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 572: Line 572:
== 20:00, 25 October 2023 review of submission by 103.206.205.213 ==
== 20:00, 25 October 2023 review of submission by 103.206.205.213 ==
{{Lafc|username=103.206.205.213|ts=20:00, 25 October 2023|draft=Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GRV Media}}
{{Lafc|username=103.206.205.213|ts=20:00, 25 October 2023|draft=Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GRV Media}}
I am trying to get an article about GRV Media approved purely as the company is referenced in the article about its flagship website HITC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITC). However it is constantly rejected due to not having independent references and the use of press releases etc. Is there any specific minimum article length? I have added references to the gov.uk website showing the legitimacy of the GRV Media limited company (which also lists the founders as mentioned in this article). The company has recently surpassed 100m page views per month across its portfolio of websites making it one of the UK's largest independent publishers. What else we can do to prove the legitimacy of the article and content therein?
I am trying to get an article about GRV Media approved purely as the company is referenced in the article about its flagship website HITC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITC). However it is constantly rejected due to not having independent references and the use of press releases etc. Is there any specific minimum article length? I have added references to the gov.uk website showing the legitimacy of the GRV Media limited company (which also lists the founders as mentioned in this article). The company has recently surpassed 100m page views per month across its portfolio of websites making it one of the UK's largest independent publishers. What else can I do to prove the legitimacy of the article and content therein?


Thank you
Thank you

Revision as of 20:11, 25 October 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


October 19

01:17, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Drcool 25

Can you help review the article parts which are considered promotional parts of the article and edit to remove whichever is unnecessary. I am still new and would need guidance on writing Drcool 25 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drcool, your draft is overtly promotional and his been rejected for that reason. Promotional editing is forbidden on Wikipedia, and your draft will not be reconsidered, since it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Early on in your draft, you say that this business exists to make the world a more beautiful place. This overtly promotional sentence is followed by many other overtly promotional marketing sentences. That style of writing is not permitted on Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:42, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Aishu.m

All rejections of this draft have been for not citing reliable sources. Need assistance in understanding which sources are considered reliable and which are not. Aishu.m (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aishu.m: it's a combination of some sources used (eg. YouTube) not being reliable, and some of the content not being referenced at all. However, that's not the only reason why this has been declined (not 'rejected') multiple times; it's also that the sources have been insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind pointing to which content were not referenced?
Also, the cited sources are interviews provided by the subject to recognised publications/magazines. Are these considered reliable? I'm trying to understand why they are considered insufficient. Aishu.m (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews may be reliable, but they are not independent. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for the explanation. This really puts things into a better perspective. Aishu.m (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 19 October 2023 review of submission by NadellaMou

My article is declined due to the reason which is missing the neutral point of view and seems like a promotion. But my article is subject of public service application which is helping citizens. This is a worthy application which needs entry in Wikipedia it's a prestigious application of a State in India. The information I sourced from various news papers which I attached as references. Pls help me in publishing my article  NadellaMou (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NadellaMou: the app may well be "worthy", but that doesn't give you a licence to write about it in a promotional manner. "Innovative", "dynamic", "progressive", "harnessing the power", are all peacock expressions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest

What can I do to improve this article? I feel it has enough third person sources to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: this draft hasn't been submitted for review yet, you'll get feedback once you submit it and it has been reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:42, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest

What can I do to improve this article? I feel it has enough third person sources to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: this draft hasn't been submitted for review yet, you'll get feedback once you submit it and it has been reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest

What can I do to improve this article? I feel it has enough third person sources to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: the reviewer left you a comment with their decline, have you considered that? Good sources are important, but they're not quite the be-all and end-all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I had a quick look at the sources, and FWIW they probably are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Can't say conclusively, as I couldn't access the EDV ones (paywall), but looked okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 19 October 2023 review of submission by 91.141.48.4

Hi - this draft article was rejected on account of the sources, but I belieive they meet Wikipedia's guidelines. RE: Apple Award, surely the best source for this is Apple Inc itself? Other sources in the article include Techcrunch, Forbes magazine and Entrepreneur (magazine), all of which are regarded as reliable sources in the business world and meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. So I am trying to understand why these sources are not considered sufficient by the editor? Thank you 91.141.48.4 (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that a draft may be resubmitted.
The sources themselves are not the issue, but their content. The draft largely summarizes the routine business activities of the company,(like raising funds) which does not establish notability. One unremarkable award is mentioned; awards do not usually establish notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Any article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as significant/important/influential about the company. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article- even in the same field- it depends on the sources.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID, as well as conflict of interest. Disclosing is easier to do with an account, but even if you don't wish to create an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Syler.mi4

Please suggest more sources Syler.mi4 (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Syler.mi4 the article has been rejected, there is nothing further you can do. Qcne (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Gitte bei Medienservice UHH Bio

I submitted an article revised according to your requirements, which was named as the new version "2" by you. Now this has been rejected because apparently the first one still exists and the new one is considered a duplicate. What can I do so that this new version is checked and released? Gitte bei Medienservice UHH Bio (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created the second draft- you should just edit the original draft. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 19 October 2023 review of submission by MariaMorris1

I initially created this page to give information about Daniel Ashville Louisy. Since then others have added to it and we have added credible links and the basic information required by Wikipedia.

I would like some help in what parts specifically I need to change as I am now worried about adding or removing any parts that will be needed for this article.

Thank you MariaMorris1 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MariaMorris1 Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and disclose your connection with Mr. Louisy. You must have one since you took a picture of him and he posed for you.
Wikipedia articles(not "pages") are not for merely providing information, but should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You describe his activities and background, but you do not tell what sources consider to be important/significant/influential about him. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok I will do more research on what to write that establishes better reliable sources as the articles I found on him seemed to be very reliable due to how popular the sources are but I will try to amend it and republish for review.
I only have seen Daniels show and social media and that picture is from his own website. MariaMorris1 (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Danceguru1212

Submission has been declined twice for my article despite providing several credible references. I am unclear on what specifically needs to be done to improve the article. Can someone help me with this please? Danceguru1212 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the external links within the text need to be removed.
In one part, you say she has "received acclaim" but do not describe what the acclaim is. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the suggested changes. Is there anything else that I need to do to improve my chances for approval? Danceguru1212 (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the suggested changes. Is there anything else that I need to do to improve my chances for approval? Danceguru1212 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Sadid Lailuma

Hello Sir, Madam,

I just submitted my first Wikipedia page, but it is rejected. could you please give me advice on what should i do? Thanks Lailuma Sadid Sadid Lailuma (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadid Lailuma: writing your username is clearly not a viable article draft. What were you trying to do? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 19 October 2023 review of submission by BhikhariInformer

In this article I have attached citations from The Times of India, Ei Samay Sangbadpatra, The Economic Times, The Telegraph (India), Anandabazar Patrika and also Youtube. All of these are usually the citations present for many other Bengali films and are considered to be reliable sources in many of the Bengali films, which have their Wikipedia pages based on the citations from these news websites. My draft has been denied on the basis of not being supported by reliable sources for verification. The film is already released with positive reviews from all critics. Hence, I don't understand why has this draft been denied. Do I need to submit it a few days later? Can you please tell me the reason. Can you also enlighten me on what can I do and what kind of other citations are required to verify this film, which are usually not present in the other Bengali film pages.

