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
Louep147 (talk | contribs)
15 edits
Line 740: Line 740:
:::::I'm not quite sure what 'local' or 'sectoral' notability might mean in the context of Wikipedia's definition of [[WP:notability|notability]], except to say that hyperlocal secondary sources are usually not considered sufficient for establishing notability, as they tend to have very low threshold for publishing local-interest stories.
:::::I'm not quite sure what 'local' or 'sectoral' notability might mean in the context of Wikipedia's definition of [[WP:notability|notability]], except to say that hyperlocal secondary sources are usually not considered sufficient for establishing notability, as they tend to have very low threshold for publishing local-interest stories.
:::::HTH, -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 08:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::HTH, -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 08:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::I guess that then would be fundamental issue: for someone who has an interest in the aid or medical device sector (or lives in a geographic area where aid is provided), this would be considered useful information, worthy of an article that could help provide knowledge. To a generalist Europe or US-based editor, it is not considered as relevant as information on a band etc...
::::::I would argue against the claim that national newspaper coverage counts as 'hyperlocal', but it seems the editorial line is otherwise. Thanks for the feedback; it's disappointing that Wikipedia lacks the editorial diversity required to create something that is useful for all, but understandable. [[User:Louep147|Louep147]] ([[User talk:Louep147|talk]]) 10:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


== 23:02, 4 January 2024 review of submission by SapiensYK ==
== 23:02, 4 January 2024 review of submission by SapiensYK ==

Revision as of 10:28, 5 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 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]
@331dot
I forgot to mention you. Can you give me your feedback again? 31ch153 (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to remove the word "multifaceted" or attribute it to a source that states that. You say she has gotten recognition but don't say what it is. You say the Justitia monument is important but not who considers it so and why. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 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]
Hello. Note that "more people should know about him" is explicitly not a good reason to write a Wikipedia article: it is exactly what Wikipedia means by promotion, which is forbidden.
Wikipedia isn't interested in a subject until several other people with no connection to the subject have chosen to write at some length about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 4 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]
Don't worry at all! Feel free to ask anytime, just make sure to add your question in this same section and ping me so I can help. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:03, 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]

@Mayukhjitc: your draft has been rejected, so it will not be considered further. Please note that writing biographies is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i understand it has been rejected but is there nothing i can do about it......
it was rejected by qcne and his/her only reason of rejection was notability
however, i do qualify for notability and have replied there.... stil no reply form him/her
could you read my draft Mayukhjitc (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Answered on my User Talk page, we're all volunteers so I don't think an 18 minute wait between your post and my reply is particularly long! Qcne (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes sorry..... my bad Mayukhjitc (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mayukhjitc If you truly do meet the definition of a notable musician, someone will eventually write about you. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject.
I suggest that you read with a parent or guardian this page about how an article is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. My advice is that you go on about your music career and forget about Wikipedia, and if you truly are notable, an article will organically develop. Trying to force the issue is rarely successful. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest that you read this page with a parent or guardian. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 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]

This draft has been rejected, so it will not be considered further. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every living person merits a Wikipedia article- the overwhelming majority of the 8 billion people on this planet do not. This isn't like social media where anyone that exists merits inclusion- there must be coverage of this person in independent reliable sources like the news that can then be summarized in an article. Your draft was rejected because you offered no sources at all. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:D3F0:C250:55B1:D3A8:6F69:F490

