Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Jeff_boi
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Jeff_boi
Line 746: Line 746:
{{Lafc|username=Youraveragemothra|ts=20:17, 26 January 2024|draft=Draft:Jeff_boi}}
{{Lafc|username=Youraveragemothra|ts=20:17, 26 January 2024|draft=Draft:Jeff_boi}}
don't ask for that, because i was maked jeff boi on wikipedia page [[User:Youraveragemothra|Youraveragemothra]] ([[User talk:Youraveragemothra|talk]]) 20:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
don't ask for that, because i was maked jeff boi on wikipedia page [[User:Youraveragemothra|Youraveragemothra]] ([[User talk:Youraveragemothra|talk]]) 20:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

== 20:31, 26 January 2024 review of submission by Youraveragemothra ==
{{Lafc|username=Youraveragemothra|ts=20:31, 26 January 2024|draft=Draft:Jeff_boi}}
when i was 11 year old. i was be created of jeff boi to make a page for wikipedia, however this page got Rejected i guess. anyway i live on brazil fortaleza and my youtube username is YourAverageMothra.i hope this page was accept, thank you [[User:Youraveragemothra|Youraveragemothra]] ([[User talk:Youraveragemothra|talk]]) 20:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:31, 26 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


January 18

05:30, 18 January 2024 review of submission by Brachy0008

I came across this draft, and it seems notable. However, I’m not entirely sure if it is ok to publish into the main space. Brachy08 (Talk) 05:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been submitted for review and it is pending. You haven't edited the draft, are you asking as a reviewer? 331dot (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brachy0008, I have lived in Northern California for nearly 52 years and know quite a bit about the history of the relationship between the ILWU and the CPUSA around here. There is no doubt in my mind that Archie Brown is notable and so I have moved the draft to main space. His name is on the decision of a very signicant case he and his lawyers won before the US Supreme Court, after all, and his obituary in the New York Times makes a compelling argument for his notability. What say you, 331dot? Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur with your assessment(I hadn't examined it that closely yet). 331dot (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Brachy08 (Talk) 11:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:29, 18 January 2024 review of submission by 210.212.98.124

Hi, I wanted to add a page for a museum that has opened in my hometown earlier in 2023. The feedback I was given for the article was that it "Does not have sustained coverage". I'm not sure what sources to cite or how to make it more substantial as it has only recently opened. My motivation for adding it is that it is an important step forward in Indian institutions (I'm not affiliated with it in any way, I'm just passionate about education!). Would appreciate any advice :) 210.212.98.124 (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the museum has just opened, it is almost certainly too soon for an article about it, as it apparently lacks the coverage needed to support an article about it. Any article about this museum must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the museum, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organziation. It hasn't existed long enough to become established and recognized for its work by independent sources. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:14, 18 January 2024 review of submission by Soojey

what went wrong in my edit please Soojey (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was deleted as blatant promotion while in the process of being reviewed. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media or a personal website. Wikipedia is for summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself. It's also not clear that you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:21, 18 January 2024 review of submission by Iamjerotich

I have added the required information for the person above. Kindly Review my work Iamjerotich (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft since it was rejected, like new sources that the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 18 January 2024 review of submission by Zohaabds8

I want to better understand as how can I make it publishable as I worked on the previous comments and then it got rejected Zohaabds8 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With nine declines and one rejection it seems pretty clear that there is nothing you can do, except to find another topic, a notable one. Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

02:20, 19 January 2024 review of submission by 211.26.109.79

Hello,

I recently had an article rejected for reasons:

"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject."

And comment: Please read WP:FRINGE

I am hoping that someone here can offer a specific example of what the editor is referring to, as I can find no examples in the text of any of the above. I am a professional writer, so can easily make the necessary amendments if I can have specific feedback as to what the editor considers to be a peacock term within the text, or what the editor considers to be a fringe theory, etc. Of course I read the pages linked in the editor's comments and as mentioned, cannot find any examples of them within my submitted text.

Thank you in advance for the assistance! This is my first time making a submission so I look foward to learning the ropes. 

211.26.109.79 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:COVERSE. --ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that what the reviewer means is that the article is written from the point of view of the subject. 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) 12:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:14, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Wpnse

reject my articlaes Wpnse (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Egrabczewski

Regarding my draft article on the Systems Group, could I have more information about why this article fails the "stictly independent" criterions please. Egrabczewski (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 19 January 2024 review of submission by KEERTESH TIWARI

submission review is taking a lot of time. incorporated all the feedback received in the past. KEERTESH TIWARI (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

draft available here: Draft:Nitin Kapur KEERTESH TIWARI (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is submitted and pending. As noted, "This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,138 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Woopiness

I can't edit in visual edit mode anymore. How can I make that possile again? Woopiness (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This board is specifically for asking questions about draft submissions. You might want to ask your question at the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Wnayans

A Car Accident Lawyer Wiki website holds significant importance for several reasons:

Information Access: It provides valuable information about legal services, resources, and expertise related to car accidents. Users can learn about their rights, the legal process, and how a lawyer can assist them. [7]

Credibility and Trust: A well-designed website instills trust and credibility in potential clients. It showcases the lawyer's expertise, experience, testimonials, and case studies, which can help establish confidence in their abilities.

