Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Mayukhjit_Chakraborty
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Ruban_Ganeshu
Line 749: Line 749:
{{Lafc|username=Mayukhjitc|ts=16:00, 3 January 2024|draft=Draft:Mayukhjit_Chakraborty}}
{{Lafc|username=Mayukhjitc|ts=16:00, 3 January 2024|draft=Draft:Mayukhjit_Chakraborty}}
i have seen on "WP:MN" that i do qualify for musician notability due to rule 9. [[User:Mayukhjitc|Mayukhjitc]] ([[User talk:Mayukhjitc|talk]]) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
i have seen on "WP:MN" that i do qualify for musician notability due to rule 9. [[User:Mayukhjitc|Mayukhjitc]] ([[User talk:Mayukhjitc|talk]]) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

== 16:00, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 5.195.38.6 ==
{{Lafc|username=5.195.38.6|ts=16:00, 3 January 2024|draft=Draft:Ruban_Ganeshu}}
Could you please create living person's biography [[Special:Contributions/5.195.38.6|5.195.38.6]] ([[User talk:5.195.38.6|talk]]) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:00, 3 January 2024

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


December 28

02:09, 28 December 2023 review of submission by AbhishekFan12

How can I create a Wikipedia Page for an actor? Please guide me AbhishekFan12 (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having trouble creating an article, you can refer to the Help:Your first article page for information on how to create your first article. Unfortunately, the draft you mentioned has been rejected and won't be considered any further. I noticed your username and draft title match, suggesting you might be creating an article about yourself. Just keep in mind that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AbhishekFan12: If you are not the same person and are a fan of Abhishek Kumar, please take a look at WP:COI before starting an article. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:59, 28 December 2023 review of submission by MeyyarasanC

I need to publish this article. It rejected as mentioned that its seems to be advertisement so I made it more neutral in a way. As I am part of the organization even though I am doing this to good without getting paid or any additional things, I couldn't publish this one. Kindly help me to publish this article. MeyyarasanC (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MeyyarasanC: why do you need to get this published? Although now that you finally admit you have a conflict of interest, I can sort of guess why.
This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for Indian Technology, you are a paid editor, you do not need to be specifically paid to make edits. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:23, 28 December 2023 review of submission by BPB Online

Not able to submit the request error is coming "An error occurred (TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'pages')). Please try again or refer to the help desk. 

BPB Online (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BPB Online: what is it you're trying to do, exactly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to create a page on wikipedia BPB Online (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BPB Online: no, I meant what are you trying to do, which throws the error message? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No technical errors occurred; your draft was successfully submitted for review. Unfortunately, I had to decline it because it was promotional. You promoted both a book-selling company and your article's subject. Additionally, FYI you are blocked because you were using a company’s name as your username, which is against Wikipedia’s username policy. If you want to continue editing, please follow the instructions provided in the block message on your talk page. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 28 December 2023 review of submission by Finneggington3451

I created this article about this pretty well known person and people are saying it's rejected, I ha e backed up my points with newspaper articles, to prove she's notable, but it's getting rejected. I was wondering if you could look at it to see if it's the way it's written that making it be rejected. A lot of people on Wikipedia now don't have more than two newspaper articles so wondering if it's the way it's written. I hope you can help. Finneggington3451 (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finneggington3451 Please see other stuff exists; it could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this. That other inappropriate articles exist cannot mean that more should be added. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us, for many reasons. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, you can identify other inappropriate articles you see for possible action. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community.
The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Having a lot of views and followers on social media is not part of the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right okay i respect that but Adam b and mr beast are on wikipedia purley for their followers so if we cant add youtubers for being notable why are they on?
But i obviously respect this. if its not right for wikipedia then it's not, we'll have to wait till she is more notable Finneggington3451 (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Finneggington3451: the number of YT followers is not a notability metric. YT'ers need to meet pretty much the same notability criteria as anyone else. If you have found articles on other YT'ers who do not meet these criteria, then you're welcome to either improve those articles, or if this isn't possible, initiate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
will keep my eyes peeled thank you so much. One question though so in the terms og guidlines what meets the guidlines for articles or what allows a person to be notable enough to be on Wikipedia Finneggington3451 (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the notability guidelines at WP:BIO. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily change the article to make it not sound like we are not promoting her? But it now says stop does that mean we can't edit it anymore. Finneggington3451 (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create a new thread for every post. Who is "we"? Rejection means that this is the end of the line for this draft, at least until something fundamentally changes, like notability being able to be established. In that situation, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we as in me Finneggington3451 (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a draft reads promotionally, it usually means that the writer has written the draft BACKWARDS, and the best advise is to nuke it and start from the beginning - which means finding the independent sources that the article needs to be based on. 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) 16:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ,

If I can edit it an try resubmitting it, because I can probably further edit it to not make it sound promotional Finneggington3451 (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finneggington3451 Please do not create a new thread for every post, continue to edit this existing section. Promotional tone is not the only issue here- you have not demonstrated that Lydia is notable. This can't be fixed by simple editing. If you believe you can rewrite the draft, you may do so but will then need to appeal to the last reviewer. In essence, you would need to start over from scratch, first gathering sources that provide significant coverage of Lydia and what makes her important/significant/influential(and that can't be her number of followers or views), how she is notable. Writing a letter to the Prime Minister by itself doesn't do it- the Prime Minister gets thousands of letters and emails a day- did her communication with the PM influence an action he took? Is her discussion of the Royal Family recognized by others as particularly insightful or influential? Things like that. If you have sources that discuss that, you should summarize them. Any article about her should not merely list her activities, it should discuss what makes them important.
Is there a particular reason you seem strongly invested in this draft, the only subject you have edited about? 331dot (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry I thought replying is adding onto The draft. It's not really a problem if the draft gets deleted. I can't do anything more to it etc I have tried my best, I will just see what else I can write about or influence Wikipedia on. But yes she is pretty well known so I am surprised that she won't be getting a page. Anyone could probably improve it and it actually be really good. It needs people to be able to edit and attach the information about the impact of her letter to the prime minister etc because I don't have access to that, I only wrote it simply for people to add onto it. As a well known person with news articles I thought you could add people. It go rejected first time for not independent articles yet all articles submitted are about her? So don't really understand that rule. I obviously respect at this time maybe it can't be added die to lack of articles and I am sure in the next few months she'll get more because as I stared she is an upcoming person. But yes I get what your all saying and completely respect it of course. Finneggington3451 (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Finneggington3451: the only secondary sources cited in this draft are the Bucks Free Press and Bucks Herald. As it happens, I'm very familiar with both publications, and can categorically state that they do not establish sufficient notability for inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right? If those two are secondary sources then so are the News Mag, the Express and The Sun, which I could add, that she featured in surely? So technically it's not just local?
I understand though of course I respect that that's not on a global website, but if your again focusing on aricles I didn't realise they were the be all and end all of an article, of course people can improve an article, but some people on Wikipedia have two articles and that's it, so articles aren't seeming to be important on this website anymore. Finneggington3451 (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Finneggington3451: with respect, if you don't fully understand the concept of notability and how this is established, you probably shouldn't have jumped straight into article creation, which is just about the most challenging thing you can do on Wikipedia. No, articles aren't "the be all and end all", but secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) are in almost all cases required to establish notability. Not only that, but those secondary sources must be reliable, which eg. the Express and Sun are not. Nor are (and this was my earlier point), hyperlocal publications that focus entirely on local-interest stories, readily accept churnalism content, and generally have a publication threshold so low that it is basically a depression in the floor. And regardless of the publication, the content must provide significant coverage directly of the subject, and must have been written/produced entirely of the publication's own volition without input from the subject (or their publicist or any other interested party). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have edited on Wikipedia before I just got a new computer and forgot my account name, so actually this isn't my first time editing a Wikipedia article. I have written tons on my last page. But regardless of that, I respect that this article wasn't of highest amount of reliability, but majority of newspapers do ask for input from the person, it's how they interest the Audience and allow a person to speak, that's got nothing to do with the article anyway so rejected it on boundaries of the articles are just some promotional thing is completely unfair and just damn right rude in my honest opinion. Wikipedia is and will always be the place for reliable articles that's all you had to say you didn't need to be rude about what articles I had chosen to put into my article, as just promotional stuff that I paid for. I have no relationship with the person at all and continue to not have. I just saw the incredible work and all the news and thought why not try. It didn't get accepted that's fine, maybe when she's super notable she'll be added, but none of you needed to start attacking my work, I tried my best and that's all that mattered. Onto The next contribution, which won't be making an article because all I get is attacked. Finneggington3451 (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Finneggington3451: I never said anything about you knowing the subject or being paid to write this; you brought those up yourself.
Nobody is attacking you or being rude, but it is our job to give honest feedback. This draft provides no evidence that the subject is notable, and you clearly have misconceptions regarding the concept of notability. You keep claiming that she is famous etc., but cannot provide anything to substantiate that. That's about the long and short of it, I'm afraid.
Now, about your previous account... you really cannot remember the name, or even part of it? You cannot remember any of the articles you've edited, so that you could look up your username in their edit histories? One would think that with "tons of" edits to your name, you'd recall something, at least, which would help us find your old account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, no. Well apologies I thought you said you were. Does the draft get removed now or do you keep it up and if I add stuff to it alongside editing other things on Wikipedia? Finneggington3451 (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to add onto that it was a VERY long time ago Finneggington3451 (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:51, 28 December 2023 review of submission by Anj2205