I would like to understand about the notability reason about your rejection. Obviously, Josammy Technology is the greatest wonder that is accomplished to rehabilitate and satisfy human curiosity in all levels of science and their life. It is notably meant for laymen, scientists, and philosophers who are focusing on the hardest and critical questions relating our existence and our presence in planet. Josammy technology solve all universe enigma and explains the reactivities of dark energy and dark matter. The composition of dark matter and dark energy is 95% of universe. This scientist should understand the reactivities of dark energy otherwise they mislead people. Dark energy is the clue of science and universe comprehension. Josammy technology is the highest world technology that displays and explains all the reactivities of dark energy, dark matter, Higgs Boson reactivities, superconductivities and superfluidity reactivities. However, gravity has been poorly explained since the earliest time mankind still have enigma and low level of science comprehension. I believe it would be worth trying to learn about real universe with technology Josammy. 2600:1700:D3F0:C250:55B1:D3A8:6F69:F490 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Seawolf35 T--C 17:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seawolf35 Why be so rude about it bruh???/ Still This is not neutral and is biased. You literally said "Obviously, Josammy Technology is the greatest wonder" and so on. think about it your self.
Please don't react @Seawolf35 and backfire on my page. Im just being honest and giving you tips, though i am a starter True cr1m33 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@True cr1m33 I am sorry how is this relevant, and I did not say that. The draft was deleted under WP:G11 for being promotional. Seawolf35 T--C 22:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seawolf35 im sorry i didnt know. But above in the large paragraph it says that. I assumed it was u as ur name is signed underneath. Srry True cr1m33 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:15, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Aminur7699

Please review my page Aminur7699 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aminur7699 We don’t do pre reviews here, but your draft would be rejected if you submitted it. Seawolf35 T--C 17:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 3 January 2024 review of submission by True cr1m33

I got declined because apparently it was unreliable and false and didn't describe enough? So i will keep trying to edit my writing wiki. 'kay. But i would like to ask how to make it more reliable and to use references. i appeal to get mine published.

Sorry if if i seemed rude im extremely thankful to wiki. *smiley* Pls answer my query True cr1m33 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @True cr1m33, I think your draft would be better suited to https://a-good-girls-guide-to-murder.fandom.com (the Fandom Wiki) for this book series, not Wikipedia.
I am afraid we don't accept articles about fictional characters with no sources, written in the way you wrote your draft. Qcne (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Qcne, thank you for your speedy reply and telling me about fandom wiki as that is a lot more helpful for me if i want to write about fictional characters. @Qcne D'you think it's a good idea to write about a recap of 2023 (celeb edition). *love heart* thanks for your time and dedication
yours @True cr1m33 True cr1m33 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 2601:5C2:202:2700:7466:1C0E:800E:3EA0

My article said "Congratulations" and accepted as start-class. What does that mean? 2601:5C2:202:2700:7466:1C0E:800E:3EA0 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means 'congratulations', your draft has been accepted and published as an article in the encyclopaedia; and it has been rated as 'start' class, meaning it's a good start but there's still plenty of potential for further improvement. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:14, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Aw.griffioen

This page (Draft:IBoost_technology) was rejected for unknown reasons. It mentions 'do not cite predatory journals'. To my knowledge, there are only citations to legitimate high-impact scientific journals. Please help mewith solving this issue. Aw.griffioen (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About predatory journals: I suggest you ask Johannes Maximilian (who made the comment) which citations he is unhappy with.
But I also need to ask whether you are familiar with the stricter requirements on sourcing for articles on medical subjects: WP:MEDRS? ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia marks predatory journals with a virtual highlighter, so it's pretty easy to spot.
  • I suggest putting effort into drafting articles; refbombing, i.e., adding a stupidly high number of footnotes to a sentence to make it seem more profound, does not count as such, especially when there was obviously no effort put into choosing good sources to cite. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Dvisionentmt

How can I make this subject look notable to Wikipedia. Dvisionentmt (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dvisionentmt I am sorry but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I would would strongly encourage you to not write about yourself, writing about yourself means you have a large conflict of interest with the subject of your draft. Seawolf35 T--C 23:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted the correct amount of information and sources to note Tina Moreni who is an American rapper, I am not her but it's surprising to me that she has yet to have a Wikipedia article. Would love to receive some help as there are plenty of articles about her yet none were seemed notable to Wikipedia. Dvisionentmt (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dvisionentmt I am not going to overturn the rejection of the last reviewer, you can appeal to them at User talk:DreamRimmer if you think you have sources that support the notability of the subject.
@DreamRimmer: courtesy ping. Seawolf35 T--C 23:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

01:45, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Go1denScarab

Hello: I am trying to create a page about Eugene Chodorow with a friend of mine. Hee is thee Historian and I am the tech guy.

