articles for other reasons- not merely for the fact that their body of work exists, which is what you are claiming here. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Microarc: that would only be true, if all articles on creative professionals relied on CREATIVE for their notability. The vast majority of articles rely on the general WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for helping! Microarc (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Convex geometry

There are already dozens of articles for Fellows of the American Mathematical Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Mathematical_Society) where their work and career are described and who have not received further prizes etc. Why is this one rejected? Convex geometry (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convex geometry It was not rejected, only declined. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that a draft may be resubmitted if the concerns of the reviewer can be addressed. Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note you have re-submitted without addressing my concern of the references, so I am forced to decline again @Convex geometry Qcne (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the reference to the website and the information taken from it. I added a reference to the Member Pages of the Institute of Advanced Study. I suppose that is a reliable reference.
He is a Fellow of the AMS and many (more than thousand) fellows have pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Mathematical_Society Convex geometry (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Convex geometry. I am unsure if being a fellow of the American Mathematical Society is an eligibility criteria on WP:NACADEMIC #4, so feel free to re-submit and another reviewer can have a look and I'll post a comment. Qcne (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Convex geometry I've re-submitted it on your behalf. Qcne (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Convex geometry As stated in my decline notice this person may be notable under WP:NACADEMIC but we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Nearly all your sources are WP:PRIMARY. Qcne (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:47, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

Hello I have edited the whole. Can you please review and share your valuable insight? I am waiting for your kind input. Pioussouls (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed since the rejection, such as new information that the reviewer did not consider, you should first attempt to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pioussouls. You still have inappropriate language: esteemed, dedicated focus on economics, valuable experience, profound analysis, fresh insights, proud proprietor, fostering networking etc. Please closely read WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK.
You must also remove all external links from the body of the text, see WP:EXTERNAL. Qcne (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 13 September 2023 review of submission by YordleSquire

Hello, I submitted an article for review and was declined for WP:NPOLITICIAN. I'm thankful for the review and reminder about that specific policy.

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

The general notability guideline states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

There is coverage from reliable sources of record: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/us/politics/susanna-gibson-virginia.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/ https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-of-delegates-sex-acts-9e0fa844a3ba176f79109f7393073454 https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-sex-acts-c2a130b84452b524279b0a496fca2c99

But I am too new here to assert that the coverage is significant. Thinking about the policies again, it might also fail WP:RECENT

If she wins her race, then I think I am safe to resubmit. But otherwise, I would appreciate any guidance on what counts as significant coverage. 

YordleSquire (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy is related to her running for office, so I'm not really sure it contributes to her meeting the broader WP:BIO instead of the narrower WP:NPOLITICIAN- unless there is something additional to hang our hat on, like someone being charged under Virginia's laws related to the dissemination of the video(the conduct described in the sources is not illegal itself). Yes, if she wins, she will definitely merit an article at that time. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thank you! The scope of the controversy falls under WP:NPOLITICIAN YordleSquire (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YordleSquire: you're certainly right to consider not just the publications but the extent and depth of the articles; I think in this case the sources may be enough to show notability. However, the bulk of the draft, and if they are anything to go by, her main claim to fame (or perhaps rather infamy) for the time being is the video controversy, and that probably puts this under WP:BLP1E at least until such time as she gets elected and becomes more of a public persona. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E is a good policy to know. Thank you! YordleSquire (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the draft summary to contextualize why her race may be notable.
AP: "The race has attracted large amounts of spending and interest for an off-year legislative race." ... "The parties are waging intense legislative battles as GOP rising national political star Gov. Glenn Youngkin looks to bolster his conservative agenda with full control of state government."
However I will not resubmit unless there is further development. YordleSquire (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Saparagus

The page I initiated was declined. The first time was reasonable - it was really a stub, intended to be filled in later. However, the second submission had certainly met the requirements for academic notability, as far as I can tell from the website. Could you please let me know what is still lacking in this page to be released ?

Important: once the page is released, many other colleagues will contribute additional details. Thank you. Saparagus (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saparagus: if you're relying on one of the special notability guidelines, in this case WP:NACADEMIC, you need to make it clear which of the criteria is met, and provide evidence to support that. I note that quite a lot of the content is unreferenced (which in itself is grounds for declining, as this is an article on a living person), so it could be that the claim for NACADEMIC notability is there, but just isn't referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the criteria, and criteria 1-6 are met, and substantiated with plenty of references, as far as I can tell.
Should I list here all these criteria AND their corresponding references on the draft page ?
Criterion 3 - that's references 3 and 4: fellowship in a prestigious international organization.
Criterion 1 (and 4) - reference 11: a textbook used worldwide in university education.
Criterion 6 - he held chairmanship of CIMS/NYU department of Computer Science (one of the top schools in CS).
Criterion 7 - his work with Defense agencies, references 7,8
Criterion 1 - reference 10: a huge number of citations on Google Scholar, that means enormous impact worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saparagus (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know,
Thanks again. Saparagus (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saparagus Anyone may contribute to the draft now, they don't need to wait. They should declare their status as colleagues per WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I understand that. However, I was more referring to the criteria, which I see as fulfilled - please see the detailed breakdown above.
Could you please address that question - why are the criteria not sufficiently fulfilled?
Please note that two (at least) of his doctoral students (Friedman, Ji) have Wikipedia pages..
Thank you. Saparagus (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not his doctoral students have articles is absolutely not a factor here; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Saparagus: without commenting on whether or not this person meets NACADEMIC, I do think you're being quite liberal in your interpretation. For example, #6 refers to the "president or chancellor... of a university [etc.]", not to chairmanship of an individual department. Similarly, #3 requires membership of not just a "prestigious", but "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" or "fellow[ship] of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor". And while an h-index of 67 (RE your last point, ref #1) is certainly respectable, I don't know if I would describe it as "huge" for very topical areas of science such as CS, AI, etc. Again, I'm not saying these categorically aren't enough to satisfy NACADEMIC, only that the case isn't necessarily quite so self-evident as you make it out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, thank you for your response. Could you please clarify what we are arguing about? The guidelines say that even one criterion is sufficient for inclusion. OK, let's ignore his Chairmanship at a top CS Department in the country (certainly one of the top 10 according to academic ratings). Are we arguing about Criterion #3? ACL is the top organization in the field, there is no more important body in CL/NLP. A highly selective organization, granting ACL Fellow status is a huge deal, given to only a couple of top scientists each year -- as per the references provided in the article.
Also, he has been President of ACL, is that liberal interpretation too?
H-index of 67 with 23K+ citations is an indication of a massive impact on the scientific community in CS. (This is not biology, the citations in this field are not inflated.)
Which of these requirements is still not unmet?
Once again, my initial submission had no references, I apologize for that: I had created WP pages previously, clearly before the notability criteria were elaborated, and I had assumed I could do the same this time. Now a set of references is provided.
Thank you again. Saparagus (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 13 September 2023 review of submission by User09110