how can i write for this institute Anj2205 (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed Qcne (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:49, 28 December 2023 review of submission by Zcaller

No Zcaller (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question, @Zcaller? Qcne (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 28 December 2023 review of submission by 2A01:E0A:254:D6A0:25BB:59FF:1DC:35B5

Hello, Mr. Siavouch Barmaki was my grandfather. Actually he had another wife in Tehran, Iran and had a son in Tehran by the name Amir Hooshang Barmaki. Please revise it. Thank you. Mehrnoush Barmaki 2A01:E0A:254:D6A0:25BB:59FF:1DC:35B5 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mehrnoush. Wikipedia articles about people must pass the strict notability criteria. Your draft did not prove that your grandfather met this criteria. Qcne (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 28 December 2023 review of submission by FECworld

I am not full knowledge about wekipeFEC is a platform where all services can be accessed worldwide,

Example: - Shop / shopping, e-commerce, utility, food delivery, Ticket bookings, Drive, Ride, Tours & Travels, jobs, education, multi-vendor, marketplace, pay bills, banking services, finance services, business to customer, business to business, direct to costumers, Science, Technology and more goods, services. FECworld (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FECworld Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion of a business. That is prohibited. Qcne (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:46, 28 December 2023 review of submission by Discernmentfortruth

Tried to create a new page Hello,

Long time reader, first time editor of Wikipedia. I am trying to create a page. I would like to contribute more to Wikipedia. Is there a step-by-step guide for beginners? I tried to create this page. What could I do to improve it? Discernmentfortruth (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Discernmentfortruth: Welcome to Wikipedia! You can find guidance on creating your first article at Help:Your first article. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see this. Apologies. I just posted below. Should I delete the subsequent one? Discernmentfortruth (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not create a new thread with every post, just edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 28 December 2023 review of submission by Susannebbeck102559

Because the reviewer indicated that Lynn Darling was not a person of note, despite a very highly regarded career as journalist and author (Harvard Crimson editor to Washington Post reporter under Ben Bradlee, Editor at Esquire during its peak popularity, and subsequent author of two highly rated works of non-fiction. She was also married to Wikipedia entry, Lee A. Lescaze. What could I do to make the submission stronger? Susannebbeck102559 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Susannebbeck102559. Your four sources are all book reviews, which is fine, but we'd need sources for her date of birth, location, family, education, employment history, affair etc. Do these pieces of information come from the book review sources? Or from her memoirs directly? I've had a glance at the sources and they don't seem to mention the facts stated above.
It looks like Lynn is an author, so you'd need to prove notability under our WP:NAUTHOR criteria.
Two more tips: please don't put external links in the body of the text, and please reference correctly using the guidance at WP:INTREFVE.
Let me know when you've made those changes and I can have another look. Qcne (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry to be so helpless but I can't figure out how to make the changes you want. I have links to the Harvard alumni page and her yearbook from high school. How do I insert those? And the references to her works are book reviews but the links to her husband, their marriage and his death are all from the New York Times. Are those not acceptable or should I cite them differently than in footnotes? Thanks again for your help. You are being very patient! Susannebbeck102559 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries @Susannebbeck102559. Wikipedia is really confusing for new comers.
We can only accept sources that are published. Yearbooks probably would not count under that?
I think what has happened is that you've confused external links for citations. I've gone ahead and fixed that in the Draft:Lynn_Darling for you.
I have added a couple of Citation needed tags. To fix these, Edit the draft, click on the tag, click the Add citation button, and then find a source (you can reuse source) and then add the source details.
Let me know if you need more help. Qcne (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 28 December 2023 review of submission by Discernmentfortruth

Hello,

I made several edits to creating this article. Do you know if there is any advice specifically you would have for improving this article? That is to say are there articles or citations that would be better to cite to.

This is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Irene_Burgers

I believe I have the tone written well - that is to meet the standards of Wikipedia. Discernmentfortruth (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Discernmentfortruth: you have to demonstrate that the subject is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. You also need to ensure that every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details are clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. These were the reasons why I declined your draft, as stated in the decline notice, ergo these are the specific aspects of it which you must improve before resubmitting. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 28 December 2023 review of submission by Discernmentfortruth

Could someone list the exact issues that are at problem here? :) I just am not sure how I can further edit this. Discernmentfortruth (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Discernmentfortruth: you were asked not to start a new thread with every comment you make. Please just add to your existing thread while it remains on this page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

00:37, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Alias Chosin

Hi I would like assistance with my submission that keeps getting denied. I'm unsure what I'm doing that does not allow it to qualify for publishing. Alias Chosin (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alias Chosin: I would say that Sungodtemple's review comment remains highly pertinent; and I quote: "Are you talking about Eric Holder, or the murder of Nipsey Hussle? Either way, you have to prove that the submission is notable enough to be separate from Nipsey Hussle - for example, by showing evidence that the case has influenced laws".
You should also review WP:BLP1E. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Nirmal Madhavan

The draft Wikipedia page for Geoffrey Brooks has been declined due to a few key issues: 

  1) Insufficient Inline Citations: The draft lacks the minimum standard for inline citations as required by Wikipedia. You need to cite sources using footnotes. Wikipedia's guide on referencing for beginners could be helpful here.

   2) Non-Encyclopedic Tone: The submission's tone does not meet the formal and neutral style expected in encyclopedia entries. It should be revised to reflect a neutral point of view and avoid promotional language or "peacock terms."

   3) Connection to Subject: There is a suggestion that a major contributor to the article may have a close connection to the subject, which could affect neutrality. It's important to ensure the content complies with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality.

   4) General Improvement Tips: The rejection notice also includes links to resources for improving Wikipedia drafts, such as guides on editing, referencing, article development, and finding sources.