The draft has been denied seemingly because it does not have enough external links to show that enough people are/were talking about Eugene. I notice that there is a much shorter page for August Henkel that has even fewer links. I am confused.

Can someone please give me some concrete advice on what I need to do to make the Chodorow article acceptable?

Thank you Go1denScarab Go1denScarab (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. These other articles you have seen may also be inappropriate amd simply not addressed yet. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community.
The main purpose of an article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic. Much of your draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A corollary to what 331dot says: if there is little or no independent published information about a subject, then there is little or no material that can go into an article! Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:57, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:D3F0:C250:55B1:D3A8:6F69:F490

Dark energy and dark matter represent 95% of universe. However, mankind never understood the reactivities of universe because dark energy governs universe in microscopic scale as well in macroscopic scale. Nobody can assume to understand science and universe without considering the impact reactivities of dark energy. This is a reason to which we have a lot of enigmas in all fields of science. The basic reactivity between proton and electron in the atom is not understood yet. They mislead mankind. The big bang theories and all universal science are misinterpreted, and they seem to be pseudo-science because they never understand the implication reactivities of dark energy, dark matter, Higgs Boson, superfluidity and superconductivity, universe expansion reactivities in the process development of universe. Obviously, with no implication of dark energy no one can assume to understand science and technology. Gravity has been poorly explained since the earliest time, and we still have a lot of enigmas. People tend to be blissfully unaware of their incompetence. This lack of awareness because poor performance is doubly course. Their lack of skills deprives them not only of ability to produce correct responses, but also the expertise necessary to understand that they not producing them. In this planet, people base their perceptions of performance, in part, on their preconceived notions about their wrong skills, because notions often these notions do not correlate with objective performance, they can lead people to make judgements about their performance that have little to do with accomplishment. Obviously, I discovered reactivities of dark energy and all universe and understand the real reactivities of dark energy and all universes. I challenge all mankind on gravity knowledge my legitimate goal is to explains the real reactivities of universe to all people in this planet. Alpha & Omega thermodynamic Sigma ZG Matrix is the highest world technology, explains all universe reactivities and solves all scientific enigmas. I am illuminating this world on Gravity knowledge with implication of dark energy reactivities. What is your problem with my discoveries? I just want to illuminate this world with gravity knowledge? 2600:1700:D3F0:C250:55B1:D3A8:6F69:F490 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please just stop this 'Mostini Planet' nonsense. You're wasting your own time as well as everyone else's. This topic has less than zero chance of being accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:16, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Linddaski

I am just trying to find a sandbox and have no idea what has been rejected. as far as I know, I did not submit anything to anything. Is there a way to start over? Linddaski (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Linddaski, it looks like you submitted your draft for review by mistake- it was declined as it was blank. That's okay though: feel free to edit your sandbox to prepare the draft and, when ready, click the blue Resubmit button. Qcne (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. i didn't see a blank page, but rather something I know nothing about. In a previous attempt to find a sandbox, I saw my own introduction. There's a video from Wikipedia that gives directions to get to a sand box that is out of date. Are there current directions that you are sure work? Do you think it is possible to do this if you don't code? 216.147.121.102 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(remember to log in, you seem to have logged yourself out).
I would recommend the Visual Editor which is a Microsoft Word-style editor which means you can create and edit articles without having to know our coding language called Wikitext. It is not quite as feature rich as the code editor but should be totally okay for beginners: I use it a lot.
The tutorials for the Visual Editor are in that above link. Your sandbox is located at User:Linddaski/sandbox and feel free to play about with the Visual Editor - that's what the sandbox is for.
If you do accidentally submit it for review, don't worry. Mistakes can happen! Qcne (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:53, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 122.176.19.127

need to help on submitting the article on autobiography. Which is denied by you. So how can I improve the same article? So I can submit it without any denied. 122.176.19.127 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication this person passes our notability criteria, and the draft is written in a completely unacceptable way. Qcne (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:04, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Miracle for0110


Hello!