Added an independent source to the text and based it on straight facts. User09110 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to submit the draft for another review. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 13 September 2023 review of submission by 62.211.143.48

Hi, since i'm editing my draft, I saw Wikipedia pages with references to YouTube and social media. But why? 62.211.143.48 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because they have probably slipped through the net. It is rarely an acceptable style of reference 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A large majority of YouTube videos are not reliable sources. However, videos posted on the official YouTube channels of reliable media outlets are accepted as reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Annubana

why this page declined to publish ? anangpal 18:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Annubana The reason was left by the reviewer. Do you have a question about it? 331dot (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat, @Annubana: none of your references are from independent secondary sources, therefore you have not proven notability under WP:NORG Qcne (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added government links, third party linked including organisation's web link why government links not considered as independent sources ? anangpal 18:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
sorry to say but in reference you can see government of india website link which was published by govt. so how can you say not independent secondary sources ? anangpal 18:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annubana (talk • contribs)
The .gov.in sources are primary. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which links are secondary ? company website and other websites write about company right ? if yes this also added in reference.
please help me to write this article anangpal 19:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annubana (talk • contribs)
Annubana, the question you need to answer (in fact, the question you needed to answer right at the beginning, before you even created a draft) is "Where have people wholly unconnected with IPOSIS, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of IPOSIS, chosen to write in depth about IPOSIS, and been published in places with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control?"
If you have some answers to that question, then those are the sources that you need to base almost the whole draft on: the sources you currently cite are nearly irrelevant, because 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.
If you cannot find several such sources, then IPOSIS does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and any further time you spend on this draft will be wasted.
By the way, please sign your posts here. If you don't, a bot adds a signature, but people replying to you cannot use the "reply" feature. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Annubana

My Wikipedia page for IPOSIS has recently been declined in review. I would greatly appreciate guidance and assistance in addressing the issues raised in the decline and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and reliability. I'm looking for advice on how to make the necessary improvements and resubmit the article successfully. please help to create this article. Thank you for your assistance. anangpal 19:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You have failed to provide references to reliable secondary sources that are entirely independent of IPOSIS that devote significant coverage to IPOSIS. Without such references, the draft cannot be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Amaing!

Why was my page declined? Hello, I was wondering why my article about High Park Public School was declined? Amaing! (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amaing! I fixed your post for proper display and to provide a link to your draft. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaing! Elementary schools are not inherently notable. Draft:High Park Public School is an elementary school.The reviewer has said as much, but in different words 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the only source you provide is the school district website. There would need to be signficant coverage of this school in independent reliable sources in order for it to merit an article. Even schools where traumatic events have occurred rarely merit standalone articles- see Sandy Hook Elementary School(the site of a mass murder), which redirects to the school district article. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Salma wahwah

I've been trying to publish this article but I am not sure what I should change.

It says it looks like a resume but I am not sure what I should remove or update

Your help is really appreciated Salma wahwah (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Salma wahwah. You need to find multiple reliable sources that are entirely independent of Romi and that devote significant coverage to Romi. Then format those sources as references and neutrally summarize what they say. Links to gallery websites are of no value in establishing notability because they are in the business of exhibiting and selling the artist's work. Interviews of Romi are also of no value in establishing notability, because they are not independent of Romi. Please read WP:ARTIST. Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

02:10, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Ryuaelv1407

My draft has been declined since 9 September 2023. Can someone help me to review it again? Ryuaelv1407 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please see our rules on paid-contribution disclosure at WP:PAID. You are required to disclose any connections you have with organizations that have paid you to edit. I also suggest you read through our policies at WP:Conflict of Interest. It is highly discouraged to write articles in which you have a conflict of interest, and in most cases they will be deleted. If your organization is truly notable, someone will eventually write an article about it. In regards to your draft, please keep in mind that drafts are reviewed in no specific order, and reviewers are not obligated to review any specific drafts. Just because your draft was reviewed quickly before, does not mean it will happen again. Please feel free to ask any other questions you might have. I also would like to invite you to the teahouse, a place where you can ask questions about Wikipedia that will be answered by other Wikipedians. Thanks, StartOkayStop (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the excellent advice from @StartOkayStop, I would recommend showing your boss the following essay: WP:BOSS @Ryuaelv1407. Qcne (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ryuaelv1407, references to general coverage of stem cells and anti-aging techniques are of zero value. Remove them. What is required are references to reliable sources entirely independent of the Swiss Stem Cell company that devote significant coverage to the Swiss Stem Cell company. Without several such references, your draft cannot possibly be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryuaelv1407: despite not usually doing on-demand reviews, I have reviewed your draft, and declined it. It is unacceptably promotional, and as such I'm considering whether to request that it is deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing channel for your business. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Huzaifakumo

Please the organization is notable and references are added but still rejected! Huzaifakumo (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Huzaifakumo: your draft was only declined, not rejected, meaning you can resubmit the draft once you've addressed the decline reasons.
References are only references if they actually support something in the draft. Adding links to websites' home pages doesn't help, you need to point to the actual URL which verifies what you've said in the draft.
Notability is demonstrated by the sources, not by you saying that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:34, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Dnlazr