Hence need assistance to revise the draft please Nirmal Madhavan (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what assistance? ltbdl (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 29 December 2023 review of submission by 46.211.88.235

can you please be more specific about what is wrong with the draft as I don't see any decline-mentioned issues. 46.211.88.235 (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the content is unsupported by referencing, and at least some of the sources cited are not reliable.
The REFBOMBING makes it difficult to analyse the sources quickly, but it looks like many of them are primary, and thus unable to establish notability per WP:GNG / WP:NORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't post the same query more than once. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there's only one ref is primary source - the law. all other are mostly news, which are secondary. so, still don't see the described issue.
sorry for double - page just stuck and was reloaded. 46.211.88.235 (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several .gov.ua sources, those are usually primary.
But let's turn this around: can you highlight the 3-5 strongest sources in terms of being secondary (and please do click on that link to check you properly understand what this means), independent and reliable, and providing significant coverage (ditto) of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 / 10 (that one last not sure as meets your reqs). that's only secondaey sorces avoiding gov.ua domain, despite there's also secondary ones exists (local/global administrations/governmental news). Will it help if I'll i.e. exchange some (most) secondary gov.ua sources to not gov.ua ones with the same content? 46.211.88.89 (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the same content exists at a primary and secondary source, then it depends on which is the original. If a primary source says something, which gets repeated by a secondary one, that still makes the source ultimately primary. Conversely, if a secondary source says something, which a primary source repeats, that makes it secondary. If you're aware of both, and know which is the original source, you should always cite that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
got it. I'll check refs for it. 46.211.234.71 (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of those nine sources, most don't provide significant coverage of the subject (and one doesn't even work, returning 404) and/or aren't reliable and independent. There might be one or two that are okay, but I wouldn't categorically be able to say that the decline decision was wrong. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
404? probably imispelled something. probably i don't really understand what does mean 'to provide significant coverage' by source. can you please lead exactly whrre to read about that? do you mean I have to find some truly secondary source that describe the article subject in detail for it to be enough to maake the article worth to be published? 46.211.234.71 (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
found WP:SIGCOV. please comment other questions. thanks. 46.211.234.71 (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is that some kind of article subject significant coverage (for now missing at the article): 11? 46.211.234.71 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:06, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Vairankodepooram20

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343012227_Katala_vesa_On_Revisiting_the_Hunter 

Vairankodepooram20 (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't ask a question, but you have submitted your draft for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Vairankodepooram20

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343012227_Katala_vesa_On_Revisiting_the_Hunter my reference added site wikipedia.org Vairankodepooram20 (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Vairankodepooram20

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343012227_Katala_vesa_On_Revisiting_the_Hunter https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/article22841025.ece 

Vairankodepooram20 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vairankodepooram20: can you please stop posting these links everywhere, and that includes other editors' talk pages. Your editing is starting to get disruptive. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Awaz Foundation

I have no idea about article writing for my organization page on Wikipedia. i have seen multiple organization exist on Wikipedia with their introduction. i have made article with my organization introduction as well as i have provided the valid references. my page is deleted shortly. please help me to get live on Wikipedia. thank you so much Awaz Foundation (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Caroline Carlson

This article has multiple sources from News and Some press releases from the government of India and other government websites.

I am still wondering why this got rejected. Caroline Carlson (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caroline Carlson what is your connection to this company? Let's go through the sources one by one:
  1. a primary source - does not confer notability.
  2. a company listing - does not confer notability.
  3. no mention of Hirehike.
  4. no mention of Hirehike.
  5. no mention of Hirehike.
  6. this source does not load for me.
  7. a trivial mention of Hirehike.
As such I am declining again. Qcne (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like an advert. All the sources are press releases issued by India's leading PR agency, PTI. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. We are wating our time here. Finding a way to close my wikipedia account. Caroline Carlson (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • wasting
Caroline Carlson (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted, simply log out and forget about it. Qcne (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Caroline Carlson (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will never ever write a dot in wikipedia in my life nor waste a second. Caroline Carlson (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Qcne (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Vairankodepooram20

Help Vairankodepooram20 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vairankodepooram20 read my rejection notice and come back if you have any specific questions. Qcne (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 29 December 2023 review of submission by 103.178.48.106

Help me to create this page. 103.178.48.106 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my decline notice? Qcne (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Robert Neustadter

Thank you for your feedback and the "C" rating. However, I have a few questions:

a). When I do a Google search on Britannia Village, Ottawa, the article does not come up?

b). Can I now add a fair use photo to the article?

c). Where can I find comments from the reviewers?

Thank you

Robert Neustadter Robert Neustadter (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert Neustadter:
a) Newly published articles get indexed by Google when they've been reviewed by NPP, or when 90 days has passed since publication, whichever comes sooner. This article was autopatrolled upon acceptance, so should appear shortly, if it hasn't already.
b) Yes, AFAIK.
c) The AfC comments are removed automatically when the draft is accepted, but you can still find them in the edit history.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 29 December 2023 review of submission by Bera678

I need to some help about references in my draft. I asked this before to Wikipedia:teahouse. please help me. Bera678 (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bera678: can you be more specific than just "some help"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to get help about adding references to my draft because i am not good at to adding references. Bera678 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:10, 29 December 2023 review of submission by 142.181.229.69

I am the official creator of the Wikipedia page "Ida of Upper Lorraine", which was drafted, and sent for review, and rejected. I am confused, because I spent many hours on it, trying to find sources, and I thought I had done the article I wanted. Why was it rejected?

It would be very nice if you, or another kind person, could tell me what is wrong with my official article. I have seen articles similar to mine. I do accept that there may be a missing area of article that I missed about her, and I do accept that it might not reach the standards, but I would like to try and publish this article.

Thank you for your time. 

142.181.229.69 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor.
- the article was declined, not rejected. Declined means if you address the issues you can re-submit.
- the article is not your article, see WP:OWN.
- the reason for the declining is in the grey box: in summary you have not proven Ida is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article (using our special definition of notability which can be found at WP:NPEOPLE). You have three sources, but they're all the same source. It seems like the source is reliable, but we'd need more than a single source to prove notability.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:13, 29 December 2023 review of submission by OnlyInOhioGuy

when I accepted OnlyInOhioGuy (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:31, 29 December 2023 review of submission by CattJohn

I wrote this article and it has been declined and I would like to know why CattJohn (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CattJohn There is no lead section. Please read WP:MOSLEAD. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CattJohn Were I to review this draft I would need a good reason not to suggest a merge of your draft with Frontex 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't merged with Frontex as it discusses further problems unrelated to Frontex as a company. I wanted to add it to the 'Mediterranean Sea' page but it's closed CattJohn (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I have added now CattJohn (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

01:44, 30 December 2023 review of submission by M066690

Sir/Ma'am,

BLUF: I am trying to contribute to the knowledge of society concerning an official US Government Organization operating in Japan. The mission of MSC Japan is important and having a Wikipedia page is important for the public record. I respectfully request to know a more in depth reason why this article was denied publishing. I'd prefer not to keep the public in the dark about this organization and request "reference" assistance to make corrections in order to move forward. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Denial reasons are below, however, references given were official government websites (reliable), US Military Public Affairs websites and Stars & Stripes, an official Military News reporting organization (in depth). These articles include an impartial description of the Command and its mission, and are not part of the Command in question (i.e. secondary). If you google "MSC SSU Japan" or "MSC Japan" you will see all several related articles. But as with many government Organizations, the government does not provide many official websites with additional information due to cost savings.

Article was denied publishing due to the following: This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: 

   in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
   reliable
   secondary
   independent of the subject

I've used Wikipedia for the last 20 years, and I've never had such an issue with contributing knowledge. Please assist me with making whatever necessary corrections to successfully get this article published. I have a copy of the official Command Brief (unclassified), however I don't believe this will assist as were only trying to site items already on the internet and not contribute new information.