Thank you BhikhariInformer BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BhikhariInformer: it's not enough for the publications to be reliable and independent (and it's debatable whether the Times of India is that, esp. when it comes to entertainment and business reporting), they must also provide significant coverage of the subject. Given that the film was only released today, the sources are pre-release publicity, which usually does not establish notability. (I offer this as a general comment, I haven't looked at the sources cited in this draft in any detail.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info about Times of India. Then I will submit after a few days. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BhikhariInformer: rather than "after a few days", you should wait until there are sources which demonstrate notability by WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, however long that may take. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Articles published before a film's release almost never meet those criteria. Wait until some articles are published that do meet the criteria. This might take months or even years, but that is not an issue in Wikipedia, since there is no deadline. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 19 October 2023 review of submission by 195.43.130.152

Hi, why as it been rejected? He's an icon in advertising, the most influential man that formed most of the most influential creative minds in advertise in the world. An incredible professor that became a dad of hundreds of kids to which he gave the opportunity to build a second life to themselves. You could say that most of the ads out in the world today has been influenced by him. He recently passed away and the ad world across the globe is crying him. Could you please help me open up a profile for him? He NEEDS a wikipedia page. Thank you, a would very much appreciate your help. Please look him up on Google if you don't believe me. 195.43.130.152 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there is no draft for Tony Cullingham, and secondly there are no profiles, only articles on people who pass the guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in the universe "NEEDS" a Wikipedia page, because that statement assumes that a Wikipedia article is in some way for the benefit of its subject. It is not, except incidentally. Please see PROUD for how wrong that idea can be, in some cases. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 19 October 2023 review of submission by ChoudharySamrat

Kindly check the article I have one new reference for notability ChoudharySamrat (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added new reference to the article ChoudharySamrat (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Sidharthsnair

But these are the only sources I could find on the page Draft:HERONICS_Series Sidharthsnair (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the draft was rejected, and as such will not be considered further. The sources are just not there at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 19 October 2023 review of submission by ChoudharySamrat

kindly refer to the other source I have mentioned in the references section please help if I'm missing something ChoudharySamrat (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChoudharySamrat As the draft has been rejected, you will now need to appeal directly to the rejecting review and try and show this person passes the WP:NPEOPLE notability criteria. Qcne (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked the Wikipedia:Notability (Academic) and it does passes the criteria for notability in point number 6 of WP:NACADEMIC as the person has a role of Vice-Chancellor of the Institute ChoudharySamrat (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChoudharySamrat I am not sure if he does pass #6, as I am not sure if ICFAI University, Tripura counts as a "major institution". I see you have re-submitted it, though, this paragraph is written in an inappropriate way: "Dr. Biplab Halder is a distinguished individual who has served as a National Advisory Committee Member in a notable capacity. His contributions and expertise have made a significant impact in his field". Please re-phrase to conform with WP:NPOV. Qcne (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Zahwa Jameel

Hey there editors.

This is my first time trying to publish an article. Please help me out and show me where I'm going wrong. I tried my best and still got rejection Zahwa Jameel (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something and what it does. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. "Significant coverage" is that which goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the subject- it doesn't just document its existence, tell what it does, or briefly mention it. Please read Your First Article.
You also used highly promotional language("the driving force"; "professional journey", etc.) which needs to be removed. If you are associated with this subject(paid or unpaid), that needs to be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should add links to other Wikipedia articles and because there are so many programming languages in the list I would recommend putting them in a paragraph form. You should also have at least one reference per paragraph. KingTheD (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Soroudh

Hello, I have prepared more than 35 reliable sources throughout the internet for my article from different websites. I avoid personal websites or organizations. I only use reliable newspapers and news agencies like the Guardian, the Tehran Times, and others like that. However, my translation of a Persian article has been rejected due to a lack of reliable sources. I have seen articles on Wikipedia about people who had less than 1 source and that source is the person's private website. Could you please help me or give me any hints? Thanks Soroudh (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soroudh Please see other stuff exists. Wikipedia has many inappropriate articles that have gotten past us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, you can identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help.
Note that what is acceptable on the Persian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, as the two projects are separate.
It's not a lack of sources that is the problem, but the ones provided do not seem to be reliable. I would suggest asking the reviewer directly for clarification. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Avenging soldier

Hello, what is the reason why you did not allow my article to be published? Do you not have a problem that innocent people's lives are taken? Avenging soldier (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avenging soldier Wikipedia is not to be used to host your personal essays. Please carefully read What Wikipedia is Not. Qcne (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

00:50, 20 October 2023 review of submission by Snvrk

An editor said I don't have enough sources. I need help proving that this article is actually authentic. Snvrk (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snvrk, not authentic, notable there is a difference. No one is claiming you lied about anything in the draft about yourself we simply said you did not prove anyone else has written about you in reliable independent source in any significant way. All your sources are connected to you which makes it seem like only you have noticed yourself. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have no references. KingTheD (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snvrk You also have to disclose that your writing about yourself KingTheD (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how to add that? Snvrk (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the autobiography part or whatever it is called on wikipedia Snvrk (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nevermind, i've done it Snvrk (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snvrk Social media accounts can’t be used as sources on Wikipedia. KingTheD (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:17, 20 October 2023 review of submission by IVickyChoudhary

He's a famous bollywood movie director, still unable to create valid article for him. So requesting fellow and senior contributors to help and improve the draft so it can be published. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IVickyChoudhary: unlikely anyone here at the help desk will get involved in editing; you may wish to raise this at some of the WikiProjects, esp. India and Film. That said, if you cannot find sufficient sources to show notability, then perhaps the subject simply isn't notable enough? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned many of reliable sources (news articles from mainstream media properly based on this person) still why it's not eligible ? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 20 October 2023 review of submission by Martha1

Reviewer TimTrent declined this article because I used copyright material -- it was my own copyright -- I wrote the obituary in the paper that I quoted. Unfortunately, i couldn't figure out how to give my permission for its use in wikipedia --So I changed the wikipedia article to get rid of the copyright material.. (I still footnoted the source.) Is there anything more I should do? I am really not very good at this -- I promise I won't try to write another article. However, I have put a lot of work into this one and want to know what to do to get it published. Will TimTrent get back to me when he can or has the article been cancelled? Advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Martha1 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft may be resubmitted. If you have contacted TimTrent I'm sure he will get back to you. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See donating copyrighted materials for information on donating text for use in Wikipedia- though original text is preferred. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 20 October 2023 review of submission by M1-sh283h1

I am unsure as to why my article was declined, a very generic reason was give and I am not sure how to improve or edit the article - any advice or guidance would be most appreciated. M1-sh283h1 (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M1-sh283h1: my guess would be that it was rejected (not 'declined') because it isn't a viable draft for an encyclopaedia article.
BTW, do you have some involvement with Shoppp3D? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 20 October 2023 review of submission by Angiemcc2023

I have created this draft and have mentioned it all in shot terms. Can I get help to improve it and add the details that are required to submit the draft again? 