Hello Good day. I am Danial and this is my first time I writing an article. May I know what is wrong with this article that it get rejected. Let me fix it. Thank you. Dnlazr (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dnlazr: it was entirely promotional, completely unreferenced, and looked like a copypaste text dump from somewhere (although I couldn't find an online source for it). It has now been deleted, so there's nothing to 'fix'. If you want to try again, you need to start by finding reliable and independent secondary sources that have covered the subject, summarise (in your own words) what they've said, and cite those sources in the draft. See WP:YFA for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! Kindly, can you please check now!!!! Tell me is this ok? Or there is still improvement needed? If yes.. Can you please specify?? Waiting for your kind response. Thanks Pioussouls (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pioussouls: I believe you've been advised already that rejected drafts are not considered further. Your only option is to make a case directly to the reviewer who rejected it, although looking at the draft, I don't see much grounds for an appeal. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "don't see much grounds for an appeal." Pioussouls (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved a lot. Do specify how to improve or which is not appropriate? Pioussouls (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please guide me how to appeal or make a case directly to the reviewer who rejected it? Pioussouls (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am the reviewer who rejected it, @Pioussouls, as I have mentioned previously. It has been explained to you that articles that are biographies of living people must pass the strict WP:NPEOPLE guidelines. The easiest way to pass is for there to be significant coverage of Oleg in multiple, independent, secondary sources. I am going to go through your sources one by one:
1) Medium.com: a WP:PRIMARY source so can't be used to establish notability.
2) Britannica: no mention of Oleg.
3) investopedia: no mention of Oleg.
4) Beinsure: not WP:INDEPENDENT of Oleg.
5) finca: no mention of Oleg.
6) jsu: no mention of Oleg.
7) aeaweb: no mention of Oleg.
8) uc.edu: no mention of Oleg.
9) Wikipedia: please read WP:CIRCULAR.
10) knu: no mention of Oleg.
11) forinsurer: not WP:INDEPENDENT of Oleg.
12) economiclaw: not WP:INDEPENDENT of Oleg.
13) iie.org.ua: no mention of Oleg.
14) nas.gov.ua: no mention of Oleg.
As you can see then, not a single one of your sources can be used to prove how Oleg passes the WP:NPEOPLE criteria. Therefore my rejection is still valid.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Migo47

Helllo , I am requesting your assistance because this draft page (which should be titled as “Capucine clock “) has been rejected because it was “not adequately supported by reliable sources “ However this page is the exact translation in English of the original page in French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendule_Capucine which was submitted and accepted on 26/03/23. As explained in this page  : “ … there is very little published documentation and no dedicated book, on this type of clock, which explains the frequent confusion between Capucine clocks, officer's clocks and carriage clocks.“ This was the reason why I decided to write this page I hope that this can be resolved Many thanks for your help Migo47 

Migo47 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Migo47. Your draft has been 'declined', not 'rejected'. This means you may re-submit it for review once you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer.
Unfortunately the French and English Wikipedias have different policies- what is acceptable on the French Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. One of the key pillars of the English Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability. If there is "very little published documentation" then your topic can not have a Wikipedia article. No sources = no article.
You do have a reference list in your draft, but we'd need to see a full reference with title, author, date, URL if possible, etc. Please see WP:INTREFVE for a tutorial on referencing. Qcne (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the difference between English and French wikipedias.
I have worked hard to reference this article and cannot invent things which do not exist.
i am very disappointed by your attitude and I will stop contributing to Wikipedia as well as financing it . Good bye
migo47 Migo47 (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What an oddly hostile reply to my perfectly polite and reasonable message? Qcne (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When someone explains to you policies and practice, that is not "attitude", that is advice. If you don't wish to receive advice, don't ask for it. Qcne's remarks were entirely appropriate and correct. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may not see a difference between English and French Wikipedia, but it is there.
I'm sorry that you feel disappointed. Many many many many people try writing articles for English Wikipedia (whether by translation or starting from nothing), without first understanding English Wikipedia's policy and checking for notability. This is like building a house without checking local building ordinances ("but there's a house like this in that other country!", and without surveying the land to make sure it is suitable to build on ("I know what a house looks like, and I think this is a superb site!").
Please read WP:Translation. ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that making donations or withholding donations has no impact on this situation. Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on, and they are not involved in day to day operations as us volunteers are. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Jebimathew

I have rewritted the draft for this page, and waiting re-review. Kindly help us to add this wikipedia page. Thankyou Jebimathew (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jebimathew, your draft has been submitted for review and an reviewer will get to it in due course. Please note Wikipedia accounts are strictly for the use of one person, your usage of us suggests this is a shared account. Please see WP:NOSHARING. Qcne (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Shamailaijaz

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Shamailaijaz (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shamailaijaz I fixed your link for proper display(the whole URL is not used in such a situation). You are repeating the decline reason back to us, but do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please very carefully read WP:VERIFY, @Shamailaijaz. Qcne (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 14 September 2023 review of submission by AliUmairCh

Hi, this is a noted documentary film that has been struggling to get an article published for it. There are numerous dedicated, original articles from reputed Canadian news sources that are available online and have been cited. The film premiered at the National Art Gallery of Canada with Prime Minister Trudeau in attendance, and has had over 30 festival and independent screenings in the last year, and is a registered film in Canada. Perhaps the issue is in the way that the article has been written / referenced - can anyone assist? AliUmairCh (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AliUmairCh: while not mandatory, you could help the reviewers by citing your sources inline (see WP:REFB, WP:ILC), as this makes it far easier to see which source supports what information, and how much of the content remains unsupported.
There are also a number of inline external links, as has previously been pointed out. These do not count as references. Worse still, they are actually not allowed. If you're relying on those to verify the contents, you should again convert them to inline citations instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Dukology

why is the article still having notability issues, is there a better way to present the references i sourced? Dukology (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Omert33

The article keeps getting rejected (unjustifiably in my view) on account of "notability" even though the subject is a well-known businessman and entrepreneur in his field and not just in Israel, but also in The U.S., China, India, and other places, with several articles and news interviews covering him beyond mere mention and all this is without even going into the fact that Mr. Dror is without a doubt a prominent and leading figure in the ongoing judicial reform protest is Israel who is constantly sought after by mainstream television news media and radio. This is extensively reflected in the current draft and yet for some reason it keeps on being rejected. --Omer Toledano (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Omert33. Wikipedia articles about living people must both be written to the WP:BLP guidelines, but also the person must pass WP:NPEOPLE (or one of its subcategories). To pass the latter, there must be significant coverage of the person in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Let me go through a random selection of your sources:
1) forbes.com: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
2) haaretz.co.il: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
3) haaretz.co.il: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
4) timesofisrael.com: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
14) 1075.fm: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
20) timesofisrael.com: a passing mention, so cannot be used to establish notability.
29) mizbala.com: this just appears to be a PR piece.
30) shine.cn: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
33) business-standard.com: a press release, so not independent.
36) aspeninstitute.org: a primary source, so cannot be used to establish notability.
40) douban.com: a script of a press conference, so cannot be used to establish notability.
45) youtube.com: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
48) scmp.com: a passing mention, so cannot be used to establish notability.
50) 103fm.maariv.co.il: an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
59) inn.co.il: checkY this is a secondary source offering some analysis and interpretation!
60) the7eye.org.il: checkY this is a secondary source offering some analysis and interpretation!
I hope you can see from my random smattering of sources, that it looks like the vast majority of your sources are just interviews with Dror where he explains what he stated or did, instead of secondary reporting on what Dror stated or did. Interviews cannot be used to establish notability as they are not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject.
I actually think this is a well written article and Dror may indeed merit an article at some point, but it was reviewed 7 times and your sources did not seem to give proof that Dror passed that strict WP:NPEOPLE threshold.
As the article was rejected, you'll need to go directly to the final reviewer and explain if you have substantially changed the sources in the draft.
I hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Dukology