Thanks & Very Respectfully, m066690 M066690 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M066690: the decline reasons contain sufficient information about what needs to be addressed. Please read them and make the necessary improvements accordingly. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, M066690, that 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. Your references are all to official sources, which are not independent of the operation. You need to find books, newspapers, or learned journals, which discuss the operation, and base your article on those. ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M066690, we already have a fairly detailed article Military Sealift Command. I do not see the need for a separate article about this organization's activities in just Japan. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328. I respect your opinion, but isn't Wikipedia's goal to be a comprehensive collection of all of the knowledge in the world? Isn't it to be a widely accessible and free encyclopedia comprehensive of information on all branches of knowledge? Why hinder that effort? What is achieved?
Military Sealift Command (and that article) is about just the headquarters for separate Command's located throughout the world which all have separate mission sets. Military Sealift Command Japan is an entirely separate Command which is responsible for operations throughout an entire Country and a Fleet of over 50+ US Military vessels. MSC Japan has been in operation since the end of WWII and was a huge component of supporting military operations during the Korean War, Vietnam War, and War on Terror.
I'll take your suggestion as a request for more historical information and I'm open to additional suggestions to improve this article. Thank you & V/r M066690 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better use of this knowledge would be at most a section in the article Cullen linked. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 02:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, but once the article is complete, it would be too long to add as a section. You're really helping me see what I need to do to complete the article, thank you. M066690 (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:34, 30 December 2023 review of submission by Therefortheroom

To edit and approve the submission Therefortheroom (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therefortheroom: your submission was declined, and the reason for this decline is that it does not meet notability criteria and doesn't cite any sources. Please note that the content of every article, especially BLPs, must be backed up by reliable sources. Now, you need to establish its notability by adding reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this subject. I noticed you included external links in the body of the article; you might want to add them as references. For guidance on proper citation, you can refer to WP:CITE. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you pointing out about the external links. I misread that by adding them that they were also added as references. I’ll go back to the drawing board when I have more time and make the corrections. Again, very helpful. Thank you. M066690 (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hesitate to reach out—I'm always here and more than happy to assist you anytime you need! – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:50, 30 December 2023 review of submission by Rimithapa

I am unable to write and submit. Is there any wiki writer who can help me publish. I have all the supporting citations. Rimithapa (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate your effort, but unfortunately, your submission was declined. The reviewer mentioned that it seems to have been generated by an LLM and resembles a CV. It requires some manual improvement. Remember, LLM content shouldn't be directly added to Wikipedia; you can use it for grammar checks, etc. Take a moment to review the decline reasons provided by the reviewer in the grey box within the template and in the comment section. Make the necessary improvements, and then click on the resubmit button at the end of the template to give it another shot for review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:42, 30 December 2023 review of submission by EvgeniyGolubev

Could you please tell me why my article was declined? EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

read the decline notice. ltbdl (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:01, 30 December 2023 review of submission by GriffinRosinski

How can I make it better? GriffinRosinski (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GriffinRosinski: This draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 30 December 2023 review of submission by 2409:40C4:EE:8D6F:1067:33FF:FE22:5C48

I am new here ..plzz give some ideas or assistance.. 2409:40C4:EE:8D6F:1067:33FF:FE22:5C48 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a cookery book or how-to-guide. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 30 December 2023 review of submission by "Jhony777"

we have imdb reference link for the movies where this artist work for and fm links kindly tell us what we need to add in our article as reference we need your guide Thanks. "Jhony777" (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@"Jhony777": Your draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. It's important to note that IMDb, being a self-published source, is not considered reliable. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 30 December 2023 review of submission by Nerdofhistory

darft getting rejected Nerdofhistory (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nerdofhistory: your draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. If you have additional information or sources that could establish its notability, you may directly message the rejecting reviewer. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nerdofhistory, assistant inspector-general of Registration and Stamps is not a plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:41, 30 December 2023 review of submission by 98.186.55.18

Can you Please Upload the 2025 NCAA men's Final Four Logo please i would accept it. 98.186.55.18 (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the appropriate venue for requesting file uploads. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 30 December 2023 review of submission by Rahulbumperkumar

Sir Sir please help me sir please Rahulbumperkumar (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulbumperkumar: your draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 30 December 2023 review of submission by Jackeyed One

I was given the following editorial advice to: "External links should also be removed or converted to inline citations where appropriate. Greenman (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2023"

I substituted several of the references that were external links to citation links in relevant passages. The external links are visible in read mode but when I go to editi mode the eternal links are not visible. Please advise. Jackeyed One (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackeyed One, your draft violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. You have written a hagiography, not a neutral encyclopedia article. You need to remove all the excessive praise in Wikipedia's voice. It is not appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jackeyed One, you seem to be confusing references with external links. Read Referencing for beginners, and format your references to display bibliographic information rather than bare URLs. Take a look at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama, in particular the section at the very end: "Theatre, musical theatre, dance, and opera". Take a close look at a few articles there to see the correct way to write neutrally, and to structure references and external links. Cullen328 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 30 December 2023 review of submission by Vesper.and.Twilight

Hello -- I am trying to rename (move) the page title "Mark Steven Morton" to "Mark Morton" since that latter name is the one this author uses on his published works. However, when I try to do so, I receive the following message: "You have not specified a target page or user on which to perform this function." Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 

Vesper.and.Twilight (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vesper.and.Twilight: that article was published two months ago, whereas this help desk is for drafts undergoing the AfC review process.
In any case, you cannot move this to 'Mark Morton', since a disambiguation page already exists at that title Mark Morton. You could perhaps move it to something like 'Mark Morton (author)', but I would actually suggest leaving it where it is, as that seems as good a way of disambiguating as anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DoubleGrazing -- What you suggest (leaving it as is) sounds like the best option. I appreciate your guidance. Best wishes, Vesper Vesper.and.Twilight (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 30 December 2023 review of submission by 2600:1016:B072:C478:2CCA:5CEA:B674:BF59

I want people to know the backstory of this channel 2600:1016:B072:C478:2CCA:5CEA:B674:BF59 (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT the place to do that, we only report on topics that are notable. Theroadislong (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:26, 30 December 2023 review of submission by Encyclopédisme

Please review my draft. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


December 31

00:24, 31 December 2023 review of submission by Owleyesinthelibrary

Hi, I've revised a draft of an entry for the artist Gregory Masurovsky a few times. The last time I asked the teahouse if the sources were sufficient, which had been an issue with some reviewers. I got a general response about sourcing, which I think I have a handle on. My question is about whether these specific sources are sufficient for the article. I asked the last reviewer but didn't hear back. In the last couple of days I've received a notice that the draft has been archived. Not sure what that means. In any case, my question remains: are these specific sources sufficient? Where can I go from here? Thanks Owleyesinthelibrary (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Owleyesinthelibrary: the first, strategic decision you need to make is whether you're aiming to show notability by the general WP:GNG route, or by the special WP:ARTIST one, as this has a bearing on the sources required. A quick scan of the sources cited suggests the latter to be more likely. My advice therefore is that you study carefully (if you haven't already) the four criteria in the latter, and consider whether you can clearly and demonstrably (as in, backed up by evidence) show that this person meets one or more of them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I think he meets the notability standard based on the artist criteria, section 4, works in public collections. (That's in line with your advice.) I added five more citations. There are now 10. I would guess that's sufficient. He also won a couple of awards at a major art show, which I would think constitute critical recognition, another criteria for artistic notability.
I also added some citations in the draft in places which a previous reviewer said they were needed.
What's the next step? Thanks for you help in this. Owleyesinthelibrary (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You probably received a message saying some of your comments/questions on a talk page somewhere have been archived. The draft is still there; in fact, there is no way of 'archiving' drafts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:44, 31 December 2023 review of submission by Rosepolicarpio

Hi. I would like to understand why my article is not being published. All of the references I've used are reliable, published books in the Philippines on this topic. I have written four other articles accepted by Wikipedia with similar sources. Rosepolicarpio (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer to your next question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:45, 31 December 2023 review of submission by Rosepolicarpio

Hi. I would like to understand why my article is not being published. All of the references I've used are reliable, published books in the Philippines on this topic. I have written four other articles accepted by Wikipedia with similar sources. Rosepolicarpio (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosepolicarpio: it may well be that all the sources you've cited are reliable, but they're offline sources cited in a way that makes it difficult or even impossible for anyone to verify them, as they don't provide full bibliographical information of the publications. See WP:OFFLINE for advice on citing such sources.
The other problem with this is that quite a lot of the content is unreferenced with entire paragraphs and even sections without a single citation. This inevitably causes the reader to wonder "how do we know that's true" or "where did this information come from", and the reader should never have to ask such questions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 31 December 2023 review of submission by Twelve31