Accessibility: A website ensures accessibility 24/7, allowing individuals involved in accidents to seek immediate information and assistance regardless of the time or their location. Wnayans (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not interested in helping your potential customers. This is an encyclopedia of notable topics, not an advertising platform. The draft was rejected and now deleted. You must disclose your relationship with this website, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for you to promote your website/business. This has been recreated by so many sock accounts over the last year and then gets swiftly deleted - Just stop already! You clearly have not read and understood the basic General notability guideline. Stop wasting both our time and yours - this will never be accepted. KylieTastic (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 19 January 2024 review of submission by KSuffolk

I was wondering if I need to add more references to the wikipedia article. KSuffolk (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KSuffolk: well, given that large chunks of this draft (not yet 'article') are completely unreferenced, it sure would be nice to know where all this information is coming from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I thought so. Thanks for responding. KSuffolk (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Jaynu shah

Wrong details Jaynu shah (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaynu shah: that's not a question; did you have one in mind?
This draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further.
Please also see WP:AUTOBIO for why you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Woiakl

I added independent sources in addition to the organization's website, but they were neglected. Woiakl (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 19 January 2024 review of submission by KahlurIndia

We give the full details of Pankaj Chandel but still you don't approved the article, please help us what more to add a profile in Wikipedia. KahlurIndia (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have profiles here, not a single one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of articles. If you want to write a profile, use social media or another website. Your draft has no inline references; see referencing for beginners. You don't seem to have any independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this man, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Sczajic

My submission of an article/stub on Marley Blonsky was rejected on the basis that the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I respectfully disagree. The subject has been profiled in well-known media outlets including CNN and Outside Magazine, demonstrating both specific and significant coverage, in published and reliable sources. How may I appeal this decision? Sczajic (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sczajic: firstly, your draft was not rejected, which would mean the end of the road for it; only declined, which means you can resubmit it, once you've addressed the decline reason. For that reason, also, there is no need to 'appeal' anything, only to improve the draft further.
We would typically need to see 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. Note that this excludes interviews, as well as articles that are clearly based on interviews even if they aren't necessarily formatted as such. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is helpful! I will expand and revise my draft by adding several additional references from national media outlets, of which there are no shortage. Sczajic (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to remember, Sczajic, is that 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) 13:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Hihydra

This product has a high reputation in mainland China. In this case, is it acceptable? Hihydra (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you connected to this company, @Hihydra? Qcne (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hihydra, your only reference is a link to an app store. This is promotional and of no value in establishing notability. What is required are several references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to NeaChat that are also completely independent of NeaChat and its developers and promoters. As for the "high reputation" in China, who says so? Cullen328 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no connection with this company. I learned about this company when I attended an artificial intelligence training course organized by Microsoft. I was attracted by their concept of providing artificial intelligence-based education solutions to China and other countries and regions with unequal educational resources. And it is free for educators to use. I try to let more people know what they are doing because they are making a free contribution to education. I think there's a correlation between a product's popularity and how long it's been in development, and from what I understand, they've only been around for a short time. Before collecting Wikipedia information, I got in touch with friends in the education industry in China. Their products are very popular among teachers. Hihydra (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hihydra, everything that you wrote after you denied a connection to the company is of no interest on Wikipedia. All that matters here is the coverage that independent reliable sources devote to NeaChat, and accurately summarizing it. Nothing else. Cullen328 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I found this, does it meet the source criteria?
https://www.finsmes.com/2023/08/neachat-officially-joins-the-nvidia-inception-program.html Hihydra (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fraid not, Hihydra. That begins Hong Kong-based Generative AI startup NeaChat announced today - in other words, it's from a press release.
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) 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:30, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Preksha30

Is this acceptable now for wiki page? Preksha30 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected as an article(not a "page"), meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed since the last review, such as new sources the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:43, 19 January 2024 review of submission by HalloKurdish

My draft’s references are all government sources I don’t know why it got declined HalloKurdish (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The submission lacks secondary sources from independent media publications. Eternal Shadow Talk 01:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 20

00:55, 20 January 2024 review of submission by Adamplevinson

I am being told that by a reviewer that we should only cite 5-7 of Kaminski's book? Why? I checked the Wikipedia pages for two of my other favorite historians: Richard Brookhiser and Joseph Ellis. Brookhiser's page lists 17 books. Ellis' page lists 14 books.

I would be happy to add links to all of Kaminski's books, in addition to listing them. Would this be worthwhile? We could also add the ISBN number, as is the case for other historians?

Thanks Adamplevinson (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer is referring to WP:THREE. Only the three best sources should be added to an article for each claim. This is also true for the external links. Eternal Shadow Talk 01:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamplevinson: because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and articles are meant to provide summarised information about a subject, in this case highlights of their noteworthy output, not a comprehensive catalogue of everything they ever wrote. A hypothetical point, but: wouldn't you agree that it's clearer and more effective to list the 2-3 works someone is famous for, and mention that they also wrote 30+ others, rather than list all 38 works, among which the 2-3 notable ones get lost? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:26, 20 January 2024 review of submission by Raulitoy

Any help on how this page approve Raulitoy (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raulitoy: as it says in the decline notice, you need to provide significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. (You should also see WP:REFB for advice on referencing.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 20 January 2024 review of submission by Youprayteas