I did paraphrasing, but since my sources are in Thai, I must be ready with this too: WP:RSUEC and lead me to include this: WP:RSUEQ.

References: 2, 14, 15

Sources: Elle Men, Vogue, Elle

Is it fine, or copyright?

What should I do if it's not allowed to quote and trans for footnotes?

Will it be okay if I put the English trans but change the quote in Thai into something like: (see paragraph with bold parts) or (see the second paragraph from the end part)?

Or not even trans and directly put those see here, see there? Miracle for0110 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miracle for0110: sorry, I'm really struggling to understand what you're asking, but I'll take a wild guess... Yes, you are allowed to quote a source, as long as you mark it clearly as a quotation. Yes, it's okay to cite non-English sources. Yes, it would help the reviewers (and later readers) if you could include in the citation a short quotation translated into English. Does any of that answer your question(s)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer and verifying~
And maybe I should have highlighted the copyright part.
Elle Men. Vogue. Elle. With these 3 fashion magazines (Thailand), can I still do all of them?
I'm new and don't know... not sure how copyright works for this type of source... Miracle for0110 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 58.146.122.144

can you please help me to create this page 58.146.122.144 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Stopdeletingposts!

what what? lol why wiki keep on stoping this post it's truth. Stopdeletingposts! (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't written a Wikipedia page, you've written a series of bullet points. We are looking for an encyclopaedic article that is summarising information from reliable sources. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Naomicreative

Hi, I've submitted a draft article for review ( John Cameron T.V presenter) but I am new to this and wondered if you could advise if this has successfully made it to the review stage? When tried to publish I received the notification - No stashed content found for 1190716733/92fef679-9e69-11ee-bd29-d094663b40e2. I would be so grateful for any feedback and advice so that I can publish this. Many thanks, Naomi Naomicreative (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Naomicreative: sorry, I can't find any record of a draft like that in your edit history. Could you have done this under another account, or from an IP (ie. unregistered) user? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is this Draft:John Cameron (British Antiques Expert and TV Presenter). Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're helping this user over on the WP:HELPDESK too. You wouldn't know, @Naomicreative, but we try not to have multiple threads on the same topic across different help forums as it can get confusing. Qcne (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes this is the one. Pls can you advise what I need to do next. Much appreciated. Naomicreative (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your username appears to indicate a professional connection, please disclose any paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving my message over from the Help Desk...
Thanks @Naomicreative, yep you created this draft while logged out. That's okay though.
You've not actually submitted this for review yet, so I'm not sure where you got the "Review waiting..." message from. By any chance is there a second draft, similarly named?
To submit for review click the blue Submit the draft for review! button. However, don't do that yet as the draft has some inappropriate language and incorrect referencing in it and would be declined in it's present state.
You currently have no references but a bunch of empty in-line citations, which makes me think you perhaps copied the draft from somewhere, maybe Microsoft Word? We need in-line citations for every statement. I would recommend following the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE to understand how to do this.
Some of the inappropriate language that breaks our neutrality policy includes:
- renowned for his appearances
- consistent expert presenter
- diverse portfolio
- featured nostalgic songs
- often sought after for his after-dinner auctioneering expertise and knowledge
Please have a read of our WP:NPOV policy.
Let us know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for coming back to me. Really appreciate the help. I will work on editing the wording. Should I log in and start again and make sure it has in line citations? thanks Naomicreative (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Parizadshaikh

Hi, i hope you are well. I am looking for publishing my draft ,but i dont know how much time will it take or how do. i give references? Parizadshaikh (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parizadshaikh Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles about people summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable person. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. Your draft is completely unsourced and does not at all make clear what makes you a notable person. The vast majority of the 8 billion people on this planet do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Miladhshahi

Hi, I’m trying to create a Behzad Heidarishahi Wikipedia page with sufficient information and sources. But I couldn’t quite figure out why it's been declined. Would appreciate your help in understanding the issue, please.