Having trouble finding out how to format the picture with background information in the style that seems persistent throughout wikipedia with the blue banners etc... Any help would be appreciated. Twelve31 (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve31, there was coding that forced the image to be displayed larger than usual. I removed that, and now the photo is displaying normally. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Twelve31 (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:03, 31 December 2023 review of submission by TempCgi

I have created a Wikipedia article on Bikram Malati Indian Singer in Hello Team. TempCgi 08:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:57, 31 December 2023 review of submission by Rosinant357

This is my first article and I need help to understand why it is being declined every time, I try to publish it . Could you please provide an example and help me resolve the issue. Rosinant357 (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosinant357: this draft has a few different issues, but it was declined for lack of evidence of notability. You need to show that the subject is notable either by the general WP:GNG notability guideline, which needs much stronger sources than you're currently citing; or by the special WP:MUSICBIO one, which requires substantial career achievements (and evidence thereof). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help... I'll try to add WP:MUSICBIO tag ... And hope that help me... I think i add references for all information that i try to publish . Rosinant357 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosinant357: I've requested that this draft be speedily deleted. (Should have looked into it earlier, my bad.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 31 December 2023 review of submission by Edmilsonreis2321

I'm a beginner editor and I've already written an article and they're always rejecting it due to sources, I need help with that Edmilsonreis2321 (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edmilsonreis2321: this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are either dead-links, basic listing probably self generated or just Spotify links to the artist (with 9 monthly listeners). KylieTastic (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 31 December 2023 review of submission by 2409:4070:4084:F809:A1FF:DC7A:81C5:88F6

please help me in referencing 

2409:4070:4084:F809:A1FF:DC7A:81C5:88F6 (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book sources you provided are primary. One's own books should not be added as references to back up statements. Writing books and distributing them to book-selling platforms doesn't establish notability. You need to add reliable secondary sources that offer significant coverage of the subject and are independent of the subject. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:00, 31 December 2023 review of submission by Drjsilverstein

The labeling of my work as pseudoscience is rather disturbing and indicates a lack of comprehension and the use of a defamatory term. It was reviewed within minutes of being submitted and thus suggests superficial editorial oversight.

Sincerely, Dr Jay Silverstein Drjsilverstein (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drjsilverstein, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. For your information, once you submit a draft for review, it is up to the reviewers to evaluate it. As drafts are reviewed in no specific order, the review may occur immediately or take several months. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:15:01, 31 December 2023 review of draft by Ipandro Acaico


I WOULD LIKE TO SPEED UP REVIEW OF MY ARTICLE Ipandro Acaico (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipandro Acaico drafts are not reviewed in any particular order and reviews are not generally done up request. Be patient. Back in October the wait time was up to four months; now it is weeks and Wikipedia has no deadline. S0091 (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:14, 31 December 2023 review of submission by Mskoksal

What exactly do I need to do for my draft to be accepted? Can you explain in more detail?thank you.. Mskoksal (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:28, 31 December 2023 review of submission by Mgalligan

I really would appreciate some help with my article. I want my draft to be accepted because I know that Nanny Assis is a noteworthy person, performing and working with many high-profile musicians in New York, touring internationally, and receiving many awards in Brazil and beyond. I'm not well-versed in how to find good sources that will comply, and how to show notability, because I'm not a professional, is there any way to get some help from other contributors on this article? I'd really, really appreciate any insight that you can provide. Mgalligan (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mgalligan, none of us are professionals. We are all volunteers. If you believe that this person is notable, then you are obligated to find signigicant coverage of this musician in published, reliable sources that are entirely independent of the person. At first glance, the All About Jazz source appears to be the best, but a closer look reveals that it was written by a Terri Hinte, a professional publicist, and is therefore not independent and is of no value in establishing notability. I have done a basic Google search and all I can find are passing mentions, calendar listing, press releases and the like, none of which contribute to notability. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mgalligan part of the issue is all the name dropping. Notability is not inherited (read that) so him working with other notable musicians has no bearing on him meeting the English Wikipedia's notability criteria, not to mention much it is unsourced. The other issue is most of the sources are poor with many being primary sources. What is needed are secondary sources, such as reputable news or music media, that have written in-depth about him and/or his work. If he won an award, secondary sources are needed to support the importance of the award. Please also read the notability guidelines for musicians. S0091 (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 31 December 2023 review of submission by 007g3m1n1

Need help with creating this page. Requesting help for any volunteer to put information and content regarding GaN chargers and power adapters. 007g3m1n1 (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't offer co-editing services at this helpdesk. Qcne (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

02:32, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Whatif222

Dear wikipedia team can you please tell me that why my draft was not selected. Whatif222 (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Whatif222, and welcome to Wikipedia! The reason for the decline, as mentioned in the grey box within the template, suggests adding reliable sources to verify the information in the article. Take a look at the links provided in the decline reason and make improvements to the draft accordingly. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:45, 1 January 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:2584:7742:D155:6F50:5F8F:2B5D

Sir I Have Provided 12 references , not single reference can make my article approved?. 2402:8100:2584:7742:D155:6F50:5F8F:2B5D (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, the sources you provided are from music platforms that might not establish the subject's notability. At the moment, I'm uncertain if the subject meets the criteria for inclusion, especially considering I couldn't find any additional sources on Google. If you happen to find reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject, feel free to add them and then resubmit the draft for another review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read WP:BLP. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 1 January 2024 review of submission by 182.216.4.174

It's a question that needs to be fixed among the articles I wrote I want to know exactly If you tell me exactly, I'll correct it 182.216.4.174 (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that Platea lauren mill (or Platea Lauren Mill or Draft:Platea lauren mill or Draft:Platea Lauren Mill) has ever existed. Please give the exact name of the article or draft you are asking about. Did you create it while logged into an account? What was the user name? ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was at Draft:Platea lauren mill (now G11'd), and the user is/was PLATEA LAUREN (now blocked). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:13, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Technobabylon

Hello - Why does this draft keep getting declined? I have already ensured a good number of articles which are third party with decent coverage having been included. You keep repeating the same generic comment every time and this is not helpful at all. Please clarify which articles are not suitable for this article and I will amend accordingly. Thank you Technobabylon (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Technobabylon: the reason why this keeps getting declined for the same reason is that the said reason has not been addressed. You need to read and understand the decline notice, the grey box inside the large pink box. Click on each of the links, which point to various policies and guidelines. They will tell you what is missing. TL;DNR = there is no evidence whatsoever that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. The referencing consists of two 'profiles' and four things he has written, none of which contributes towards notability in the slightest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the guidelines a number of times already, so no need to keep repeating the same thing over and over again please. I have referenced a number of reputable third party sources and it is unclear what level of famousness is considered as "notable". The reason some of his works are listed is because that particular section is called "Writings and Publications". Of course, if Wikipedia doesn't allow to reference any works done by the subject, I can delete this entire section altogether, but it will make the article less useful to the public. Apart from this and the book written by the subject, all the other sources are third party (External Links section). Technobabylon (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Technobabylon: you'll note I said read and understand...
Yes, you are allowed to list articles written by this person, but they don't contribute towards notability; neither do author/speaker profiles and the like. Once more: we need to see significant coverage of the subject by independent sources.
As for the items in the 'External links' (which shouldn't even be there, strictly speaking) and any other appendices like that, if you're relying on them to establish notability, you need to base your draft contents on them, and cite them as sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 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. All or almost all of the references need to be of that sort. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the references come from third party sources not related to the subject. Hence I don't understand where your comment is coming from. Please read the draft. Technobabylon (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Kalpurstdio

Please publish my article Kalpurstdio (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalpurstdio: you haven't even submitted it yet. Not that it would be accepted, if you did, but still. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft lacked the information required to submit it(which is provided when you use the Article Wizard) but adding that information would just be academic as your draft was clear promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about someone; any article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Drnvc1978

I'm wondering whether this article is successfully in the queue to be reviewed because it doesn't seem to show in the 'Category:Pending AfC submissions' list, and also it continues to have a message about it being declined even though I subsequently then re-submitted it to address the issue (basically because I'd mistakenly created a duplicate page which I then deleted). The correct page is called 'F.E. Bromige' Drnvc1978 (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drnvc1978 I fixed the link above(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). As noted at the top of your draft, it is submitted and pending. This may take some time, though the backlog is significantly less than it used to be(it was months, it's now just weeks). Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. Happy to be patient, just wanted reassurance it is in the queue! 82.46.55.43 (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just remember to log in when posting. :) 331dot (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Lbhallonquist

Hello,

I am trying to understand my mistake here. From what I see from other Business school pages, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference. Can you please provide a few examples that indicate that this articles reads as an advertisement?