Angiemcc2023 (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Angiemcc2023: the onus is on you to create the draft and find the necessary sources etc., we don't get involved in draft creation here at the help desk. If you have specific questions about the process, you're welcome to ask those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 20 October 2023 review of submission by MoltenSalts02

Hello, I recently submitted this draft that was declined almost immediately for not providing reliable sources. I tried to follow this guide as best I could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide

Could someone help give me some feedback so that I can improve the draft? Thank you MoltenSalts02 (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of your references are from the publisher of the journal; an article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the subject. See WP:NJOURNAL about what makes a journal notable and how you can show it. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MoltenSalts02: my guess (and it is only that) is that because all the citations are to the publisher's own website, the reviewer felt that this wasn't sufficient to verify the information. You can only use close primary sources to support entirely non-contentious statements, such as the name of the editor, or the frequency of publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 20 October 2023 review of submission by Sadid Lailuma

Dear yours, the text that I sent to be published on Wikipedia is my biography. As a public person, I consider it as interesting for many people. Would you be so kind as to advise me on how should I modify my text to become acceptable to be published? I'm already registered and I have a Wikipedia username and password for a while. Sadid Lailuma (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadid Lailuma The only content you submited in the draft was your name, but Wikipedia is not a place to publish your biography. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what they want to say about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadid Lailuma: you asked about this already yesterday, and I said that just writing your name is not a viable article draft. That's beside the bigger point that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadid Lailuma You seem to be ignoring what we are writing here, and creating new sections of this page with every comment. Please read and edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 20 October 2023 review of submission by KfcClash

why my draft was rejected? KfcClash (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not a place to put the biographies of non-notable Youtubers on. Qcne (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok. still there are alot of youtubers that have wikipedia pages and there is a question in the send draft for review to choose the most appropriate category and one of the options is "Biography of a living person" KfcClash (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, people must meet the WP:NPEOPLE criteria in order for an article to be written about them. Your draft did not prove this YouTuber met that criteria. Secondly, biographies of living people have exceedingly strict referencing requirements. Your draft had no references other than a link to his channel. Qcne (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you. KfcClash (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth did you re-submit it? It was rejected. Don't do that again. Qcne (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 21

00:12, 21 October 2023 review of submission by CooperRiverRunner

After an article is reviewed/declined and then resubmitted, does it get any priority for a second review or does the process start all over again at the beginning? The first draft took nearly two months to be reviewed. CooperRiverRunner (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CooperRiverRunner I fixed your link for proper display; the whole url is not needed. Resubmissions are treated no differently than initial submissions. Reviews are conducted by a limited number of volunteers in no particular order. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two months is actually pretty good; the current backlog is four months, and that's really just an average. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CooperRiverRunner: this isn't a direct answer to your question, and may not be what you want to hear, but I'll say it anyway. You would make the reviewer's job easier, thereby possibly encouraging a quicker review, if you were to cut down some of the content (including references – 53 sources, really?!). The 'High School Career' section is already longer than many athletes' entire articles. And in the 'College Career' 2023 section, do we really need to know the blow-by-blow account of her every competitive run this year? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a log of everything someone has done; it would be better (not just for the reviewer, but more to the point for the future reader) if you focused on the truly important and noteworthy things, those that are likely to be remarkable still in ten year's time, rather than trying to cover every detail. As it stands, you're tempting the reviewer to just decline this for the easiest reason they come across, which probably would be insufficient citations (with much of the biographical information unreferenced, in violation of the WP:BLP rules). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 21 October 2023 review of submission by Waqar ul Aziz Khan

we want to create a bio page of Waqar Khan, Forex Expert but it is rejected. What is its solution. Waqar ul Aziz Khan (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Waqar ul Aziz Khan: we don't have "bio pages", we have encyclopaedia articles about topics which are deemed notable. There is no evidence of notability in this draft, which is why it has been rejected. And rejection means there is no "solution"; this is the end of the road.
In any case, you should not be writing about yourself; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 21 October 2023 review of submission by Nurul.easn

for accepting my article Nurul.easn (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 21 October 2023 review of submission by SkylerClock

The page doesn't actually promote any kinds of things SkylerClock (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SkylerClock your draft has been rejected and will soon be deleted. You also vandalised the Voting page, which is prohibited. I have undone your vandalism. Qcne (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single sentence is promotional, correctly rejected and tagged for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 21 October 2023 review of submission by 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:A422:9C2:F51F:3416

New article rejection, as Asgog Castle is a historical place and is currently part of Asgog Loch article, Asgog Castle CANNOT be listed in Categories on its own merit?

That is why I submitted for Asgog Castle to have its own article. 

2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:A422:9C2:F51F:3416 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible to have a separate article on the castle, but you need to show that it is notable either by WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a castle recorded in 1581 is notable, it was besieged and eventually destroyed by Clan Campbell in 1646! The castle deserves its own article, so it can be listed in Wikipedia articles in its own right, which is impossible as part of Asgog Loch article.. 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:A422:9C2:F51F:3416 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may well suggest that, and you could even prove right, but nevertheless we don't determine notability by endorsement. Provide reliable sources showing that this meets either GNG or NBUILD, and then you're welcome to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have added more refs, including historic environment Scotand, designation LB12082 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:A422:9C2:F51F:3416 (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content appears to have been copied from Asgog Loch without attribution? Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If historic environment Scotland think Castle Asgog is notable enough to give a designation, but Wikipedia editors know better, I give up! 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:A422:9C2:F51F:3416 (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying it's not notable? Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 21 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest

Does anyone think this article is ready to submitted for review. I think it has enough sources to justify a Wikipedia article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dwanyewest, the key to success in writing a Wikipedia article is providing references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. What I am seeing are statistics pages and passing mentions, plus one local newspaper article about her athletics and academics in high school. Her claim to notability is as a professional soccer player, not as a good student and good athlete in high school. There are literally millions of such people. Where is the significant coverage devoted to her as a professional athlete? Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 21 October 2023 review of submission by 103.150.206.94