I have been making progress with understanding and applying the guidelines as it has to do with writing and editing articles, but does it mean the notability refers to being very famous? because if what I gather from allowed resources to reference my articles are interpreted by the user who declined the article to be what was said by the individual, what happens then considering what was said was independently reported by witnesses who heard what was said,and I believe reports are a product of what is said or done. secondly the issue of quoting more than one source carrying the same report may have been an oversight which has been corrected,but could different platforms not write about a subject depending on the way information was sourced? Dukology (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dukology. Notability in the Wikipedia context has a very specific meaning. Please carefully read the following: WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE which lay out precisely what we mean by 'notable'.
The second part of your question seems to be asking the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources? We much prefer secondary sources- you can use primary sources only in limited ways which are explained in that link.
The third part of your question: it is totally fine to source a specific statement from multiple sources (as long as both sources are reliable, independent, and ideally secondary). However source #1 and #5 were exactly the same in content; this suggests they were just regurgitating a press release, which means although the sources may have been independent the content was not.
I hope that answers your questions?
I will note however, your draft has been rejected. This means you are not permitted to re-submit it. If you believe you have fundamentally improved/changed the draft since the last rejection, please reach out directly to the reviewer @S0091. Qcne (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some adjustments to the draft,and will improve the sources as stated,so @S0091, kindly remove the stop so I can resubmit when I am done. Thank you for your support Dukology (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note, @Dukology, that his education is still unsourced. Every single material fact in a WP:BLP must be cited. Qcne (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
noted,i will reference it accordingly
thank you very much Dukology (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Thetaylorboyer

I was informed that the subject hadn't received enough significant coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page. The subject's predecessor has received far less coverage but still has a page. I have sources regarding the subject's appointment and dismissal -- hardly passing mentions -- among other things. I want to ensure I'm on the right track and would appreciate more guidance here. Thetaylorboyer (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thetaylorboyer: what is your question, exactly? You've resubmitted the draft and it is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

06:18, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Ana Padovana

I believe, @Johannes Maximilian rejected the article about shared intentionality due to a misunderstanding (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shared_intentionality). Reviewer left the reason: "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, see WP:FORUM. New terms or principles must be established elsewhere." However, this article does not introduce a new concept; shared intentionality is not a new psychological construct. To my knowledge, this concept is generally accepted in cognitive sciences. For example, Dr. Michael Tomasello (cited in the article) has received the prestigious David Rumelhart Prize 2022 as an award for his insights into cognition evolution and, specifically, the knowledge development about a contribution of shared intentionality to cognition and social reality formation (https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/rumelhart-prize/ , this is prestigious prize in the Cognitive Science Society). Rigorous academic journal Frontiers in Psychology recently published special research topic dedicated to shared intentionality (https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/35928/exploring-shared-intentionality-underlying-mechanisms-evolutionary-roots-developmental-trajectories-and-cultural-influences). Each sentence of my article is a quotation of reliable peer-reviewed academic article. Now, the article has 11 reliable references. How can I appeal this case? Best regards, Ana Padovana (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ana Padovana: you can appeal this case by discussing it directly with the rejecting reviewer.
On a different note, whilst you're here, I would like to offer a layperson's perspective on this draft. To me, it reads like an abstract from a scientific paper, full of specialist jargon, and fairly impenetrable to someone with only a limited understanding of the domain. The audience of a scientific journal is quite different from that of a general encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedia articles need to enlighten the reader by explaining the concept(s), putting the subject in a context, and outlining its significance and/or application. In so doing, it often helps to also add section headings and wikilinks. (This is just my subjective opinion, of course, and not the reason why the draft was declined or rejected, so do with it as you wish.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind advice. Regarding my appeal this case by discussing with rejecting reviewer Johannes Maximilian, I wrote to Johannes Maximilian on 11th of September and I have still expecting his answer. Ana Padovana (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ana Padovana: you probably just need to wait a bit longer; we're all volunteers, and do what we can, when we can, and in any case Wikipedia is not edited to deadline. This editor seems to have had very little activity since the 11th, and may simply be busy IRL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ana Padovana (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Natalia.zawadzka

Hi, I submitted an article I translated from Polish (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korpusomat) and it was declined. The reason given was that the references are not good enough (not in-depth, reliable, etc.). The problem is that the majority of the sources are peer-reviewed scientific journals. I don't know of any source that would be more reliable than that. Can somebody please fix this? Natalia.zawadzka (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Natalia.zawadzka: the first source doesn't even mention Korpusomat. Sources 2 and 5 are authored by developers of the software; yes, they may (or may not) have been peer-reviewed, but they are still primary sources ie. people associated with the subject talking about it. Sources 3 and 4 don't provide any significant coverage. This being the case, what is it that you feel requires "fixing"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I did not mean it in that way. I am a scientist, but Wikipedia-wise just a relative beginner, and I started with a topic I am most familiar with. And this is standard practice in the academia: primary sources are cited, and they are considered reliable. Really, if you cited a secondary source, where someone writes about someone else's work, that would be more likely to be considered unreliable.
For example, I had a look at the article about a similar tool for linguistic analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketch_Engine), and they also cite mostly papers written by its creators.
In any case, thank you for your feedback, I will find sources which could be considered more reliable by Wikipedia standards. And once again, I am sorry if I caused any offense, that was definitely not my intention. Natalia.zawadzka (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Natalia.zawadzka: let me clarify slightly, it's not so much a question of reliability, but rather that Wikipedia articles are by definition based on summarising what secondary sources have said about a subject. Primary (especially close, ie. non-independent) sources can be used only to verify non-contentious facts, but not to establish notability per WP:GNG. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Jamal al-Lail19

DO NOT DELETE Jamal al-Lail19 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamal al-Lail19: we don't delete anything here at the help desk. Now that speedy deletion has been requested, an administrator may come at any time and either delete it or not. If you wish to contest the deletion, the instructions are provided in the deletion notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left 'm my educational deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 15 September 2023 review of submission by VectorVoyager