Below are some of the other Business pages I referenced: Wharton School Ross School of Business Foster School of Business Lbhallonquist (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lbhallonquist, emphasis mine:
- it has evolved into a premier institution, offering comprehensive business education and fostering innovation in the field of business
- played a pivotal role in the
- has consistently earned recognition for its academic excellence, faculty contributions, and impactful research
- crucial component of the Culverhouse College of Business, is recognized for its exceptional graduate programs and commitment to producing business leaders
- particularly recognized for its commitment to producing business leaders through rigorous and innovative graduate education
etcetera.
These are all the sorts of phrases that one would find in a student marketing brochure, and I should know as I used to write them. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia, which should be purely summarising or paraphrasing sources in a dry, formal, neutral way.
The existing articles you linked do have some problems themselves, but have far less promotional language than this draft.
By any chance do you work for the school, @Lbhallonquist? This type of speak is common amongst Marketers and leads me to believe you may work in the Marketing Department? If so, you must immediately declare this by following the instructions at both WP:PAID and WP:COI. Failure to do so is a breach of Wikimedia Terms and Conditions. Let me know, Qcne (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qcne,
Thanks for the feedback. I have remove most of your suggestions. However, I did leave comprehensive business education. Culverhouse provides bachelors, masters, and doctorates, which makes it comprehensive. Not all schools of business do this. For example Harvard and Stanford do not offer bachelors for business. However, I did rewrite some of the content in the paragraph to reflect the meaning. Hopefully, this helps clarify and is sufficient.
Additionally, I think the content may sound like marketing speak because I do work in marketing, just not for the school of anything related. I actually work in automotive.
Please let me know if I am good to resubmit. Lbhallonquist (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lbhallonquist Can you let me know first if you have any conflict of interest with this school? Qcne (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne I have no conflict of interest with the school. I do not work there, nor am I being paid to create this content. Additionally, another moderator added some comments so I took their suggestions as well. Lbhallonquist (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know.
I think it's going to be difficult for you to write this with a marketing background, its very easy to slip into marketing speak. You must understand that the Wikipedia voice must never be used to promote a subject, make assertations, or try and sway opinion. Pretend you are writing an autopsy report.
The draft is written better now, but some of the language could still be tightened up. You also need sources for the Alumni section. I think it is likely passes our notability criteria so hopefully if you can get that done it can be approved. Qcne (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is still marketing speak. Oy vey. I will look again and will add some sources to the alumi section. I figured linking to their wikipedia pages would suffice. Thanks for your patience on this. Lbhallonquist (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Albertwiki03

Do you have any ideas on how to improve the article so that it qualifies for a Wikipedia article? I think the person is notable enough, having published numerous pieces in some major magazines and journals, and having translated works of a major classical poet. Albertwiki03 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you advice- you need sources that have significant coverage of this person. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Shkumaraman

Hey unemployed person please write and publish an article for me. On the topic. Shkumaraman (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shkumaraman: please stop attacking others, and stop promoting yourself. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Joshuapark693

I want to make my own website Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joshuapark693. You can create your own website via any of the website building services, but not on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Qcne (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make my own article on Wikipedia about chess. Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia already has an article about chess: chess. You are free to edit it. Qcne (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean Chess.com Lessons. Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that I want to make my own article about Chess.com Lessons. Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article about Chess.com, and there is already a section about the Chess.com Lessons. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide so should not have a tutorial on how to play Chess. Qcne (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do feel free to edit and improve the Chess.com article if you would like, please don't let your draft rejection discourage you. Writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia and we decline hundreds of drafts a week. Qcne (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Joshuapark693

I want to make my own website Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create multiple topics. Qcne (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Joshuapark693 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:27, 1 January 2024 review of submission by Hoffda

I updated with abundant references. Lots of volunteer organizations like ours are represented on Wikipedia. I reformatted. I’ve been a modest contributor for a number of years. Hoffda (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by reviewers, your formatting makes the draft unreadable. Please review some other articles to learn more about style and structure, as well as Referencing for beginners.
If you are editing about your organization, please read about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoffda, I agree with 331dot that non-standard formatting of your draft makes it exceptionally difficult for a reviewer to analyze. WP:CHEASTSHEET lists the basic formatting wikicode that can be used in the source editor to create section headers, for example. You do not need to try to write a non-standard table of contents or reference list. When your draft is properly formatted, the MediaWiki software creates the table of contents and the reference list automatically, and corrects them automatically when the article or draft is modified. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hoffda. Not one organisation (or person) is "represented" on Wikipedia in the way you suggest, because Wikipedia is not about "representing" anybody or anything: it is about summarising what independent reliable sources have published about something, nothing more. 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.
It is unfortunately quite possible that some of those articles you are referring to have been improperly created or edited, and should be corrected to return them to a neutral point of view, or should be deleted. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

00:19, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Twelve31

This submission was denied on the basis of the subject doesn't show "Significant coverage". The subject's work is already well noted on multiple wiki pages that have already been approved and are active which is why the work is linked internally within wiki. You can look at those artists discographies and see the subject as credited as a writer of the work. What other external sources are needed here to verify "significant coverage"? Twelve31 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve31, writing a hit song or even several hit songs does not make a person notable. Being mentioned on other Wikipedia pages does not make a person notable. Far from it. What is required is significant coverage of the person in reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of the person. An example might be a detailed article about the person's life and career in a respected music industry publication like Rolling Stone (there are others). Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for shedding some light what was missing here. Appreciate the clarification. Twelve31 (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:16, 2 January 2024 review of submission by AliM7mdd

What exactly do I change Which category do I edit

I wanna make it official I’m Marlon’s nephew and I wanna make a wiki for him to show his kickboxing accomplishments AliM7mdd (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC

AliM7mdd, your draft incorrectly uses external links instead of references. Please read Referencing for beginners and convert those that are reliable sources to references. Get rid of the rest. Since you are his nephew, you have a conflict of interest. I highly recommend that you disclose that on your user page and on Draft talk: Marlon Hunt. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AliM7mdd. Like most new editors who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have learnt how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. First, find independent, reliable, sources, which discuss your uncle at some length. If you can't find any, then you will know that he does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should give up. If you find some then second, forget everything you know about him, and write an article which is a summary of what those independent sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:52, 2 January 2024 review of submission by 180.241.29.161

My article didn't get through. 180.241.29.161 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it didn't, it has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please remember to log in when editing. Seawolf35 T--C 06:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:55, 2 January 2024 review of submission by GriffinRosinski

so I can write this better so my friend can get the recognition he deserves GriffinRosinski (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GriffinRosinski Sorry to be blunt, but you don't. Your friend is not notable and the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Seawolf35 T--C 06:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GriffinRosinski, giving someone the recognition that you think they deserve is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, a serious reference work. Your draft falls under WP:BLP1E, plus YouTube and Facebook are almost never accepted as reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:11, 2 January 2024 review of submission by 103.179.70.210

What Problem 103.179.70.210 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been deleted as a copyright violation. You are not permitted to copy and paste content from copyright protected websites. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:51, 2 January 2024 review of submission by PublishCo.