I have seen very little villages and towns with absloutely no significancy and only one reference having articles, why is it not possible for my article which has four sources and plenty of information about the neighborhood to be accepted? It makes no sense to me. Youprayteas (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Youprayteas: never mind what other articles you may have seen, that's not how we assess new drafts (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The relevant notability guideline here is WP:GEOLAND, and judging by the fact that you describe this (somewhat opaquely) as a 'neighbourhood', it seems the 2nd bullet point applies. That tells you what you need to do to demonstrate notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The infobox classifies this as a 'municipality', but I don't think that's correct; presumably Kadıköy is the actual municipality? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this issue. I understand that I must not compare my article with others, but how is it possible that articles with very limited references and villages with no significancy (Beyyazı, Işıklar, Yağcılar, Yeşilyurt and MANY MANY more, perhaps over 200 articles like this) can be accepted? Who accepted these and when and why not mine? Youprayteas (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youprayteas: there are 6.7m+ articles in the English-language Wikipedia, and they came about in many different ways. Not every article was 'accepted': some are so old that they pre-date the AfC review process entirely; others may have been published by users with sufficient permissions to publish directly; others still may have simply slipped through the proverbial net.
If you have found articles that you don't think meet our notability guidelines, you're welcome to improve them, or if this cannot be done, initiate deletion proceedings.
Also worth noting that what you describe as "significancy" may not necessarily translate to notability (Wikipedia's core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia), or vice versa. Again, I would refer you to WP:GEOLAND, which sets out the applicable standard; or alternatively to WP:GNG, which applies to pretty much any topic.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted my draft again. I added government sources for the population and the neighborhood classifications. Hopefully this time it will be accepted but if not I will keep improving it until it does. Youprayteas (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 20 January 2024 review of submission by Far mousa

Hi, why my post has been declined due to tone, while this page with same stone and structure exists on wiki: Noon (company). Kindly suggest what other data I need to provide to add Cartlow to Wiki knowledgebase Far mousa (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is blatant advertising, see other crap exists and WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Far mousa Also note that the Noon article has been nominated for deletion, it is almost certainly a poor example to use. Are you employed by Cartlow? 331dot (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Far mousa, Wikipedia is not a knowledge base. It is an encyclopedia, a significantly different concept. Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 20 January 2024 review of submission by Ferdinando at Transfeero

Dear Team,

I request help on getting this draft approved: I am writing the article as I've been tasked this (I am currently employed in the company)

I'm trying to follow the guidelines as best as I am able, however the latest draft was rejected due to lack of notability.

May you be help with that?

The company is legit and currently existing and in business, however there are not many independent sources talking about us. Ferdinando at Transfeero (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your boss. ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:22, 20 January 2024 review of submission by Harry XBastien

requesting for a Feedbaack Harry XBastien (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft does not have a single cited source. It cannot be accepted as a Wikipedia article in this form.
  • First find sources, which are reliably published, completely unconnected with the team, and contain significant coverage of the team.
  • If you can't find these, then you'll know that the team does not meet Wikiepdia's criteria for notability, and not to spend any more time on it.
  • If you can, write an article based on what those sources say. You can add a little uncontroversial factual information from non-independent sources (which you should still cite), but the bulk of the article shoud be a summary of what those indpendent commentators have published.
ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 20 January 2024 review of submission by Harry XBastien

how can I publish an article without references or source because there's no article about the article? and I want to create this page so there can be an article or future references about the page? Harry XBastien (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry XBastien If there are no sources, you cannot create the article. No way out of that Mach61 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 20 January 2024 review of submission by Holyhootenany

I would like help citing an episode of a tv show. 

Holyhootenany (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

06:23, 21 January 2024 review of submission by Vamshikadiyam

i'm new to wikipedia.I want to create wikipedia for an actor Vamshikadiyam (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vamshikadiyam: okay.. that's not a question, though.
You'll need to demonstrate that the person is notable either per WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the draft article that i mentioned above plz make it live to main space Vamshikadiyam (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 21 January 2024 review of submission by Frankywright

I am new to publishing my Biography on Wikipedia. I tried to include links to help search some of the information I included but it seems the links are not accepted. Please can you tell me what I need to add or remove to help my page go online Frankywright (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankywright Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability- like a notable person. Put another way, we don't want to know what you say is important about yourself, we want to know what others unaffiliated with you say is important about you.
You have no sources in your draft at all, and seems to read like a social media-style page. Names of minor children are not included in articles about a person unless those children themselves merit articles. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does someone like me with very little online presence publish my Biography? Is it only for celebrities? As a normal everyday person without much happening in my public life, I do not have many places online I can point to as sources. Please can you advise how I can resolve this? I am only trying to create a presence online. Frankywright (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankywright Please read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. You misunderstand what it is we do here on Wikipedia. This is not social media where people tell about themselves, and we are not concerned with the "online presence" of anyone. If you are a "normal, everyday person", it is doubtful that you merit a Wikipedia article. The vast majority of the 8 billion people on this planet do not; I certainly do not. If independent reliable sources do not on their own write about you and tell what makes you important, you do not merit a Wikipedia article. I don't mean to sound mean, I'm just trying to explain this to you clearly. I suggest that you focus your efforts on actual social media websites, like Facebook/LinkedIn/or others, or create a personal website to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 21 January 2024 review of submission by Phyominsanofficialaccount

Why did you enter? Phyominsanofficialaccount (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are asking, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 21 January 2024 review of submission by Harmanderr

Why my article is getting rejected it is about very famous book Manipulated lives, please check it again Harmanderr (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are trying to promote your own book largely using Amazon as a reference, that is not an independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not a "very famous book". It was self published last November with no indication of anyone noticing hence your here trying to promote it and yourself. The 'article' is pure puff and promotion with zero independent sources. KylieTastic (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:35, 21 January 2024 review of submission by Mikas1990

J.league Mikas1990 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked. S0091 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 21 January 2024 review of submission by TNM101

Can someone please help to find reliable sources for this article? TNM101 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is unlikely that anybody here will be willing to spend time looking for sources for your draft. You are the one who wants to create the article, so it is your job to find the sources. If you have looked for and failed to find the sources, it is very likely that the school does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and that any further time you (or anybody else) spend on the draft will be time wasted. ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 21 January 2024 review of submission by Interstellaradrian