Suggestions for making the article more specific. Casual review of the draft by someone that is interested in AI if possible. VectorVoyager (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VectorVoyager: we don't really get involved in content or copy editing here at the help desk, we're here mainly for dealing with the review and acceptance (or not) aspects of drafting. We're also not experts in any particular subject domain, other than by coincidence. Your best bet is probably one or more of the WikiProjects that you've tagged on the draft talk page; contact them to ask if anyone would like to collaborate with you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Rakeshvshettigar

Why is it getting rejected though I am giving suitable links as proof Rakeshvshettigar (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Rakeshvshettigar

I am providing all proof yet it is getting rejected why Rakeshvshettigar (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rakeshvshettigar: you are citing non-reliable sources (YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia), and there is too much content which is not supported by citations at all. The draft is also promotional. All these have been given as reasons in the decline (not rejection, this hasn't been rejected yet) notices. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can I improvise this article. I don't hav any proof other than these sources 49.207.211.92 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have any other sources, @Rakeshvshettigar, then there can be no article. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Masohpotato

Also Draft:2016 in Belize. I look at similar pages like 2016_in_Suriname which are literally my drafts but a different country and less content. I have been rejected for not having notability and not having references. I have added references, but am confused as to how it is not notable.

Masohpotato (talk) Masohpotato (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:38, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Skmartists2017

Article was rejected I believe unfairly based on other articles that have been accepted on similar topics. I an appealing for reconsideration from Wikipedia to accept this article. Only one editor rejected it. Two previous editors who requested changes did not. Skmartists2017 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skmartists2017: it should be the case that "only one editor rejected". The way the system works is, reviewers decline drafts which they think need to be worked on but can be resubmitted, until that process reaches its end, when the draft may be rejected outright, after which it cannot be resubmitted again. If you wish to 'appeal' that, you need to make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply DoubleGrazing, but the rejection reason was " not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Shouldn't that have been noted on the initial submission? It's kind of burying the lede, don't you think? The material facts of the topic did not substantially change from the first draft to the last. It seems illogical to ask for structural and source changes if, i in the opinion of the editorial collective, the topic was not sufficiently notable for inclusion. While I appreciate the effort on your behalf, it would seem that the more important component of decision-making for inclusion should focus on the topic itself instead of the technical aspect of format and sourcing. It would save everyone time, which is the most valuable commodity we all possess.
I've already replied to SOO91 to appeal. Enjoy your weekend. Skmartists2017 (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in an ideal world, a draft would get declined for the most 'important' reason. But in practice, it doesn't always work out like that. If I see a draft in a language other than English, I will decline it for not being in English, and won't even look into notability. Similarly, it could be that the first submission is completely unreferenced, so it gets declined for that, and when the referencing later appears, it eventually shows that there is actually no evidence of notability. Much of the draft development and review work is iterative, and sometimes it takes a few iterations to get to the bottom of the matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That other articles exist does not mean that they were "approved" by anyone. This process has not always existed, and is not required of all users. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Nanchang17

My draft was rejected, with the reason saying that there are no reliable sources. It isn't even 2024 when it was created. Why would there be anything? Dumb people. I created the draft so no one else would.

Question: Why do they still want reliable sources even though there is literally nothing reliable about the 2024 season? Nanchang17 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanchang17: the draft was declined (not rejected), and I'm not surprised, because there's hardly any content there, just empty sections, and it doesn't cite a single source. Clearly we cannot publish articles that have nothing in them, merely as placeholders, just so that you can have the creating credit.
And personal attacks or insults will not be tolerated, not against an individual reviewer, and not collectively against a group, so please make sure that was your last one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wdym by declined? Whats the difference? Nanchang17 (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Decline' means the draft cannot be accepted as it is, but can be resubmitted for another review once the reasons for declining have been addressed. 'Reject' means the draft is either not appropriate for Wikipedia, or the subject is non-notable, and resubmission is not possible – 'the end of the road' for that draft, in other words. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanchang17 wait until it is the actual 2024 Atlantic hurricane season so you can populate your draft with content? We can't accept basically blank submissions. Note that no editor WP:OWNS an article they have created, so don't try and jump in and be "first" to create an article to prevent other editors from doing so.
Also please don't call our volunteers dumb, thanks. Qcne (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you delete a draft Nanchang17 (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanchang17: you can just leave it there, and if no human edits are made for six months, it will get automatically deleted. Or if you're the only editor to have created substantive content, you can request deletion by either blanking the contents (deleting everything) or by placing the {{db-author}} tag on top of the page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 15 September 2023 review of submission by RedNotice

Thanks for reviewing, just curious as to how I can meet the threshold for significance. More external links/articles? RedNotice (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RedNotice. Carefully read WP:NORG which lays out the criteria for organisations. However your draft has been rejected so you can't re-submit it: you'll have to appeal to the last reviewer directly. Qcne (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks @Qcne appreciate it! RedNotice (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 15 September 2023 review of submission by Cgrant3d

By chance can I get more specific guidance for the draft being declined so I can make the appropriate edits? I'm not sure if its the copy itself, the citations, etc,.. even ran this last round through chatgpt asking it if it was neutral before decline, so any guidance you are willing to provide would be exceedingly helpful and much appreciated! thanks in advance! Cgrant3d (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cgrant3d: firstly, expressions like "the firm has a history of innovative architectural solutions and a commitment to sustainability" are peacocky and need to be rewritten or removed. Secondly, and more fundamentally, there is nothing of encyclopaedic value in this draft; it simply states that such a firm exists, and gives a brief history of it. We need to see some reason why this company should be included in a global encyclopaedia – mere existence is not enough. That lack of noteworthiness, combined with the apparent lack of notability, means that this draft is essentially just 'creating awareness' of this firm, and that makes it by definition promotional (see WP:YESPROMO). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YES PLEASE Nanchang17 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:10, 15 September 2023 review of submission by KaylaLoebl111

Hi I have a question of why this was considered copyright. There are only so many ways I can rewrite the same researched facts about a civil rights lawyer. Any tips are appreciated. Thanks. KaylaLoebl111 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KaylaLoebl111: it was considered a copyright violation, because the copyright detector reports significant similarity with this source. I think you'll find that there are in fact countless different ways to write, so you really should have no need to copypaste or closely paraphrase text from elsewhere. More information on this topic has been posted on your talk page, please study it carefully, and rewrite the violating content.
Do you have an external relationship with the subject of this draft? If so, it needs to be disclosed. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disclosed it and thanks for the clarification. 2607:FB91:2C36:4B64:AC39:8131:E1C8:3FFD (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