Dear Wiki support, after editing the first draft writing about my self it has come to my attention that there are conflicts of interest. My team and I never posted on wikipedia. Please review the draft and advise how to publish. Thank you in advance. PublishCo. (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PublishCo., this is your only live edit to Wikipedia with this account, and so there is no draft for me to comment on. Please be aware that team accounts and company accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia, and neither is promotion or advertising of any kind. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PublishCo.: you have no live contributions in your edit history, only some deleted ones from ten years ago. A draft (Draft:DJ E) that was deleted previously seems to have been created again, but not by you – are you working under more than one account yourself, or collaborating with other users?
In any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:23, 2 January 2024 review of submission by GeorgetownPress

I do not know how to use the code to add in my reference links. GeorgetownPress (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgetownPress, please read and study WP:REFBEGIN. You can do it just like millions of other editors have. It can be helpful to use the source editor to study the wikicode of a Good article to see how things are done, and to study the WP:CHEATSHEET. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeorgetownPress You may find using the visual editor, which is a bit like Microsoft Word, easier. Check the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 2 January 2024 review of submission by 31ch153

Hi, I have been editing an article about a German artist Helga Franz since December 2023, which was declined several times. Therefore, as you are suggesting, I cut most parts of the article and left only 2 lines, which are supported by 2 secondary sources.

One source is a website of a community college of Berlin which is run by a public organazation, i.e. Berlin city itself. The other souce is published by "Landesverband Bildende Kunst Sachsen" which is an artist union in Sachsen-province. I am sure these 2 sources can be classified as reliable. They mention either "Helga Franz" herself or her work as the main topic.

Can you let me know whether the modified article would meet the criteria for publication or not? If this modification would not be sufficient, I will stop editing the article until I find further reliable secondary sources. But if you could suggest another solution, I would be very thankful for your kind support. 31ch153 (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have gone too far in the other direction. An article needs to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. You have two sources, and the article does little more than state that the person exists and that they have a piece of artwork in a public space. You have not summarized sources that discuss how this artist meets the definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your advice! I summarized the reliable sources and also mentioned her works are displayed in public places in Germany. Do you think this version would meet the criteria? 31ch153 (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 2 January 2024 review of submission by 185.185.168.136

I cannot see why the page is declined again. Made the changes to the page according to your advice, writing the page referring the independent research sources. Can you help? 185.185.168.136 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does not describe how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company according to what independent reliable sources say about the company; it just summarizes the activities of the company and its offerings. That the CEO was named as an influencer isn't relevant to the company itself, and doesn't add to notability of the CEO personally for that matter(as only awards that themselves merit articles contribute to notability, like Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the clarification! In my point of view, as a Finnish person, I think that Solita is a notable company as it is one of the few Finnish tech companies that has been able to grow its business and become international. It also played a huge part in the corona virus pandemic in Finland as it helped to develop a app to prevent the spread of the virus. So, if I add this info to the text, could it be published?
Thank you! 185.185.168.136 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have independent reliable sources that discuss these things on their own(not an interview with someone from the company, not a press release) that may help, though I can't make a guarantee.
Note that the Finnish Wikipedia probably has different rules than this Wikipedia, and what is not acceptable here may be acceptable there. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Alenjohnj

Please could you help me with the rejection of my article Malpan Andrew Kalapura. Alenjohnj (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alenjohnj Your draft was only declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted. What specific help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you just looking at the first line, "was a person who gifted invaluable treasures to the Kerala Malabar Syrian Church with his Syriac scholarship and keen interest in service" is highly promotional. Articles need to be written very dry and should not talk up the subject. If he was a church official, it should just say "Malpan Andrew Kapalura was a church official who (what he did)". If independent sources describe him as gifted, that can be discussed later in the article in that context("X source says that he was gifted for the reason....."). 331dot (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Lisapaulinet

Hi, This was recently declined. I'm not sure how to improve it. It was said to be too commercial yet there are other company profiles on Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Lisapaulinet (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisapaulinet I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. We don't have "company profiles" here, not a single one. We have articles about companies that meet our special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that can be summarized in an article. Your draft just summarizes the activities and offerings of the company, it doesn't summarize what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about the company.
If you work for Labthink, that must be disclosed, please read WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:13, 2 January 2024 review of submission by MickelClark

I have included all the available information for the upcoming season of Great Pottery Throw Down. We (Wiki authors) will add more information with time as the show progresses. I can see a similar page of the previous season live on Wikipedia, and it only has one reference. The Great Pottery Throw Down (series 6) MickelClark (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MickelClark I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. Please see other stuff exists; the existence of other article that themselves may be inappropriate cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. I suggest you hold off on submitting the draft until you have more information to place on it. It hasn't even aired yet; to merit an article about it before it even airs, there must be substantial significant coverage in independent reliable sources to summarize.
You don't need the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article or page, simply place the title of the target in double brackets, as I've done here. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed reply. I completely understood your point and will edit this page after the show is done. MickelClark (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Jazz4575

I HAve Attached 12 references , about of 12 not a single references can make my article approved? Jazz4575 (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

out of 12 refernces not a single refernce can make my article approved? Jazz4575 (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are writing about yourself, please read the autobiography policy as to why this isn't a good idea. Please also read why an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
Most of your references simply document the existence of your music, they are not significant coverage of you that can be summarized in an article, showing how you meet the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then If I Want To Have My Wikipedia As A Singer Or As A Music Producer. Then How Can I Fulfil It. I Have Blue Badge ( Verified ) On Spotify , Apple Music , Musixmatch ,Amazon Music , Aghami Music And Also Have Google Panel ( If You Search " Coffey 08 " , You Will Find Me.
Will This Type Of Search Can Make My Wikipedia? Jazz4575 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no. ltbdl (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how can i upload or create my own wikipedia , what should i provide wikipedia that it can create my wikipedia article?
what kind of references or format will i provide? Jazz4575 (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves and what they do like social media is. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, and are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. My suggestion is that you go on about your music career and forget about Wikipedia, and when independent editors take note of coverage of you, they will write about you. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:17, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Shmego

This article is definitely notable. But it keeps getting rejected even though it has a lot of information and has >30 sources. Shmego (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shmego: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. And given its edit history, I would advise you to drop it and find something else to write about.
If you do wish to keep beating a dead horse, however, your only option is to appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer. You will need a reasonably strong case, however; just saying "this is definitely notable" when multiple reviewers have concluded otherwise is not a very persuasive argument. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rejector. The governing determination of notability is not number of sources. It is determined by the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(weather)#Tropical_cyclones. (And a lot of the 30 sources are simply from noaa.gov's standardly generated messages)Naraht (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Carrolleditor

I'm just trying to share my knowledge on one of the districts in my city. (Mirror Lake, Villa Rica). I don't work for the city or the Mirror Lake District Association. But the page for this district needs to exist. I don't understand what financial gain would come out of me making this draft, considering this is a public neighborhood district. Carrolleditor (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrolleditor: this draft is highly promotional in tone and content, as well as being almost completely unreferenced; pretty much a definition of promotional writing – see WP:YESPROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You shouldn't "share [your] knowledge"; that's not how Wikipedia works. You should summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... None of what I said in the article is incorrect. I shared the written history and different neighborhoods within the district. This is my first article I don't understand what about this looks like an advertisement. A page for the City already exists with references to the district and the page doesn't exist. Carrolleditor (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrolleditor: whether what you said is correct isn't the point. As I said already, we only want to know what secondary sources such as newspaper/magazine articles, books, TV/radio programmes, and the like have said about the subject. This is important for reasons of notability and verifiability, both core requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Expressions like "serene and picturesque view", "luxurious and diverse housing", "a place to explore and enjoy", "rich history and a vibrant atmosphere, full of charming shops and eateries", etc. may be appropriate for the marketing material of whoever is promoting this place, but they are categorically inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Cool90630

Hello, I need help submitting the article of creation by using more source hints a short description, WikiProject classification tags, and appropriate category without declining the submission or I could leave it as is without doing anything to submit the article of creation repeatedly what I can do. I am here to clarify and I am not trying to deal with disruptive and persuade here. Thank you! Cool90630 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cool90630, I'm afraid that none of those will make any difference at all. The only thing that can make it worth spending even a moment more on that draft is to find some independent reliable sources which discuss TVB dramas in 2024 in detail (see WP:42). When you have found such sources, then you need to go through the draft making sure that every piece of information you have mentioned can be found in these sources. (What you have done, as most people do who try to create an article before they have learnt enough about how English Wikipedia works, is to write your draft WP:BACKWARDS). ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Suelica

Hello, I am not sure what needs to be fixed on this article "Draft: Monica_McGoldrick". Can you please let me know what is needed? thank you, Sueli Suelica (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suelica Please see the messages left by reviewers on your draft, they tell exactly what is needed. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suelica, none of your references are independent of McGoldrick, and therefore, they are worthless for establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Tartou

Hello,

Can you check and let me know if there are any errors or omissions about the content in draft status?