Kind regards, Milad Heidarishahi Miladhshahi (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miladhshahi: this draft was declined for inadequate referencing. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using inline citations and footnotes. Also, you have listed a number of external sources under 'References', but those are not cited anywhere, and are therefore not particularly useful for anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Robertforwork

How can I rewrite a conclusion? Robertforwork (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertforwork: sorry, I don't understand the question – what "conclusion"? If you mean the section that usually comes at the end of an essay or similar, then encyclopaedia articles do not include such conclusions, principally because our job as article writers is to present facts and leave it for the reader to draw their own conclusions.
In any case, this draft has now been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i write it wrong.
It's said "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia."
How i can pass this warning and what i should do? Robertforwork (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't. The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. You offered no sources other than those associated with the company. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. If you are able to do that, please appeal to the last reviewer and offer the independent sources you can summarize.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Reliablerani

i have added citations too, what is the problem with the article? please help me fix it Reliablerani (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not properly used in-line citations. Instead, you have used external links and then dumped the bare URLs at the bottom of the article. This is not how articles should be formatted.
You will need to re-create all the citations properly using in-line citations. Please follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
The article will be declined again if the citations do not follow our standard. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reliablerani: the problem is that your draft only cites one source (twice). It then has inline external links, which aren't actually even allowed, as well as a number of additional external links at the end. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using the dynamic method of inline citations and footnotes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh thankyou so much 103.58.154.165 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:51, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 888AE0

My text for it is not popping up. Also i have more ideas for the tag things. I would put “Irish dance” and “Down syndrome” I hope this gets fixed. 888AE0 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has never had any text in it other than "why is it all gone"; if you had typed it in somewhere, it is now lost unfortunately. You may edit the draft to add text and sources. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why was if rejected again. I DID AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY ABOUT ME. 888AE0 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not start a new thread for every post, just edit this existing section. Wikipedia is not for autobiographies, please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Emanon17

I'm unsure about the specific reasons the UCINET page submission was rejected. I understand the references are at fault, and I would like to better understand what specific areas (e.g. not in-depth enough, reliable, independent, etc.) need to be addressed and any specific examples from the draft UCINET page. Emanon17 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft just tells of this software and what it does, it does not summarize significant coverage of it in independent reliable sources showing how it is notable- what do independent sources consider to be important/significant/influential about it? 331dot (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:30, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 122.172.74.215

Please explain me as I can this artist is notable on Google by name arunadh007 122.172.74.215 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced drafts that do not demonstrate notability will not be accepted. If this person meets our definition of a notable musician, you haven't demonstrated that. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, sorry. Qcne (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Louep147


Draft article: Draft:EssentialTech Centre

Hello, I do not understand the reason for the article being declined: I rewrote the article with numerous additional sources (mostly peer-reviewed journals) and can see little difference between the declined article and the accepted one on a similar topic, here: Harvard Humanitarian Initiative