12:43, 16 September 2023 review of submission by Abhisha Bond

Wee created This page for our idol Abhishek malhan and manisha Rani about there bond. which is very popular in bonding currently in india. We not promoting it's just that everyone know about this bonding. just please request to upload this page Abhisha Bond (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhisha Bond: I declined it and requested that it be deleted, for the reasons given in the notices posted on your talk page. My advice is, don't create it again.
Also, when you say "we", who do you mean? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are for use by a single individual only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:16, 16 September 2023 review of submission by HikingManiac2010

Just wondering if I've given enough links hopefully proving that Lynn Sorensen is a noteable enough person to qualify for a Wikipedia page? Thank you! HikingManiac2010 (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft article(not a "page") was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, like new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you should first attempt to appeal to the reviewer. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

01:29, 17 September 2023 review of submission by Ben-hurrian

Hello,

The Reddit page was mine too, however, since it was causing issue with this article, i removed all traces from Reddit. I hope this will solve the problem. Please let me know if I need to do more work as this entry is crucial and I need to get it right.

Many thanks Ben-hurrian (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben-hurrian: even though you've removed the same text from the Reddit page, that doesn't actually change the fact that this is a copyvio, it just makes it less obvious. In any case, the draft is completely unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, not least because it is unreferenced with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this material, if there is a copyright it belongs to me. This is an original piece by me. I did not copy and paste from anywhere. So‌ an entity such as this young organization cannot be listed anywhere? I know the suject is taboo and many have problem with it, but that does not make it unsuitable for Wiki. Ben-hurrian (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject being unconventional or taboo is not relevant- there are many "taboo" subjects that merit articles- however this one does not, as it is just an essay that you wrote explaining the concept. Wikipedia does not merely list things, and is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability.
As for the copyright, if your first posted it on Reddit, the copyright is associated with that, even if you wrote the text. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
message:
---
Dear Wikipedia
Editorial Team,
I hope this message finds you well. I have recently submitted an article about Altronauts, a groundbreaking concept in the field of space exploration, to Wikipedia. I understand that the initial submission did not meet all of Wikipedia's guidelines, and I have since made revisions to align it more closely with your standards. The updated article is now available in my "sandbox" for your review.
Altronaut is a grassroots organization comprised entirely of volunteers. We are not a commercial venture; rather, we are dedicated to advancing humanity's capabilities in space exploration.
I am in active discussions with President Biden, Vice President Harris, various members of Congress, and NASA to bring attention to this innovative approach. We believe it is a critical step for humanity to become a spacefaring species and mitigate the risks associated with being confined to a single planet.
The inclusion of this article on Wikipedia would serve as a valuable resource for the public, as well as for policymakers and members of the administration who are interested in understanding our work. It aims to educate and prepare society for the future possibilities and challenges that come with deep space exploration.
I would be immensely grateful if you could assist in moving this article from the "sandbox" to the main Wikipedia space, thereby helping to educate the public about this important initiative.
Best regards,
[Your Name]
Founder, Altronaut
---
Feel free to make any adjustments or let me know if you'd like to add more details. Ben-hurrian (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the founder of this organization, you have a conflict of interest. Please review that policy. Currently your sandbox is blank(though it looks like you may have put text in the edit summary- if that's what you intended as your article content, it is thoroughly unsuitable. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell about themselvse and what they do- Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. You being in discussion with what I assume is actually the offices/staff of various politicians instead of them directly, is not relevant. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:32, 17 September 2023 review of submission by Rajeshranga0715

My article is declined I want to know why I posted "7 day loan" related a article and that is declined by Teahouse so here I want to know what is the issue with my article so in future i provide proper knowledge Rajeshranga0715 (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajeshranga0715: the draft was declined because it is poorly referenced with no evidence of notability. It is also unsuitable for Wikipedia, as we are an encyclopaedia, not a loan comparison site. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
now how to modified that article again Rajeshranga0715 (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your post to provide a proper link to your draft. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been deleted as promotional- please review Your First Article to learn more about what is being looked for. If you work in the loan industry, please read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 17 September 2023 review of submission by Footy031982

I am unsure what Wikipedia are looking for to publish the draft for Logan Williams-Owen.

Can you please provide examples of what you require with regards references. Footy031982 (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Footy031982: as it says in the decline notice(s), we need to see
"multiple published sources that are:
  • in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
  • reliable
  • secondary
  • independent of the subject"
Of the sources currently cited, none is independent, none provides significant coverage, and additionally Twitter is not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, although the draft wasn't (at this time) declined for this reason, all the citations are piled at the end, whereas they need to be cited inline after the information that they support, so that it is clear which source provides what information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 17 September 2023 review of submission by Farshadsadri

Hello,

I have created a new article and tried to fix resources for an Oscar 2024 selected director. The article has shown some resource and structure problems due to a lack of experience on my side. I have been advised to discuss the issues here among experienced editors.

So far, I have made many attempts to improve the article; however, some of the news sources have been selected as copyright protected, though I just tried to transfer news, not copying the exact text, just an indication to the news article. Would someone please help me with improving the article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Behrouz_Sebt_Rasoul Farshad (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 17 September 2023 review of submission by Punk Rock London

I would like to know why my article has been declined, Many thanks. Punk Rock London (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The decline notice at the top of your draft tells you VERY clearly why... namely "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." which part of that don't you understand? Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 17 September 2023 review of submission by Dunnothing

Hi, I am just wondering what sources should I put on this? Dunnothing (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dunnothing. The key thing is if it passes WP:NPLACE. Qcne (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 17 September 2023 review of submission by Commercial-Way-2982

Because Commercial-Way-2982 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:13, 17 September 2023 review of submission by 2607:FB91:C1B:57D3:94C4:6B30:8F53:BF43

Can someone write a Wikipedia for Ian A. Medina based on what I wrote. 2607:FB91:C1B:57D3:94C4:6B30:8F53:BF43 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stellacorrales.
The answer is no, obviously. Please see the message I left on your talk page. Qcne (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:13, 17 September 2023 review of submission by Commercial-Way-2982

Project Commercial-Way-2982 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question, @Commercial-Way-2982? Your draft was rejected for being nonsense, and will soon be deleted. Qcne (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:32, 17 September 2023 review of submission by MoneySaver12

I want to know why this article should not exist on Wikipedia? The article is neatly written (if there is anything that is not worthy of Wikipedia, please let me know exactly what I need to change and correct in order to edit the article...) The article is instructive, here are all the guidelines on how to work with SEO.. MoneySaver12 (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 17 September 2023 review of submission by Taimia Ayub

I have removed the material which was flagged as copyright.I have now used my own words to explain things.Can anyone suggest further necessary changes?and how to proceed?Thank you Taimia Ayub (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 17 September 2023 review of submission by Discerningfortruth

Hello,

Would you have any other suggestions to improve this article about Professor Calvin Johnson? I added several new articles reputable sources, such as NPR, in addition to his publications.