I will make arrangements again according to your feedback.

Thank you in advance. Tartou (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tartou, I have declined as:
- you did not prove this person is notable under WP:NPEOPLE
- many statements are unsourced
- you have very little in-line citations. Qcne (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will make the arrangements according to your feedback now and send it to you again. thank you Tartou (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you can make a review about noteworthiness from the link below. I have added source addition and tagging as extra. If there is something missing, I can make the edits if you let me know again. Thank you in advance for your contribution.
https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/11s3zjgp_f&hl=tr Tartou (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tartou you've provided a Google search link, but that does not prove notability. It is up to you to prove notability using reliable, secondary, independent sources. Qcne (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

02:11, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 172.113.157.142

I'm not sure why my entree was declined. I read the explanation by the reviewer, but didn't understand it. I cited 5 different news sources to back up my writing. All the sources are very much so reliable. Long Beach Post is one of the main news sources in Long Beach, California, USA. Glas Srpske is literally one of the oldest and most reputable newspapers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Similarly, when speaking about film news and film critiques in specific, Film Threat is one of the more known film reviewers.

I was planning to expend on this topic, too, but to my understanding, articles can start small and then be expended on once published. Am I not right about that? I basically didn't want to do too much work on this article, or any other future article for that matter, until they don't get approved/published first because what's the point of spending hours and hours of research and writing just to be declined in the end? Honestly, that is one of my biggest fears. I don't have that much free time on my hands to do all this work and then go nowhere with it. I hope you understand what I'm talking about here.

In any case, I would appreciate if someone could explain to me why this specific entree was declined because if I want to fix it and resubmit it, I obviously would first need to know what was the actual issue with it. I'm not an experienced Wiki writer – this was my first attempt – but I felt I did a pretty good job of finding some legitimate information about the topic and referencing enough of different reliable news sources to back up my findings. 172.113.157.142 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant SNG notability guideline for the subject is WP:NDIRECTOR, which it doesn't meet. Therefore, you need to establish notability following WP:GNG guidelines. The sources you provided don't offer significant coverage of the subject. Now, you need to add at least three reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject and are independent of it. Regarding your other question about expanding the article after creation, yes, you can expand an article later, but there should be a minimum context in the article initially. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Help:Your first article. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I'll visit the pages you linked me to and see if I can fix the issue. This director is by no means Stanley Kubrick, but I saw his film Toni at the film festival in Tacoma a couple of months ago and felt like more people should know about him. 172.113.157.142 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:42, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Reghvargas

Goo day! I'm requesting assistance due to my article not approve or declined because it says the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I need help with this problem issue am experiencing. I want a published my own article in internet via Wikipedia to know everyone who am. Rest assured that the article I created is simple, reliable, and sourcesable for each person search me on the web. Please let know that the "References" is correct, verified, which is the official website of my media broadcasting company/studio/radio station here in my workplace at municipality of caluya antique philippines. Hope can help me to this and I thank you! Reghvargas (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reghvargas: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please note that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reghvargas, your references are not independent of the topic, and without references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic (Regie Tablate), the draft cannot possibly be accepted. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to learn why what you are trying to do is a bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's important to note that you cannot use a primary source to establish notability or support any statement in a BLP; secondary sources are required. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:23, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Ditri Charron

Please help me with the text about our company. At a time when every minor celebrity has a Wiki page. I am unable to add information about our company, which operates worldwide. I will be grateful for any help. Ditri Charron (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ditri Charron, the company should adhere to WP:NCORP for Wikipedia inclusion. It needs significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that can be summarized in the article. If you're connected with this company, disclosure is required; please refer to WP:PAID and WP:COI. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, for the info. Please do you think, that the coverage is OK now? Because i do not know, what more than the industry patents can company do for their references. I do not have more references now. Dou you think that i have chance to put the company on wiki? I will take the look on WP:PAID and WP:COI but im manager from the company. Thank you so, so much for the info and best regars. Ditri Charron (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, with the current content and sources, it is not notable; that's why it was declined. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ditri Charron (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:06, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 2.50.172.101

Why is this article rejected when the entity has credible independent news sources? 2.50.172.101 (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, this appears to fall under WP:BLP1E as almost all of the sources focus on when Narendra Modi praised him for his skill. However, his involvement in the WorldSkills championship is a second significant event, which could justify a standalone article. Nonetheless, since it was created by a sockpuppet and a previous reviewer suggested disclosing any potential conflicts of interest, it's necessary to disclose any connection you may have with the subject. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the entity has enough independent news articles written about him. As per the research, find the below mentioned articles with respect to the already added ones in the draft.
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/art/twenty-two-year-old-graphic-artist-talks-about-his-varied-awards-and-prizes-he-has-accumulated-over-the-years/article67387932.ece
https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/graphic-skills-bengalurean-reigns-supreme/articleshow/103409985.cms
https://www.globalindian.com/youth/story/global-indian-exclusive/steven-harris-ramdev-from-worldskills-victory-to-global-mentorship/
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/heartwarming-bengalurean-artist-wows-pm-modi-1023844.html
Kindly refer to these sources that indicate as independent articles about the entity and do the needful. Thank you. 2.50.172.101 (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you say about sources does not negate the point made about BLP1E.
You were also asked to disclose any COI you may have in this matter.
I note that you have resubmitted the draft without any improvement, or without addressing the COI issue. If you keep doing that, this draft can and eventually will be rejected without option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also inform you that "do the needful" is generally considered rude outside of India. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Floh Kenya

how do i reference my own biography? Floh Kenya (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

don't. stop writing about yourself. ltbdl (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Floh Kenya: the short answer is, you shouldn't be writing your own biography in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO.
The slightly longer answer is, you shouldn't be writing what you know about yourself, but only summarising what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about you. You then cite those sources, and there's your referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Vairankodepooram20

my Wikipedia Articles rejected or ???? if there is any mistake please let me know i Need help Vairankodepooram20 (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vairankodepooram20: this draft (not yet an article) has, indeed, been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vairankodepooram20 Please read through the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Once you understand how to reference using in-line citations, you may ping me on my user talk page and I will look at this draft again. Qcne (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Niklas.Andersson.95

Hi!

I want some help with the Theoria page. I have been working on it since last year, but then I needed to focus on other things. Now I want to come back and complete the page. As it stands right now, it says the page needs either more citations or to remove passages that are unsupported or too promotional. Is there anyone who could guide me through each part so I can make the necessary edits?

Thanks in advance! Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Niklas.Andersson.95: the feedback provided by the last reviewer is still relevant, and you can improve it accordingly. In summary, please add reliable secondary sources or remove unsourced paragraphs. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for the quick response! Can I see where these sections need to be either removed or edited, meaning, have they been marked somehow? Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Niklas.Andersson.95 Ideally every fact, assertation, paragraph, or section should be appropriately sourced (going in order from most common to least). Qcne (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, the 'Abstracting and Indexing' section in the draft lacks sources; hence, you need to add reliable sources for all the entries in this section. If you're unable to find sources to support certain statements, consider removing the unsourced material. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is most helpful, thanks! I am kind of relearning editing on Wikipedia as it has been a while now. Is it okay to ask here again about the editing of the page? Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Mayukhjitc

i have seen on "WP:MN" that i do qualify for musician notability due to rule 9. Mayukhjitc (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 5.195.38.6

Could you please create living person's biography 5.195.38.6 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1193388935"