Warmest greetings! I'm preparing to submit an updated draft for review. I went through the process of improving the copy to reach a neutral state but would certainly appreciate a second opinion on whether I need to add anything else here to improve the approval odds. I did my best in discovering as many references as I could here and it feels like a worthy entry. But as this is my first full page, confrimation is apprecaited and I'd like to get this one completed before starting on other pages. Thank you in advance. Interstellaradrian (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to submit in order to get a review, but note that their own website is not an independent source neither are press releases. The leadership and logo sections are of little interest to Wikipedia. Be sure to declare any conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 21 January 2024 review of submission by Aiinceku

What is required to submit this for review? Aiinceku (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aiinceku Nothing, as I rejected it. Qcne (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article on Tsarfati was deleted last month because sufficient independent reliable sources did not exist to base an article on: see WP:Articles for deletion/Amir Tsarfati. Only once several people, wholly unconnected with Tsarfati, have chosen to write at length about him, and been published in reliable sources will it be possible for anybody to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about him. ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, 21 January 2024 review of submission by Trumpetguy19

To whom it may concern, I replied to Johannes's decline comment about unreliable sources, but I'd like to know which sources specifically seem to violate the reliable sourcing policy. I'm a fairly new editor so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Trumpetguy19 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trumpetguy19: user-generated content is not considered reliable, as anyone can say pretty much anything they want; in the case of your draft, this means Weebly, Wordpress, Vimeo, YouTube (unless it's an unedited video published directly by a reliable source), and Facebook. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing. Thanks for the feedback. I’ll go back in and remove the self-published stuff. Quick question though, how do I show that a YouTube video is unedited from a reliable source? Also one of the Wordpress sources is an official website of the local history division of the local library in Rochester. Is it still unreliable due to source type regardless of author? Trumpetguy19 (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Trumpetguy19. YouTube content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organisation, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. The key thing to ask is "Does this account have editorial oversight?".
The Wordpress blog is fine, as it is coming from the subject matter expert (the Library).
I would just add you should only have one or two external links as per WP:EXTERNAL. Qcne (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trumpetguy19: if the YouTube video is published on the official channel of a reliable source (especially the original one), we can assume it to be legit; anything else, I'd be cautious, as it's far too easy for anyone to 'doctor' the content.
As for the WordPress blog, it may well be the "official website" of an organisation, but it is still a blog, ie. a primary source with almost certainly very little or no editorial control. It's not that you categorically cannot cite a source like that, but you should certainly keep such citations to a minimum. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 21 January 2024 review of submission by FMurano

my recent submission was rejected because the lack of reliable sources. In case of a biography of a living person what is a reliable source other than his/her personal page and CV? FMurano (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
You need to find sources wholly unconnected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

04:20, 22 January 2024 review of submission by WHYCANTIFINEANAME

I made a article about a small spotify artist however it was been not approved I don't understand the problem here WHYCANTIFINEANAME (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WHYCANTIFINEANAME: TBH, this could have just as well been rejected outright, as there is no indication that the subject is the least bit notable, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:35, 22 January 2024 review of submission by Yanjia00

How can I change the draft article title? Should I copy the content to a new draft page and delete the original one? Yanjia00 (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yanjia00: you don't need to worry about the title at this stage, if/when the draft is accepted, it will be moved to its new title anyway. That said, to what do you want to change the title, and why? (I can add a comment to the draft to this effect.)
And no, you very much should not copypaste the content into a new draft, as that creates all sorts of problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to keep the content and change the title to "Yang You (computer scientist)" so that the name will be in consist with the content. Yanjia00 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 22 January 2024 review of submission by Klavensky kly

I’m a soccer player who as play upsl pls make my page public Klavensky kly (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klavensky kly: I've rejected this draft, since there was no sign of notability, and very little evidence of improvement either.
To say nothing of the fact that you should not be writing about yourself in the first place; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:10, 22 January 2024 review of submission by Musician classic

How to add biography Musician classic (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot, @Musician classic, as the draft has now been rejected. Qcne (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:11, 22 January 2024 review of submission by Alamsher369

why my article has been declined ? i put the orignal detailes right there but dont know why they declined it ? Alamsher369 (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alamsher369 I fixed your post to provide a link to the draft as intended. Did you see the messages left by reviewers? 331dot (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes they left a message and it looks like this
{Hello, Alamsher369! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk)}. please help me to publish my first article Alamsher369 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In writing a Wikipedia article, your very first task is to find several reliable indepednent sources which talk about the subject in detail. If you can find these, then your next task is to write an article which summarises what these sources say. Nothing else should go into an article.
If you cannot find such sources, then there is no point in writing so much as a single word of an article, because any further effort will be wasted, since an article will never be accepted without such sources. ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 22 January 2024 review of submission by Vamshikadiyam

hi i'm new to wikipedia.Above draft artice i mentioned was an telugu actor i tried to submit this article but i was rejected any wikipedia experts elp me with this.Plz help me by submitting tis page for review correctly Vamshikadiyam (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
Please tell how you know this actor, since you took his picture and he posed for you.
Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:46, 22 January 2024 review of submission by DanieleGamba1995

Advice for improvement of draft Dear members of the teahouse community, Hi, I'm seeking advice for improving my draft Draft:Mestre Sapo, since it has been suggested that it might benefit from cleanup. I've been consulting the directives for correct referencing, and I'm quite satisfied by the current state, yet there might be something I'm missing, so I'm open to any type of advice that you might have! Cheers, Daniele DanieleGamba1995 (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the format of your post to provide a link to your draft in the header. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 22 January 2024 review of submission by Thruball Game