What my fault? Please tell me to I fix them and iam also on wikipedia plz accept my submission 103.150.206.94 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been rejected as non-notable, time to drop it and move on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 21 October 2023 review of submission by OliverRoads

My draft has been rejected due to a lack of reliable sources. I have done my best to include sources, and it looks OK to me, so can somebody explain where I am going wrong? OliverRoads (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OliverRoads: your draft was declined (not rejected) because half the sources (Blogspot, Discogs) are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah okay.
yes but Discogs was Just used used a online source for the track versions that were listed in the Case bound CD book. I found it easier this way to copy some of the info than to write it out word for word from the CD Case Bound Book.
If it is useful I can remove the cite for discogs.
I know about Blogspot but it was included because Davearama the creator of that blog page is mentioned in the case bound CD book.
Also noting that there was not much info online as this CD set is out of print (now only available seccond hand) and the temporary licencing rights (not sure if this is the best wording) to Rhino to release Bananarama Stuff (As well as other London Records Artists) expired years ago. Don't know hat Demon has to do with it though.
If there was more info online i would cite and include it.
It seems that this this collection had Tracks licensed courtesy of Warner music UK ltd. OliverRoads (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information does not need to be online, but it does need to be reliably published and (to contribute towards establishing notability) independent and containing WP:significant coverage of the subject of the article (see golden rule). On a quick look, it doesn't look to me as if a single one of your sources meets that tripartite criterion. ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 22

00:11, 22 October 2023 review of submission by TheCuratedConsumerJoshua

I am having trouble getting correct citation practices down. I have read and rearead, The guideline at WP:ILC and the tutorial is at WP:INTREFVE. I am still having some disconnect with creating the proper authoritative sources. If anyone has any advise or recommendations I would be very appreciative for the support! TheCuratedConsumerJoshua (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheCuratedConsumerJoshua. Wikipedia already has an article, Greetings Tour, which does not even mention the Bend mural. I fail to see why the Bend mural requires its own separate article when it can be mentioned in the main article. Your draft currently has eight references, and six of them do not even mention the Bend mural and are therefore of zero value in establishing the notability of the Bend mural. The other two are clearly based on press releases and interviews with the artists, and are therefore not independent sources and do not establish the notability of the Bend mural. I recommend that you abandon your draft, and instead focus your efforts on improving and expanding Greetings Tour, which has not had substantive content edits for several years. Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:48, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Crystal S. Brown

What do I do to put my information out in the world? I am getting an error stating double gazing, prolimic??? Crystal S. Brown (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystal S. Brown: I rejected this draft, because it is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. It starts with "How deeply is the overturning of Roe V. Wade going to affect women of color?" – posing a question like that is the hallmark of an essay. And it is polemic, arguing a particular point of view: "In closing, we as women, at the core should have the right to choose the decisions we make with our bodies."
You can express your opinions on any number of blogging, social media, etc. platforms. However, Wikipedia is not the place to "put [your] information out in the world". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal S. Brown, I agree with DoubleGrazing. Your draft bears little resemblance to a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystal S. Brown: I agree with DoubleGrazing and Cullen328. Surely, the plight of women of color (and all women) in the US is an important subject, but not here.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Jrmango

I have been trying to write this page, but people have said the sources don't meed the Notability guidelines, but I can't seem to find sources that can, and the wording is kind of unclear. Jrmango (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrmango: what "people" have said that? It doesn't look like this has been reviewed, or have you made your previous attempts under a different account or IP? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jrmango, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and content like If you like this song, and would like to play it yourself, I must warn you that it is extermely difficult to find sheet music for it. A plain Google search yields almost nothing for it. is completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia editors never address our readers directly. and never use the word "I" in Wikipedia's voice. You need to provide references to independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the song itself, not coverage of the movie that the song is a part of. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an iencycolpedia is to give information to other people, so this would be helpful infformation that it would be very difficult to find sheet music for the song, so a person would not have to waste their time trying to look for it Jrmango (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jrmango No, that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. This encyclopedia summarizes independent reliable sources; it doesn't merely provide information. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Oxford Dictionary, an encycolpedia is "a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.", and that definition says nothing about it summarizing anything. Jrmango (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Five Pillars. It gives information to tell you Walmart has a sale on computers, but that is not valid encyclopedia content here. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it has been reviewed Jrmango (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can i have some help finding notable sources? Jrmango (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion about this draft in this section. We can't find sources for you- it's up to you to have sources in hand before you attempt the difficult task of writing a new article. See WP:BACKWARD. If you are unable to find sources that show notability, the topic would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Jopje dropje

I've been rejected multiple times by the same moderator for "not going in-depth enough". i think this is completely false, as i've made the complete documentation, explaination on how to download / use and reerences to the only original source i could find. also, i quite literally have the original creator of the programming language and the writer of the only source of information (Github page) sitting right next to me reviewing what i do. there are no other resources i could possibly link, and i've quite literally listed all information there is Jopje dropje (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jopje dropje: firstly, from what I can see, it looks like the draft was declined once, resubmitted immediately without any improvement, and then rejected. Not sure that counts as "rejected multiple times".
This draft has no evidence that the subject is notable. And based on what you say, it seems that absence of evidence on this occasion really is evidence of absence. We don't want to hear what the developers or others closely associated with the subject have to say about it, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources; GitHub meets none of those criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
then your system must be broken. i've quite literally made multiple changes to it after the first review, including a section going in-depth about the installation and what to do when you want to compile the source code. as for the significant coverage, pages like github are quite literally the only way to get significant coverage in the world of programming. Jopje dropje (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history is as DoubleGrazing described. You have edited it since the rejection, too, but the history indicates you resubmitted it without changes prior to the rejection. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that some topic areas may be underserved due to a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources, but this requirement is necessary for verifiability purposes and in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to summarize such sources, not what a topic says about itself. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jopje dropje, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable topics, not for writing about or promoting your own pet projects. KylieTastic (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, didn't wikipedia start off as a pet project? contracting nerds to do work for them without pay? second of all, how is an in-depth documentation about a sophisticated programming language, made by a team of people, considered "promoting"? an awnser would be much apreciated, although i am beginning to suspect you're just a troll Jopje dropje (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jopje dropje. Firstly, please don't call @KylieTastic a troll. They are an experienced reviewer.
Wikipedia articles are not designed to simply state that a topic exists. You have GitHub or all the software listing sites for that. Instead, Wikipedia articles should paraphrase what reliable, independent, secondary sources state about a topic. The independent part of that is really important: we don't want to see articles (like your draft) where the only source is a link to the project homepage. That isn't enough to establish notability under the WP:NSOFTWARE criteria.
For your draft to be acceptable, you'd need to include significant coverage of the software in those reliable, independent, secondary sources. Tech magazines, reviews, etc. If there are no sources like that then there can be no article, unfortunately.
I hope that helps make you understand how Wikipedia articles work. Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's fine. i would like to know some sources considered "reliable, independent and secondary" that are actually related to the topic (programming languages). Jopje dropje (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jopje dropje Well, that's you to find as the author of the draft, but I would suggest as follows:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of creation), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis, review, discussion, or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website, and not interviews with people directly connected to the topic.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: Ideally we would like to see three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Finally, your draft in it's current form also breaks the WP:NOTGUIDE, as it's really just a tutorial on how to install and use the software. That is appropriate for a README, but not Wikipedia!
I understand we have pretty strict rules and it can seem frustrating but it's the only way to ensure Wikipedia doesn't devolve into a self-promotional spammy SEO-farmed mess. Qcne (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't find sources for you. It's your topic. You should have the sources in hand first before attempting the difficult task of writing a new article. Perhaps you could find other articles about programming(preferably good ones) to see what is looked for. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jopje dropje: when it's the makers of the software (or whatever) telling the world about their software (or whatever), that is by definition promoting - see WP:YESPROMO.
And let that groundless slur on KylieTastic be your last one. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Eboss09