Please let me know if there is anything else I should add or change. Discerningfortruth (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Discerningfortruth. Your last five references are bullet points, instead of having an associated footnote number? Qcne (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it is live! Another editor helped improve it quite a bit. Glad this is live! Discerningfortruth (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Discerningfortruth: what do you mean "it is live"? The draft is still a draft, it hasn't been published (that I can see, at least) if that's what you mean. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

03:09, 18 September 2023 review of submission by Astute23

Good evening, I am requesting assistance for maintaining a neutral tone. I believe that one example may be: "according to Brittany ,having witnessed the "devastating effects of Alzheimer's on her family", she is passionate about raising awareness, educating the public [4], and fundraising for the cause. Brittany appeared on Fox 32 Chicago to discuss the importance of Alzheimer's research [4]". I attempted to convey the mood and emotions provided in the interviews and attribute those emotions to Brittany herself, but in this situation, should I leave words like "passionate" out of the article completely or should I find a way to demonstrate more clearly that these are her personal thoughts as stated in interviews? Astute23 (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Astute23. It is a violation of the core content policy No original research for a Wikipedia editor to conclude that someone is "passionate" about something. Aren't all successful people "passionate" about something, without needing to say so? Albert Einstein was passionate about physics and Babe Ruth was passionate about baseball and Meryl Streep is passionate about acting, but you will not see that in their Wikipedia articles, because it goes without saying, and saying it is trite. How does that differentiate this person from millions of other successful people? Would you expect to read a Wikipedia article about a great cardiac surgeon that says, "Despite her enormous success, she is not passionate about surgery". As far as language like "raising awareness, educating the public, and fundraising for the cause", that just comes off as boilerplate language to me. Again, isn't that what all activists do? Your goal should be to describe what make this person unique, not to trot out standard promotional cliches applicable to millions of people. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:37, 18 September 2023 review of submission by Eric Charles

Hello, I would like clarification on the grounds for the rejection of my submission. The article relies on reputable sources and is written neutrally, so I fail to understand the grounds for its rejection. Eric (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eric Charles. Your draft was not rejected. It was declined, and those are two very different things. The first means "No, never" and the second means "Work to improve your draft, and resubmit". And it looks like you have resubmitted it. I recommend that you continue working on the draft while it awaits another review. In particular, phrases like held the title of and a pioneering figure are not neutral. See the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. These three key sentences: The club's popularity peaked in the 1970s and early 1980s. Business declined as the HIV/AIDS crisis began to devastate the gay community in the mid-1980s. A dance club was added in 1987, but as the crisis subsided, patrons increasingly frequented Man's Country for sex rather than dancing or socializing. are unreferenced. You need to provide one or more references to reliable sources that verify this content. Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen, when several sentences in a row rely on the same citation, I was leaving the citation at the end of the last sentence. Should I add the citation after each sentence even if it is the same? Eric (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Charles The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means a draft may be resubmitted(and you have already done so). According to the message left by the reviewer, it was declined due to not being written in an encyclopedic tone. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Charles: you could always ask the reviewer why specifically they declined (not 'rejected') it. Or, given that you have now resubmitted the draft, you could just wait for the next review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:04, 18 September 2023 review of submission by Kru666

Assistance Request for Wikipedia Submission

I am writing to seek your guidance and assistance in relation to my Wikipedia submission that I have been attempting to make. The submission pertains to a biography page for Sumiko Nakano, and aims to provide readers with information about her background as a writer, as well as her family connection to Nakano Takeko.

I have encountered a recurring issue with the submission, as I keep receiving the message "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." despite my diligent efforts to provide credible references. I believe that the sources I have provided are substantial and relevant, including references to her author page on Amazon, where her upcoming book, "Shadows of the Naginata," is showcased.

I am writing to request your opinion on whether a link to her author page on Amazon can be considered a reliable source for the Wikipedia submission. The reason I believe this source is credible is because:

1. Amazon Author Pages: Amazon is a widely recognized and trusted platform for authors to promote and sell their work. Author pages on Amazon provide comprehensive information about the author, including their bibliography, biographical details, and links to published works. Readers often turn to Amazon when researching authors and their books, making it a valuable and accessible source of information.

2. Transparency and Verification: Amazon author pages are publicly accessible and verifiable by anyone interested in confirming the details about an author and their publications. The transparency and accessibility of this platform contribute to its reliability as a source of information.

3. Upcoming Book: her upcoming book, "Shadows of the Naginata," is featured on my Amazon author page. This not only substantiates her status as a writer but also provides readers with insight into her literary work, which is directly related to the biography I am submitting to Wikipedia. As an emerging author, her Amazon author page serves as a central hub for information about my writing career.

Before I proceed with any further submissions, I wanted to seek your expert opinion on the suitability of her Amazon author page as a reliable source for the Wikipedia biography. Your guidance and feedback in this matter would be greatly appreciated, as I am committed to ensuring that the information presented on Wikipedia is accurate, well-supported, and meets the community's standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and any recommendations you may have. 