How do I make this game Thruball more notable? Thruball Game (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thruball Game: the subject either is notable, or isn't; you can't fathom notability out of thin air. Also, Wikipedia does not publish 'how-to' guides, which this seems to be. Besides which, this draft has been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 22 January 2024 review of submission by 77.98.209.180

Hi

Been trying to do what is requested. Can you please help me? I am Pavlos Sarlas; my son is Alessandro Sarlas and he is 10 years old racing driver making his career in karts and has some accolades already. So I am trying to set up his Wikipedia page to help for his future career in motorsport. 77.98.209.180 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlos.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. We are an encyclopaedia of topics that are already notable. It is forbidden to use Wikipedia to promote (or help a future career) a person. If your son becomes notable in the future then a volunteer editor may write about him. For now, however, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 22 January 2024 review of submission by Ankaps

why my articles got rejected please elaborate Ankaps (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is pure promotion, and will shortly be deleted. Please read WP:NOTPROMO. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

03:56, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Isntabelle

I can't get the page published. I can't find anything wrong with the sources I'm using and there are other pages of unreleased metro stations that are published so I'm confused on what I'm doing wrong. Isntabelle (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Isntabelle: forget any other articles you may have seen; we don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, but instead to existing policies and guidelines. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.)
Your draft cites only two sources, neither of which even mentions 'Greenbelt 2'. We need to see significant coverage of the subject, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject.
Please also see WP:CRYSTALBALL about speculation on future events. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Jasmine767

please help me to improve the article and update to live Jasmine767 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasmine767: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:59, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Bluebird179

Please tell me why my article was turned down? I haven't finished it but have other people that know more that want to contribute so Ithought we would do it grafually. Is there something specific I need to change? Bluebird179 (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluebird179: your draft was declined because it is completely unreferenced (and, by extension of that, lacks any evidence of notability).
If you hadn't finished, why did you submit it for review? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Others are welcome to contribute to your draft, you may just need to tell them the title so they can find it. Content is not based on personal knowledge, but on what is documented in reliable sources that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like many people who are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. The absolutely first task in writing an article is to find substantial, reliable, independent sources about the subject. Then if you can't find any, you'll know not to spend any more time on this project.
If you can find sources, then the next task is to forget what you know about the subject and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:51, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Gitte bei Medienservice UHH Bio

As I have, as requested, merged two submissions, I ask for the deletion or withdrawal of "Draft:Baris_Tursun_2" as requested. Instead, please continue to review the draft "Draft:Baris Tursun". This draft contains all the corrections you requested.

Can I request this at this point or do I need to take further action? Gitte bei Medienservice UHH Bio (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Bradley112358

Added references; do we need anything to publish the page? Bradley112358 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradley112358: the links listed in the 'References' section aren't really references, they're just links to external websites (and their home pages, at that, which is not very useful). Referencing needs to support the information in the article/draft, ie. when you make a statement, you hang onto it a reference to a specific source that actually verifies what you've said.
Also, please get into the habit of using the preferred method of inline citations and footnotes, as explained in WP:ILC. See WP:REFB for advice.
And finally, please do not include inline external links in the body text, as this is not allowed. Convert these to citations instead, where relevant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rookie, here.
Can you help me patch it up, or suggest a more active helper?
The information is a subject compilation that was penned by collecting of all the source material found on those sites. 75.97.241.141 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to be the author, no pride here. 75.97.241.141 (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bradley112358 / IP editor. Please follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE which you might find easier to follow. It should be a fairly simple process of converting your external links to in-line citations, which will automatically generate a proper reference list. Qcne (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:15, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Kurt3449

Hello there - advice please re lacking significant coverage for Sallie Aprahamian. My research has returned no resources to verify Sallie in the way that the guidelines describe. And having corresponded with her she is unaware of anything more substantial.

Are there any other tactics or conditions that can be met to gain approval? It would seem a shame to not be able to link to a page about her from the other wiki pages that mention her.

Best wishes. Kurt3449 (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry @Kurt3449, if there are no sources with significant coverage of Sallie which are both independent of her and reliable, then there can be no article at this time. Qcne (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to help. After quite the pot of coffee I've found a podcast recording of Sallie being interviewed at a Dr Who convention! [ https://radiofreeskaro.com/2020/02/15/radio-free-skaro-729-these-go-to-eleven/ , timecode 1:09:45]. I wonder, before I commit to editing, if you consider this appropriate for the criteria. Kurt3449 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry :( Interviews don't count towards notability as it's the subject talking about themselves. Qcne (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks. Kurt3449 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 23 January 2024 review of submission by 83.173.205.85

Hi! The draft for the English version of the Bethlehem Mission Society was declined. I do not understand why, because it is the exact same content as on the German site. There, there are 26 very good references to back the content. Have a look: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionsgesellschaft_Bethlehem The Bethlehem Mission Society is a traditional religious society with a long history. You can find several articles about the Society in newspapers from all over the world. Please reconsider? Best 83.173.205.85 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia(and every other language Wikipedia) is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. If you believe that the sources you provided meet our standards of a reliable source, you may wish to discuss that with the reviewer directly- as they may not understand German in order to examine the sources. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add also that there appears to be quite a lot of unreferenced content in this draft, with entire paragraphs and sections even without a single citation, begging the obvious questions (that no reviewer or reader should ever have to ask) – where is all this information coming from, and how do we know it's true? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:01, 23 January 2024 review of submission by AmitabhCS

Hi, Writing on a technical topic of your expertise? My draft was declined for the want of `independent' sources. There's a few tricky questions here: the topic is of a technical nature (a new result/algorithm in Computer Science). The citations/sources are all peer-reviewed high quality publications in the research area. I am an expert in the area (I am a University Professor) and co-author of many of these articles. The wiki article is not talking about myself in a personal capacity or making any subjective judgement. The question is what needs to be fixed to have it published? I could add other work as sources which does not have me as a co-author. Alternatively, I could even ask somebody who's not an author on these sources to write a wiki article on the same topic (Can they use the same title?). 