How do I get it inclusive on wiki? and what would you suggest I improve on. Eboss09 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eboss09, I have rejected your draft so there is nothing more you can do. It will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 23

00:00, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Jrmango

Hello everyone, I would like to know if anybody could take a look at the draft I am writing, to see if the sources meet the notability requirements. If the link isn't already shared, this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mercedes-Benz_GLC_43

Thank you so much! 

- Jrmango Jrmango (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jrmango, your draft is overtly promotional and is more suited to a Mercedes marketing brochure than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and following it is mandatory. Cullen328 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, we already have an article Mercedes-Benz GLC where the variants are discussed. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the neutral point of view, I wonder if Mercedes would include a big issue with the car in their marketing material. Jrmango (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some edits and removed some of the language that made it sound like an ad for the car Jrmango (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 Jrmango (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still have this utterly meaningless marketing language: It combines elegance with power, offering a comfortable ride and modern amenities, which is the sort of promotiomal language that every car company on Earth spits out. And you are directly addressing readers which is not permitted and giving prices on various options, which is not permitted. To be frank, your draft is pretty much worthless, Jrmango. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328, It is not very kind to call someone’s work “worthless”. 76.82.37.201 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, thank you @76.82.37.201 Jrmango (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2023 ( UTC)
IP editor, I offer frank assessments based on 14 years of experience editing Wikipedia. I recommended removing all promotional drivel and Jrmango left much of it in. Do you consider this draft "worthy"? Do you think that it has any redeeming qualities? Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328I believe that you still should not call something “worthless”. While @Jrmango could remove some more things, I find it to be an informative article. 76.82.37.201 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could have said "rejected" instead, new IP editor. Would that have been better? Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, Wikipedia articles are not for merely providing information. It provides information to tell you that Walmart has a sale on televisions, but that is not valid encyclopedia content. Not everything that is informative is acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Dinusha Jayaranga

My submission was get decline I am create in this biography for Dr. John Chresta if there anything i can prove this is authorised from the person let me know please Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinusha Jayaranga That's exactly the problem - you're not supposed to write Wikipedia articles for someone who asked you to write one for them. -- asilvering (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinusha Jayaranga: this draft is basically a CV with a personal statement, and as such wholly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. I'm surprised it was only declined, not rejected, but either way it is pending deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how can i add it to the wikipedia officially, can you help me that Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinusha Jayaranga No, we're not going to help you upload someone's CV to wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
undersa Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
understood, if i rewrite this in a biographical stand point without mentioning the personal details that much, and focused on the storyline as much as i can? please reply how can i fix this Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinusha Jayaranga: I would suggest that you read a few biographical articles, especially ones rated good, to get an idea of what is required.
You need to first find sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. You then summarise what those sources have said – you do not just write what you want, and even less what the subject wants you to write.
Speaking of which, the very next thing you should do is disclose your conflict of interest. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Mrinmoy Sharma

please help me with this 

Mrinmoy Sharma (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrinmoy Sharma: I'm sorry, but you will need to be a lot more specific than that. What is your question?
That said, you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. And anything you do write, either in this draft or elsewhere, must be supported by reliable published sources. As it stands, your draft is just you telling the world about yourself, which is not what Wikipedia is about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mrinmoy Sharma, unreferenced biographies of living people are forbidden by policy, and your draft is entirely unreferenced. Plus, as you have already been informed, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. In my experience, over 99% of people who try to write an autobiography fail. The occasional successful results are people who are indisputably notable and who have taken the time to deeply understand Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and behavioral norms, and have the dedication to do some very challenging work for inexperienced editors. People like that are extremely rare. Your draft is nowhere near being close to being acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:17, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Abayan leo

i have a published the article of a personality who is well known but declined 

 Abayan leo (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abayan leo: just to be clear, you haven't published anything, you have submitted a draft, which has been declined, and you have then resubmitted it.
The draft has all sorts of issues, but it was mostly declined for lack of evidence of notability. On which point, "well known" is not what we're looking for; we need to see significant coverage of this person in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing this was resubmitted after an 11 character "improvement" by Abayan Leo. I took the unusual step (for me) of reviewing for a second time with the suggestion that resubmission a further time without substantive improvement would probably lead to rejection. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 23 October 2023 review of submission by BrendaBerry13

I don't understand what the issue with the language is. I've had many people read it and they feel it is neutral. Please tell me exactly what is not neutral and an example of what you're looking for. I use Wikipedia often and feel my article reads like they do. Please advise with some specifics. Thank you. BrendaBerry13 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrendaBerry13, your draft relies on unreliable book sources. Rainbow Bridge Books is a fringe publisher. Morris Publishing is a self-publishing platform. Here are just a few of the inappropriate phrases and sentences: It refers to the time of transformation we live in now, on an individual, community, or global level. and It is an imaginary map of the universe, an archetypal cosmic landscape "energetically anchoring” to the curandero, a practitioner of curanderismo. and The Pachakuti Mesa Tradition is a living tradition taught to people worldwide and seen as a way to connect with the natural world to find healing and guidance. It is a container of spirit, a soul-infused artifact of the material world, a living and dynamic pattern upon and with which practitioners can consciously do personal and planetary energy healing work. and These teachings offer a vision of a more harmonious and integrated world and guide those seeking to cultivate greater awareness, compassion, and wisdom. I could go on and on. All of this language is highly promotional, and promotion of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia. We never use that kind of language in Wikipedia's voice. Acceptable Wikipedia articles must be written in a rigorously neutral fashion. Acceptable sources for an ethnographic topic like this would be books written by scholars and published by university presses or articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Your current sources are weak. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Charlotte Brum