Kru666 (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kru666. I am the latest decliner of your draft.
Amazon Author Pages are not an WP:INDEPENDENT source so cannot be used to establish notability under WP:NWRITER. It's that simple. We need to see independent secondary sources that discuss the author, as set out in the WP:NWRITER guidelines. Qcne (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note, @Kru666, that multiple sections of your draft are entirely unsourced with zero in-line citations. This is strictly against the WP:BLPRS guidelines. So your draft would fail on this aspect too. Qcne (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you very much for your fast reply and comments I really appreciate it. I will continue to work on it. Kru666 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Be aware that you say she is an "emerging author". This may mean it is simply WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article to exist about this writer. Qcne (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 18 September 2023 review of submission by 62.250.238.111

Hello Team, do you need proof of identity ? for Youcef BEN AMOR ? 62.250.238.111 (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly do not need proof of ID. What we do need to see is significant coverage of him in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. We also need to see reliable published sources to verify the personal details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 18 September 2023 review of submission by Naniu9hei

I've updated the entry and replaced the photograph. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do for approval. Thanks for your time and attention Naniu9hei (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naniu9hei: you should please respond to the COI query posted on your talk page a week ago, describing your relationship with Mr Pollock. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 18 September 2023 review of submission by 209.159.198.177

I am new to writing on Wikipedia, obviously :-) I see this draft was rejected due to the subject not meeting notability guidelines. I modeled the article after this one: Danell Lynn Her sole claim to fame is the same Guinness World Record, set as an individual, whereas McPhee set the team version of the record. I understand that other articles slipping in under the radar, so to speak, is not a valid reason for similar new articles to be approved. Before I put any work into changing the article or improving the citations, I want to be clear on whether this article has any chance of being approved, or if I've been basing my work on a questionable article that slipped through the approval cracks. Thank you! 209.159.198.177 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 18 September 2023 review of submission by Saram Niazi

Plz add this to wekipedia Saram Niazi (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saram Niazi no, it has been rejected for being inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a social networking website. Qcne (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:22, 18 September 2023 review of submission by Miamireader


I am confused as to what is considered  "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The coverage used to prepare the article includes featured articles specifically on Dunbar in the New York Times, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, a local arts publications, and New Orleans public radio station WWNO. These articles were not passing mentions but feature stories focused on Dunbar himself. This is an artist whose work is in the collections of major museums around the world.

Help me understand the process so I can be a better editor - and not waste everyone's time. Thank you! Miamireader (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miamireader All of your sources involve interviews with him; interviews are not an independent reliable source, as it is the person speaking about themselves. Interviews cannot be used to establish notability(though they can be used for other purposes). You need to show with independent sources that he either meets the narrow notable creative professional definition or the broader notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, @Miamireader, did you read my decline comment directly below the decline notice? Qcne (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, 18 September 2023 review of submission by London7308

Hello!

Wondering about the notability claim? Attached are other Wiki pages of similar persons.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Bass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Howell_Warner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Mbabazi

Most firsts in female aviation have been approved for Wiki pages. London7308 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists, your draft doesn't show how they pass wP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@London7308, if you can find multiple sources that cover Janet in detail but are not interviews or connected to her in some way, and can re-write this draft to include them, drop me a message on my Talk Page and I will review again. Qcne (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will do. Do the newspaper articles need to be achieved online? Or can they be older? — Preceding unsigned comment added by London7308 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@London7308 References need not be online. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
London7308, your draft lacks a lead section which explains why the person is notable, and summarizes the rest of the content. When I read your draft, I think, "OK, she has been an airline pilot for a long time. So what?" The vast majority of airline pilots are not notable and do not have Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for Bass and Howell Warner, the references in those articles are vastly superior to the references in your draft. High quality references are like gold on Wikipedia. Everything else pales in comparison. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:46, 18 September 2023 review of submission by Artieboy07

I’m kinda new, I want to make something about this cause it’s for a good cause, you know? I’ve been a wiki reader for a few months, and I think, that Wikipedia gives me, and other viewers, too much power to edit things. So, me and my friend made this. I hope for a response soon. Thanks! Sincerely, artieboy07 

Artieboy07 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artieboy07 This is not notable even though it might be interesting. It has been rejected, whcih means it will not be considered further 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned on your talk page, the ability for people to edit articles is a fundamental principle of this project. If you have suggestions about policy/guidelines please make your case at WP:PUMP. It's not appropriate to make an article draft about your association. Qcne (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:22, 18 September 2023 review of submission by GiovAngri

I would like to have your opinion on this draft, I'm putting a lot of effort into its creation, I'm also removing secondary sources from its quotes, as notes I mean. GiovAngri (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:50, 18 September 2023 review of submission by VJKarinka

Hello! I edited the article, double-checked it 25 times. The person I am writing about is very famous and popular. Big articles are published about him. And some users, who approve your articles, reject it on purpose, and then offer in private messages to publish the article for a fee in wikipedia! This is impossible already... VJKarinka (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone offering to publish for a fee is trying to scam you. Do not give anyone money. See WP:SCAM. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VJKarinka: that's a very serious slur to make against any reviewer, and given that I was the first one to decline this, I'm going to take it personally whether it was actually aimed at me or not. I request you to withdraw this accusation at once, or else present evidence to corroborate it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

03:21, 19 September 2023 review of submission by MARcreative

How do I get my draft accepted for review? Also, what sources are needed to get accepted? The person I am writing about is a violinist. Is IMDB an acceptable source to cite? MARcreative (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MARcreative. What is your relationship with this violinist? IMDb contains user generated content, and is therefore not a reliable source. Read WP:IMDB for details. Your draft is entirely unreferenced which is a policy violation. It cannot possibly be accepted into the encyclopedia in its current form. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes the significant coverage that independent, reliable published sources devote to the topic. Your draft is like a human body without a skeleton. It is not viable. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 19 September 2023 review of submission by 101.2.164.14

I cannot identify sources which are considered reliable for Wikipedia articles and are independent of the subject, and I cannot understand how I can write the article from a neutral point of view. 101.2.164.14 (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

then don't write the article. ltbdl (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 19 September 2023 review of submission by IlistenClassicalMusic

I got notification that "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." Can someone tell me whats wrong with my article? IlistenClassicalMusic (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does little more than document the existence of the festival and who has performed there. Instead, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the festival, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. Please just take your three best sources that describe how the event is notable and summarize them- not every performer needs to be documented as notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:52, 19 September 2023 review of submission by 85.14.12.200

I need advise how to get the article posted, what needs to be improved, as this is just a small article, the person did not have a significant football carrier, but still? 85.14.12.200 (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. There is no possibility of publishing even a short article ('stub') that lists two sources, neither of which is actually cited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 19 September 2023 review of submission by RJ SR-NL

My draft was declined because a moderator said a similar page already exists in the database. I disagree. It is almost the same but STILL 2 different types of ACADEMICS.

How to dispute? Please a new review. RJ SR-NL (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should first attempt to appeal to the reviewer directly to see if you can persuade them to see it your way. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 19 September 2023 review of submission by MichaelAM

Hi, I submitted a page on 25th April. I know there's a large backlog but wanted to check that everything is ok or if there is something I need to do. Many thanks, Mike MichaelAM (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted it and it is pending. The only thing you need to do is continue to be patient. You are also free to edit the draft further if you need to. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1176115648"