Please advise.

Regards. AmitabhCS (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmitabhCS: the core concept of notability, which is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, means that (and I quote from WP:GNG) "a topic is presumed [notable] when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The 'sources', in plural, is usually considered to mean three or more. One author writing in multiple publications is arguably just one source; therefore, in answer to your question, yes, it would help if we could see publications by other authors as well.
There is also the question of bias, as in does citing only or mainly one author, even if the papers are peer-reviewed, introduce a source bias into the article? I'm not necessarily saying that applies here, but I'm sure you will appreciate the inherent risks in person X writing an encyclopaedia article about a topic, and supporting it mostly with sources authored by... person X. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AmitabhCS I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Appreciate that. I suppose I do know of at least three publications which don't have any common author, so I could add that. Hopefully they adddress both your points. Please let me know if there are any other suggestions.
As a point of discussion, I understand your bias argument but I see it difficult to apply when you are quoting technical results (not assigning subjective value judgements) which are already verified (i.e. peer reviewed) by experts in the field. Of course, there could be a danger that the peer reviewed publcations are themselves poor (not in this case) so you could not rely on that process. AmitabhCS (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AmitabhCS: if memory serves, a certain Andrew Wakefield had a peer-reviewed paper published, in no lesser journal than The Lancet, showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism... I jest, of course. :)
The serious point I wanted to make, bias aside, is that notability at its heart demonstrates that the subject is being talked or written about widely enough to justify its inclusion in the 'pedia; hence the requirement for multiple reliable and independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Klavensky kly

The reason it’s Bcs I’m a semi pro soccer Everyone is looking for me in google, they can't find me, I just made this article so that if they search for me in google, they will find me pls make it article Klavensky kly (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Klavensky kly. Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia isn't interested in helping people find you on Google. Qcne (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article is only one possible input into Google. As Qcne notes, we are not concerned with search results or helping people find you, sorry. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 23 January 2024 review of submission by Codumon

I have several third party sources from reputable journals (TechCrunch, SitePoint, GitHub's Official Blog). What else do I need to show notability? Codumon (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Codumon:
- TechCrunch is an unreliable source.
- Medium is an unreliable source.
- sitepoint works as an okay source.
- visualstudiomagazine works as an okay source.
- The GitHub Blog does not show notability.
- OpenCorporates is a database entry, does not show notability.
But the rest of your sources are either primary (from WakaTime directly i.e. their site or GitHub). If you can find reviews, discussions, analysis of the software in reputable tech magazines or websites let me know and I will take another look. Qcne (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick Google search and found these non-primary resources. Would they work?
- https://www.g2.com/products/wakatime/reviews
- https://tjtharrison.medium.com/track-your-coding-with-wakatime-f893bbf36e95
- https://perso.crans.org/besson/wakatime.en.html
- https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/888955/Codealike-vs-WakaTime
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6oWMHE9504
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_r_xbf-Yfk
- https://www.facebook.com/WIREDGermany/photos/pb.100070112490031.-2207520000/1358826247495612 Codumon (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Codumon in order:
- No, this is just random reviews.
- Perhaps - is TJT Harrison a subject-matter expert?
- As above.
- As above.
- No, this is a random video.
- No, this is a random video.
- Depends - you've linked to a Facebook page. Is there an article associated with this in WIRED Germany? Qcne (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps - is TJT Harrison a subject-matter expert?
TJT is in the industry, but I wouldn't call them a subject-matter expert.
- Depends - you've linked to a Facebook page. Is there an article associated with this in WIRED Germany?
There was a short article in a printed magazine, a mention/feature of tech companies in Germany. Codumon (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Codumon You declared a COI, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created WakaTime Codumon (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:08, 23 January 2024 review of submission by 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:1C76:3507:4076:8EBF

My draft was repeatedly declined even when I tried to add multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources that substantially talk about Han. I know there still is something wrong... what kind of sources and how many would I need to add? (assuming they all would prove that this merits a Wikipedia article). I still think that Han merits its own wikipedia article the same way that Albert HUBO and Sophia do, but how would the article itself be good? 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:1C76:3507:4076:8EBF (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is borderline. The first and last sources are primary, so they don't count. The Wired piece seems pretty solid. The Business Insider is normally not considered very reliable (per WP:BI), but on this occasion it's syndicating Reuters which may be okay. The third, AI Magazine, only provides a brief profile, which doesn't really add up to significant coverage. If you could find one more source that squarely meets the WP:GNG standard, that would probably be enough to get this over the line. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if I can find one more good source, I can resubmit and it would be a good article? 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:5403:33A2:1B36:C26 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would CNET be reliable? 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:5403:33A2:1B36:C26 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this article is in 2015. 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:5403:33A2:1B36:C26 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:59, 23 January 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:5D50:980:EC79:9137:B3E6:CEB8