I don't understand the detailed reasons why the article is been declined over and over again. Charlotte Brum (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charlotte Brum. It's been declined once and now rejected by me. That's only two reviews. Frankly, though, your draft is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. It reads like an advert, only exists to promote the company, and has not a single source.
Please carefully read Your First Article and let me know if you have any specific questions.
If you created this article for your boss, please have them read WP:BOSS. If you paid the organisation money to create this article, please offer them a refund. Qcne (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Can I understand why other translation companies do have an article on Wikipedia?
This one seems promotional: Lionbridge
This also seems promotional: Inc. (magazine) Charlotte Brum (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charlotte Brum Please see other stuff exists. That said, your draft had no independent reliable sources. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself.
Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID; if you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if I add clients reviews? Charlotte Brum (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you followed the advice I gave above. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 23 October 2023 review of submission by 118.148.101.177

I am wondering if someone can please check this draft. I have changed it to say, Alex Kuch (born Alexander Marcus Dan Aurel Kuch) instead of Alexander Marcus Dan Aurel Kuch (born 19 April 1995). But not sure if that's suitable etc. Thank you. Really appreciate it. 118.148.101.177 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been submitted and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:10, 23 October 2023 review of submission by JewelHL

Hi there, This Wikipedia page has been declined because of the referenced sources. The sources I referenced were from either Flicks' website or from press releases published by independent publications.

Since these were insufficient/unreliable, can you please provide examples of sources that would be considered acceptable to reference in this case? Aside from websites and independent publications, what sources would you expect a company Wikipedia page like this to reference? JewelHL (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JewelHL: for notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, books, etc.) that are reliable and wholly independent of the subject. Your draft currently cites no such source.
In fact, the draft should be mostly written by summarising what these sources say, with each source cited against the information it has provided. That would also ensure that the contents are adequately referenced. In your draft, most of the content is unsupported by citations. Which among other things begs the question where, exactly, is that information coming from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
It follows that the very first step in creating a Wikipedia article is to find several such sources, each of which meets the criteria in golden rule. Doing anything else before this is like building a house without surveying the site or consulting building regulations - i.e., probably a waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:General Catalyst

Hello! I recently submitted Draft:General Catalyst for submission and have added WP:notable sources. I made adjustments based on feedback, but the article has not been reviewed. Is there anyone who would be willing to give it a look and let me know what you think? Thanks! Justwatchmee (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justwatchmee: as it says on top of the draft, "Review waiting, please be patient." We have over 3,000 drafts awaiting review, and we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While you're waiting for review, please read NAMEDREF and consolidate multiple citations to the same source. It might not make a difference, but the length of the reference list to plough through is probably one of the things that reviewers look at in deciding whether or not to review a particular draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 24

02:13, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Drcool 25

How to edit that it doesn't appear as promotional/advertisement Drcool 25 (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drcool 25: you shouldn't be writing about a business you're associated with, as it is almost impossible for you to do it in a neutral, disinterested manner.
In any case, this draft has been rejected, so the question is somewhat redundant now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:30, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Hamzaxeros

My page has been declined, I don't know the exact reason, And I am not familiar with Wikipedia, I read the auto biography policies, But I think I followed it, Kindly mention the exact things that are decline, Because I don't know what thing got wrong exactly. Thank you much for your service. Have a great day Hamzaxeros (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamzaxeros: you say you read the autobio 'policies', yet you went ahead a wrote one? Please have another look at WP:AUTOBIO.
This draft was declined because there is absolutely no indication of, and more to the point no evidence for, notability. The sources are primary, and mostly don't support anything in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Musitafa Kalyowa

I would like to help me with the best way I can reference this article to be accepted Kalyowa Musita (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Musitafa Kalyowa: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:36, 24 October 2023 review of submission by VishalParmar1

Re-submitted my article. VishalParmar1 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VishalParmar1: no, you haven't. And given that this draft was rejected already three months ago, you shouldn't, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Iamrohj

Mukesh Chhabra wikipedia Page has been deleted can you please look into it and let me know. and if possible revert it back again to the older version. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukesh_Chhabra Iamrohj (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamrohj: it hasn't been deleted, but rather moved into the draft space, where it is awaiting review:  Courtesy link: Draft:Mukesh Chhabra. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 24 October 2023 review of submission by HAjfdi

I want publish my own article because I am Student HAjfdi (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAjfdi: well, don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging site. We publish articles on topics that are deemed notable. In any case, you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Sathish punarjan

wikipedia place to find small hospital to big hospitals information. is this wikipedia only for rich peoples and rich private sectors only. why you dont allow small hospital that serve with ayurveda Sathish punarjan (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sathish punarjan: this draft (such as it is) is purely promotional, with no encyclopaedic content; accordingly, it has been rejected and is pending deletion. Wikipedia is not the right place for you to promote your hospital, you need to use other platforms for your marketing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sathish punarjan Wikipedia is not a business directory. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. You should use social media to tell the world about this business. Note that Wikipedia summarizes the prevaling scientific consensus that Ayurveda is pseudoscientfic and has no evidence it is effective in treating cancer. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:10, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Guinnesslassie


Hello, I have a query regarding the draft page Helen Leahey (musician/voice over artist). Although the article links to many independent, reliable news articles reporting on the artist it is being continuously declined. Are you able to say what is missing? The notability of the person in question is that she was the first Guinness World Record holder for Lowest Vocal Note by a female. Culturally this is significant as until her record, women were only awarded 'highest vocal note by a female'. The artist also has TV appearences (Voice Germany and Voice UK) and credit on IMDb for a voice over in a major film (Exorcist: Believer - 2023). Thank you in advance for any help with this matter. ~~~~ Guinnesslassie (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guinnesslassie Please disclose your connection with Ms. Leahey; see conflict of interest and paid editing. You must have a connection since you took an image of her and she posed for you. This would include working for her directly or for the publishers of Guiness World Records.
You have documented her activities, but not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her and what makes her a notable person. If it's the world record, you will need to offer sources that discuss that aspect of her more in depth than the sources you have currently. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness World Records confer zero notability, do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your posts suggest that you are Ms. Leahey, and others suggest you aren't. Only a single person should exclusively be operating your account. If you are her, writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I am Leahey's public manager and agree that it is of course more desirable for someone completely independent to write about the artist's activities. Leahey's significance has slipped under the radar until now. There are articles about persons with less credentials on Wikipedia. A quick google search will bring up countless articles about Leahey's activities and official press pictures from independent news outlets. Guinness World Records has officially published about Leahey and is sourced in the draft, a long with many independent news outlets which have also discussed Leahey and her public work to date in detail. To limit the risk of the article being permanently deleted, could you advise what would be the best way forward? Is this article being declined because of the question of notability or the sources used? Thank you very much in advance for any help. It is appreciated, especially as I am new to being a contributor here on Wikipedia. Guinnesslassie (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Guinnesslassie: given what you say, you must declare your paid-editing status; please do this as your very next edit. I will post information on this on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guinnesslassie First, you must declare your paid relationship- this is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. See WP:PAID.
Please see other stuff exists. Existing inappropriate articles does not mean that more inappropriate articles should be added. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inapproprpiate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify any inappropriate articles you see for possible action.
Persons in your position trying to force the issue of creating an article are not usually successful; articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who take note of coverage of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Your client needs to be aware of the very good reasons to not want an article. We have no interest in publicity or marketing efforts to increase her exposure. Our only interest is in summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 24 October 2023 review of submission by KannappaSara9