Many thanks in advance. Louep147 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content like "renowned for its contributions to science, technology, and engineering." "one of Switzerland's leading universities" "address global challenges through a multifaceted approach that applies technological innovation to three intersecting challenges" "EssentialTech uses a holistic approach" "a number of initiatives that have garnered significant attention in the humanitarian and development space" is promotional, marketing garbage. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists; that another article exists does not mean that it was "accepted" by anyone. It too could be inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are good articles. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard Humanitarian Initiative is a VERY poor article with a number of issues and should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the (somewhat dismissive) feedback. That wasn't what I understood as the reason why the article was rejected though: both reviewers seemed to cite an issue with the sources instead. Are you saying that if the language is adjusted to more neutral, then the sources are largely ok and it should be accepted? Louep147 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not show that this organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
Are you associated with this organization? 331dot (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, our intention is not to be "dismissive", but to be clear to avoid misunderstanding. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries: it was just the "promotional, marketing garbage" line that riled me a little.
I do not work there, but I do work in a related sector in the geographical area and it was frustrating me that there was no entry for an organisation that is considered 'notable' locally and in the aid sector internationally.
The peer-reviewed journals in which it publishes are some of the highest-ranked in the world and there are numerous sources of national newspapers in the references. To me, it would seem that this should ensure it meets at least some of the criteria outlined in your link of 'notable organisation'. Either that, or the definition is just very arbitrary and US-centric.
Any further advice on whether this is worth redrafting is much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Louep147 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Louep147: there is nothing US-centric or arbitrary about the definition of a notable organisation (and I quote from WP:ORGCRIT): "[an] organization [...] is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
Publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals is not a notability criterion for organisations.
I'm not quite sure what 'local' or 'sectoral' notability might mean in the context of Wikipedia's definition of notability, except to say that hyperlocal secondary sources are usually not considered sufficient for establishing notability, as they tend to have very low threshold for publishing local-interest stories.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that then would be fundamental issue: for someone who has an interest in the aid or medical device sector (or lives in a geographic area where aid is provided), this would be considered useful information, worthy of an article that could help provide knowledge. To a generalist Europe or US-based editor, it is not considered as relevant as information on a band etc...
I would argue against the claim that national newspaper coverage counts as 'hyperlocal', but it seems the editorial line is otherwise. Thanks for the feedback; it's disappointing that Wikipedia lacks the editorial diversity required to create something that is useful for all, but understandable. Louep147 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 4 January 2024 review of submission by SapiensYK

Not sure how to fix my footnotes. Also not sure how to submit the article for review Yustyn Kokor (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To resubmit just click the "resubmit" button in the decline message. You must remove all citations to Wikipedia- Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 5

00:14, 5 January 2024 review of submission by Hcaandersen

While watching the major Netflix production, Power Book III: Raising Kanan, with my son, I Googled the lead actor, Mekai Curtis, and was surprised to see that he didn't have a Wikipedia article. Being an occasional Wikipedia contributor, I thought this would be my opportunity to fill an obvious hole. Unfortunately it keeps getting rejected. The reason given is that the article doesn't reference "significant coverage". I've included citations from People, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter (see below). These are about as significant as I could imagine. What more can I do?

00:45, 5 January 2024 review of submission by Jm33746

I am interested in improving this draft so it can be approved for publication. What do I need to do Jm33746 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:27, 5 January 2024 review of submission by Gswapp

Can you guide me how to not meet this rejection, I just want it to be provide info about my company Gswapp (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gswapp your sandbox is blank, and I find no rejected draft in your edit history - unless it was deleted for unambiguous promotion.
Wikipedia is not a company directory, but an encyclopaedia about notable topics. Most organisations do not meet our specific definition of a "notable company". It is prohibited to use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. Qcne (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was an earlier (very promotional) draft in the sandbox, but it was G11'd about an hour ago.
@Gswapp: I can tell you that I can pretty close to asking you to be blocked for promotional editing. Please do not attempt to recreate the draft. Also, read the warnings I've posted on your talk page about promotion (not allowed) and paid-editing (disclosure required). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 5 January 2024 review of submission by Infoprovider434

Help Me To Add Reference Infoprovider434 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further; you may learn more about referencing at Referencing for Beginners, but that won't save this draft. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infoprovider434: you apparently know how to add references, since you've added three (not particularly useful ones, but at least you know how this is done). Your bigger problem is that there is no meaningful content, and no sign of any notability.
That said, this draft has now been rejected, and won't be considered further, so you're on something of a hiding to nothing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Artical About A New Launched Company Desi Beats Whose In Bassi Himachal Pradesh India Infoprovider434 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New companies almost never merit articles- a company must be established and recognized in its field to receive the coverage necessary to meet our policies. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh So Sorry But Please Help Me Sir To Publish My Artical Please Infoprovider434 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infoprovider434 no, the article has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Qcne (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohk Sir Thanks but help me to add Referance Infoprovider434 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infoprovider434: perhaps you're not familiar with the expression 'hiding to nothing'. It means mission impossible; there is nothing to be done. You need to drop this topic and move on. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1193737058"