Hi, I'm not understanding why this article was declined for lack of significant coverage based on the guidelines. I have charted on the Americana chart, won multiple national songwriting competitions, toured internationally at major venues and alongside numerous artists with wikipedia pages, and been written up in multiple national publications like USA Today, American Songwriter and the Wall Street Journal. Rather than pretend to be a third party, I admitted to being both the subject and submitter for the sake of transparency and did not include a single fact that was not backed up by objective sources not composed by myself or anyone I worked with. Please advise. Thank you. 2600:1700:5D50:980:EC79:9137:B3E6:CEB8 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft doesn't mention anything about your work charting from what I see. The reviewer opined that you might be notable as part of a duo but not as an individual. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly qualified to give advice, but also, by the fact that you're using first person, it appears that you are the subject. Before trying to create an article about yourself, please consider Wikipedia: an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:5403:33A2:1B36:C26 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user freely admitted they were the subject. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article closely and did everything I could to avoid writing the draft as anything but factual. There is an annotation on every piece of information and no language that expressed an opinion. I'm not sure I understand what more an indie artist is supposed to have in their history beyond 16 years of album releases and touring with national press, appearances on nationally syndicated radio shows like NPR Mountain Stage, inclusion on iTunes charting podcasts like Welcome to Night Vale, wins at national songwriting competitions, and multiple cross references on Wikipedia. At this point, having worked hard to learn the site and frankly enjoying creating this draft, I largely just want to understand what's missing. 2600:1700:5D50:980:EC79:9137:B3E6:CEB8 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:12, 23 January 2024 review of submission by 2A01:73C0:500:EF2D:29C0:6106:C3E5:A627

I'm not sure why my page wasn't accepted 2A01:73C0:500:EF2D:29C0:6106:C3E5:A627 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice. It has since been resubmitted and is awaiting a new review. Given that, do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1: Amazon. Selling books, not giving independent coverage of anything. Doesn't mention Halevi.
2. Discussion of the essay, but little coverage of Grunsfeld.
3. Selling books, and doesn't mention Halevi.
4. Doesn't mention Grunsfeld/Halevi
5. There is a passing mention of "Efraim Grunsfeld" (which is a combination of names that doesn't appear in the article, but is presumably the subject). Just a passing mention, no significant coverage.
6. Bad link
7. Doesn't mention Halevi.
8. Might be good: I haven't seen the text. But it doesn't sound from the title as if it contains an in-depth independent coverage of Halevi.
9. Passing mention, in a non-independent source
10. Unpublished (or at best self-published work).
With the possible exception of no 8, not one of these references contributes to establishing notability in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word.
The first task in creating a Wikipedia article is to find several sources that meet the golden rule: they are reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. If you don't find such sources, then writing so much as a single word of an article is a waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 24

01:33, 24 January 2024 review of submission by Adriandavid1213

Since you don't wanna publish, please delete the Draft: Lavinia de Rothschild.

Thank you Adriandavid1213 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:27, 24 January 2024 review of submission by Littlec808

Coming soon Spring 2024 Littlec808 (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlec808: that's not a question. Do you have one in mind you'd like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Blocked as a sock.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:27, 24 January 2024 review of submission by Preksha30

is this okay now? Preksha30 (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Preksha30: not sure what you mean. This draft was rejected more than two months ago, and will not be reviewed again or otherwise taken further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to resubmit it? Preksha30 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preksha30 Rejection means that resubmission is not possible. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft since it was rejected, like new sources the reviewer did not consider, or in your case, if it is written in an encyclopedia style, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 24 January 2024 review of submission by Tennis Sibu

Hi, I'd like to know why my request is deleted. Tennis Sibu (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for promotion and username. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 24 January 2024 review of submission by MVP988

Can you tell what missing in this article MVP988 (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is written as an essay, not an encyclopedia article. This is why it was rejected. You also seem to have some sort of connection to this topic, please see my comments on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are so much confused about which companies give mvp development services that's why I am writing this article and also add information about MVP development work. MVP988 (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create a new thread for every post, simply edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MVP988: Your draft reads like the listicle that it was drawn from; an article whose only purpose is to promote the companies listed. Wikipedia does not exist to promote individual companies. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 24 January 2024 review of submission by Pioussouls

Hello! Can any editor please look into this page and help me improve it? Need your kind suggestions to improve and make it acceptable. Thanks Pioussouls (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 24 January 2024 review of submission by MattPurcell211

Hello, using the sandbox, I have just submitted an article for review which notes the career of a professional golfer - Frank Kennedy. I wanted to ask whether the reviewer would automatically change the title of the page if it is accepted, as the current title is "User:MattPurcell211/sandbox" due to the use of the sandbox instead of "Frank Kennedy."

This is the first article I have sent for publishing, so I am not entirely sure on the process. Please advise? Thanks! MattPurcell211 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MattPurcell211: the title is always adjusted, if necessary, when the draft is accepted and published in the encyclopaedia. Also, even before that, sandbox and other user space drafts are routinely moved to the Draft: name space on sight. In fact, I'll go and do that now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Now at  Courtesy link: Draft:Frank Kennedy (golfer). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! MattPurcell211 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