Have attached Reliable resources already. Can you guide me through what exactly the reliable sources need to be attached? KannappaSara9 (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KannappaSara9: rather than piling the references together at the end like that, it would be best if you could cite them inline against the information they support; that way it would be much easier for the reviewer (and future readers) to see where the contents are coming from, and to verify them when required. See WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice (or just do what you've already done with the two of them that are cited). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:28, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Hsin Yu Chou

Hi! I have a problem understanding the problem of references i found for this article! Can someone please give me more specific guidance? Hsin Yu Chou (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hsin Yu Chou: the sources cited are a blog, a press release, three cites of the company's own website, and one journal or similar. These are primary sources. Instead, we need to see significant coverage of the company, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and wholly independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 24 October 2023 review of submission by 49.204.208.101

there are literally no pages which are reliable that have in depth information on the topic 49.204.208.101 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up your draft a little if as you say there "are literally no pages which are reliable that have in depth information on the topic" then we cannot have an article, but I think there should be enough out there with a little searching. Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Janlopi

Could someone help me find out what specifically in my article has an unencyclopedic tone? I don’t exactly understand how it is written like an essay and not an article. Janlopi (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Janlopi. Wikipedia articles usually paraphrase what reliable, independent, secondary sources state about a topic. Your draft however seems to make an assertation about Catholicism' influence on music which is only backed up by the fraryguitar.com source as far as I can see.
You may have written this draft WP:BACKWARDS, where you've wanted to write a topic and then tried to find sources to back it up. You need to find the sources first.
I think this topic may be viable as an article, but I wonder if it would be better served as part of the History sections (fully sourced) in the existing articles of Gregorian Chant, Solfege, and Classical Music? Qcne (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had like way more sources, mustve deleted them on accident. Thank you so much actually I did’nt know what I did. Also that is a good point, I might do that. Thank you so much <3 Janlopi (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Janlopi. Another mistake that inexperienced editors often make is to load up their drafts with large numbers of low-quality sources. Not only does this not help get a favourable review (a thousand low-quality sources do not add up to one high-quality one) but it may also make the draft less attractive to a reviewer, who will have to wade through the dross looking for a nugget.
I suggest that you look critically at every single source you are proposing to cite, and ask
  1. is it reliably published? - ie, by a reputable publisher not a user-generated website (such as a wiki or blog) or a vanity publisher or pay-to-publish journal;
  2. is it independent of the subject? - this may be less relevant for your topic, but if for example most of the work in this area has been done by one person or one team, we need sources wholly unconnected with that team;
  3. does it contain significant coverage of the subject? - not passing mentions, or routine information. In your case, that will be sources specifically about Catholicism's effect on music - sources about Catholicism, or music, or even catholic music, will generally not cut it, and attempting to argue from them is likely to be synthesis, which is a form of original research, and not permitted. Generally, information which is related to the subject but not about the subject, should not be cited at all, but should instead be wikilinked to whatever article we already have on that topic.
See WP:42 for a more information.
ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Loganschuchard

I need help submitting my project for English. Loganschuchard (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot create a new article for the subject we already have one here Rachel Eliza Griffiths your draft is also unreferenced so of no use whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Loganschuchard: by "submitting my project for English" do you mean that you're working on some sort of school or college homework project? In which case, please tell your teacher that this isn't what Wikipedia is about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Caucasian127

This page need to be moved on a article Caucasian127 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caucasian127 your draft is in the pool to be reviewed, there are over 3000 other drafts waiting for review. Please be patient. A review may take four or more months. Qcne (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Hailey4818

why was it declined Hailey4818 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hailey4818 Your draft was completely inappropriate for Wikipedia and will soon be deleted. It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please use Facebook or another social media website to promote quack theories. Qcne (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

07:22, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Sayerhsdilip

Why my article submission was declined I need your assistance to understand the reason behind declining my article submission. So that i can revise the article and re-share for review. Sayerhsdilip (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerhsdilip I fixed your request to include a link to your draft as intended.
First, if you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please read WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.
Wikipedia is not a place to tell about a company and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling what the company does and goes into detail about what is significant/important/influential about the company as the source sees it(not as the company itself might see it). Your draft does not do this, it merely describes the offerings of the company with promotional language("one stop shop"; "convenient and seamless", etc.). Much of the draft is also unsourced. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:29, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Musitafa Kalyowa

Can I resubmit this article for review? Kalyowa Musita (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has been rejected and will not be considered further- no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an association with this person, it needs to be disclosed, please see your user talk page for more information. If you are employed by or otherwise compensated by this person, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 25 October 2023 review of submission by VPNMage

Why is topic contrary to purpose of Wikipedia? There are lots of Wikipedia pages for VPN companies. I made some changes but now don't know how to submit article for revision again. VPNMage (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VPNMage your article has been rejected and will not be considered further. It's only purpose is to advertise and promote the VPN, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should delete this article too: NordVPN. It is much more focused on advertising. VPNMage (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. It provides a summary of what independent reliable sources say about the company- not merely documenting its activities. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that not every company merits a Wikipedia article- even in the same field. Competitors meriting articles does not automatically mean that your company does too. See WP:OSE.
I fixed your disclosure for proper display(you had coding in place to suppress it). 331dot (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. I will try to create similar article as NordVPN. Now I know what to look at.
Thank you. VPNMage (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VPNMage if you feel you can write a draft that passes the WP:NORG requirements and is written in a way that is compatible with WP:NPOV, ping me on my user talk page and I will have another look. Qcne (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is that you set aside everything you know about your company, all materials it puts out, and the mere reporting of its activities, and only summarize what independent sources choose to say about your company. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 25 October 2023 review of submission by DC1973

My proposed article for author Darren Charlton has been declined. I have now cited coverage of the author's book deal in Bookseller magazine. Peviously, I cited reviews of the author's works in both The Times and The Guardian and where works have been shortlisted for prominent literary awards such as the Costa Book Awards. Can you please advise if this will be enough to qualify for acceptance and if not , what more could be provided so that it may be? Thank you. DC1973 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DC1973: you have resubmitted the draft, so you will receive an assessment when a reviewer gets around to checking it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Ricazevedo

Hi, my name is Ricardo. I have been trying to post a new article on Wikipedia about the scientific biography of a researcher in my field, Dr Carlos Rogerio Figueiredo, and have faced issues.

I was required to revise my submission to be impartial and written in a formal tone of Wikipedia. I then completely revised the article and resubmitted it. However, I was informed that my submission appears to be an advertisement, which is not the case and doesn't make sense.

The article merely describes Dr Figueiredo's career and scientific tracking record, and the interpretation of "advertisement" is subjective, as describing any biography could also be a form of disseminating that person's career and life achievements.

Therefore, I was wondering if you could help me address the specific parts in the text that are causing the problem so I could move forward with this article submission.

I would really appreciate your assistance.

Kind regards

Ricardo Ricazevedo (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricazevedo First you must disclose your connection to this person, since you took a picture of him and he posed for you. See WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You did a great job documenting this person's activities, but that's not what we are looking for. We want a summary of what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about this person- how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 25 October 2023 review of submission by EKHrvatska

Dear help, I do not know how to ad references in EN version of the text when they are not existent in Wikipedia arena. I added official references from the official European Commission Representation in Croatia. User EKHrvatska Thank you for your swift treply. EKHrvatska (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EKHrvatska: see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using inline citations and footnotes.
You also need to show that the organisation is notable. Currently the references are all to its own website, which is a non-independent primary source.
Finally, you appear to have a relationship with the subject. I've posted a message on your talk page with advice on handing this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, understood. I would like to know how to do it (actually what to report under the CoI, the page is long and takes so much time to read). If I add couple of links like:
https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/u-zagrebu-proslavljeno-10-godina-od-ulaska-u-eu-plenkovic-hrvati-mogu-biti-ponosni/2475874.aspx
U Kući Europe Hrvati mogu doznati sve o pravima građana EU - Poslovni dnevnik
Otvorena Kuća Europe u Zagrebu | europski-fondovi.eu (archive.org)
Još jedna ceremonija: Otvorili Kuću Europe u centru Zagreba - Net.hr
and
Kuća Europe u Zagrebu – Wikipedija (wikipedia.org) Hopefully it will be OK? EKHrvatska (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EKHrvatska: I couldn't tell you without looking at those sources in detail whether or not they establish notability per WP:GNG, but I can tell you that the last one, the Croatian Wikipedia article, does not count.
I'll reply to your COI question on your user page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the four below listed are Croatian news portals.
https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/u-zagrebu-proslavljeno-10-godina-od-ulaska-u-eu-plenkovic-hrvati-mogu-biti-ponosni/2475874.aspx
U Kući Europe Hrvati mogu doznati sve o pravima građana EU - Poslovni dnevnik
Otvorena Kuća Europe u Zagrebu | europski-fondovi.eu (archive.org)
Još jedna ceremonija: Otvorili Kuću Europe u centru Zagreba - Net.hr
EKHrvatska (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 25 October 2023 review of submission by 180.188.243.126

why my article is rejected 180.188.243.126 (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a website to compare services. Qcne (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Stephenjkrajewski

Hi you have rejected Nomad eSIM for the following:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject I think that these are all met - two articles that go in-depth on the use Nomad, from the NYT and WSJ (reliable), secondary (very much so they review the app without any connection to us) and certainly independent. What needs to happen to get approval? Thank you. 

Stephenjkrajewski (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephenjkrajewski: I haven't read the NYT and WSJ articles, but even if they do meet the WP:GNG standard, two isn't enough, need at least one more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the the issue is the number of references not the references we've given. I will see if we have a third of that type. I will get back to you - thank you for your help. Stephen Stephenjkrajewski (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephenjkrajewski: like I said, I've not checked these sources as they're behind a pay wall, only assumed based on what you say that they meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to cover the topic in-depth, yours certainly don't, some don't even mention the subject others are just listings. Passing the criteria at WP:NCORP is NOT easy and you are nowhere near passing it. Theroadislong (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - if the article we're creating is about the simple of factual existence of an mobile application and it is used by thousands of people every month (which can be verified) and exists on the two major app stores and has been reviewed by actual users, why then is the bar so high in terms of reference? It would help if you had an example of a wiki reference of a mobile app that has been verified so we can match what they have done. Stephenjkrajewski (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of things exist, but we don't have articles about them, the simple factual existence of a mobile application is not a reason to have an article about it? Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephenjkrajewski: number of users is a meaningless metric as far as notability is concerned, as is where one might buy this app. The only thing that matters here is the sources, and whether they satisfy WP:GNG.
As for comparing with other articles, that is pretty futile, unless those articles have been rated as good, as otherwise you may simply replicate whatever problems they have. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing FYI: NYT articles are readable if you turn of JavaScript support for the site. The same trick does not work for the WSJ. KylieTastic (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Nayeem150

I want to make Nayeem150 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayeem150 Nope, your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nayeem150: this draft (such as it is) has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further.
For future reference, please see WP:YFA and WP:REFB for advice on article creation and referencing, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:00, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Emilydenver

I can't find reliable sources for the page as the news published is by articles. What do I do? Emilydenver (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Emilydenver: I've no idea what you mean by "the news published is by articles". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tone is not appropriate " thirst for knowledge and personal growth" "her heart remained dedicated" " revered institution" "a pivotal career move" 'a remarkable milestone" please re-write in a dry neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Plato.franco

What can I do to make my sources better to make sure next time I submit this article it passes? Plato.franco (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Plato.franco: a key purpose of referencing is to tell the reader where the information came from, so that in can be verified. For example in the 'Biographical Information' section there is only one source cited, which doesn't seem to say anything about which high school she went to (irrelevant) or that her family moved to Sweden (ditto). So if those details don't come from that source, where do they come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Mikivikipeditor

The topic is was refused for not meeting notability criteria, yet it has been covered by multiple(5 in sources, i can find more if needed) diferent, independent, reliable sources, which matches the general notability guideline. Mikivikipeditor (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 25 October 2023 review of submission by 103.206.205.213

I am trying to get an article about GRV Media approved purely as the company is referenced in the article about its flagship website HITC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITC). However it is constantly rejected due to not having independent references and the use of press releases etc. Is there any specific minimum article length? I have added references to the gov.uk website showing the legitimacy of the GRV Media limited company (which also lists the founders as mentioned in this article). The company has recently surpassed 100m page views per month across its portfolio of websites making it one of the UK's largest independent publishers. What else can I do to prove the legitimacy of the article and content therein?

Thank you 

103.206.205.213 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1181883702"