02:47, 25 January 2024 review of submission by Hani ali0

Hello, I have provided secondary sources directly from league page but was declined. Can I please get clear directions and help to get this page published as soon as possible? Thank you so much. Hani ali0 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I uploaded sources directly from the league page. I also added pictures relating to each team played with, deleting one extra one as told. If there is anything else I need to do to get this page published please let me know, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you so much. Hani ali0 (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hani ali0: firstly, please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to your previous one.
Secondly, if you haven't yet done so, please read WP:AUTOBIO for the reasons why you should not be writing about yourself.
And lastly, you have resubmitted this draft and it is awaiting review. A reviewer will pick it up sooner or later, and either accept it or provide feedback as to why it cannot be accepted. Please be patient, we have over 1,000 drafts pending review, and Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline. (Is there a particular reason why you want it published ASAP?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: We don't normally do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, but I took a quick look at your draft and declined it as there was barely any referencing and absolutely no evidence of notability of any kind. Unless you significantly improve it before resubmitting, I expect it may be rejected outright at the next review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:22, 25 January 2024 review of submission by Niklas.Andersson.95

I am working again on this Theoria page, and I am wondering if it is possible to have the paragraphs that are unsupported by secondary sources hosted elsewhere, as in an archive. So if one wanted to read more about the journal, they could go there instead. Also, can someone help me clean up the texts on this page, as English is not my primary language. And is there a way to make the academic journal indexing automatically update for the page? Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Niklas.Andersson.95: if by "hosted elsewhere" you mean elsewhere on Wikipedia, then no; elsewhere on an external site – sure!
I'm a bit confused as to why the content cannot be supported by referencing. Surely all that information must have come from somewhere, so just cite the source(s). That said, I don't think there is actually all that much unreferenced content.
Our main concern here at AfC is notability. If you can show that this journal passes WP:NJOURNALS, it could probably be accepted, and just tagged for any remaining issues. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Yes, I meant hosted externally. Sorry for the confusion! Most of this work is produced through interviews that I had with members of Theoria, meaning first-person accounts, so there are no secondary sources to corroborate them. But the interviews are externally hosted, so they can be read elsewhere. I have linked them to the sources. And in regards to notability, I would argue that Theoria fulfills at least one of the stated criteria for notability, which then should be enough if I am reading the notability page correctly. Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Niklas.Andersson.95: ah, okay, got it. Personal interviews and recollections like that wouldn't be acceptable sources anyway, as sources must be published. In that case, my advice would be to remove such content, as you're implying by suggesting to host it elsewhere.
Which criterion of NJOURNALS does it fulfil, and what evidence is there to support that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the sources are publicly accessible, but I think I understand that might not be enough. Regarding the notability, Theoria is listed on the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), which is what the notability page states is a requirement for fulfilling C1.
here is the link to the journal on SSCI: https://mjl.clarivate.com:/search-results?issn=0040-5817&hide_exact_match_fl=true&utm_source=mjl&utm_medium=share-by-link&utm_campaign=journal-profile-share-this-journal Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Niklas.Andersson.95: yep, that would indeed seem to satisfy C1.b of NJOURNALS; I'll make a note of that in the draft.
Once you've removed (or referenced) the unsupported content, you can either resubmit the draft, or ping me (or drop by my talk page) and I'll review it myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you! How do I ping you? Sorry, I am still learning how to edit here on Wikipedia. Also, after I have removed the unsupported parts, which would be all the historical sections I would imagine, can I get some assistance with cleaning up the text as English is not my primary language? Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Niklas.Andersson.95: see {{Ping}}. (Note that just @'ing someone doesn't do the trick.)
I don't think there's anything wrong with the text (although who am I to comment, English isn't my first language either!), and in any case that can be left for future editors to edit, which they will do in any case. :)
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 25 January 2024 review of submission by 20 Екатерина

Здравствуйте! Подскажите, почему был отклонен черновик? Что необходимо изменить в статье? 20 Екатерина (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@20 Екатерина: this is the English-language Wikipedia; please communicate in English, thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Can you tell me why the draft was rejected? What needs to be changed in the article? 20 Екатерина (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if you mean this draft User:20 Екатерина/sandbox, then that was declined for the same reason, of not being in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the user has now (today) started editing in ru-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 25 January 2024 review of submission by Dishant Valmiki

Because I have been declined twice Dishant Valmiki (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. Qcne (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 25 January 2024 review of submission by Dishant Valmiki

Can you tell me what was missing in my article, so I can improve it, and publish it Dishant Valmiki (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the comment @Dishant Valmiki left by the reviewer? You cannot use Wikipedia as a source. Sources must be reliable, independent, and preferably seconary. Qcne (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:24, 25 January 2024 review of submission by Stef joosten

I am curious to hear whether I have addressed the reviewer's comments adequately. Should I resubmit to find out, or should I ask this question here? Stef joosten (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stef joosten: please resubmit. For us here at the help desk to be able to comment on notability, we would have to review the article anyway, and that's not really what the help desk is for.
BTW, given that you appear (?) to be a (co-)author of many of the sources cited, what is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 25 January 2024 review of submission by Mk6778

My article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Federico_Bardazzi was rejected for the following reasons: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." but I included 47 References in the article, which is also a simple translation of the article https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Bardazzi properly online and approved. Which References do you think they refer to? Also since the Italian article is approved, why is the English article not? Sorry for my English Mk6778 (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mk6778, did you read the comment left by the reviewer?
For the same reason this was moved to draftspace. There is a lot of information in this draft that does not contain a source. You will need to either remove that information or add an WP:INCITE reference that verifies Qcne (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read a comment, but the information does not contain source, what is it? events in Biography? The italian article has the same references as the English one.
for examples: During the same year, he began collaborating with various ensembles, including the Toscanini Orchestra of Parma, the ORT - Orchestra della Toscana, the Abruzzo Symphonic Institution, and the orchestral groups of the Fiesole School of Music.
thanks for your answer Mk6778 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mk6778,
The Italian and English Wikipedias are separate project with very different referencing requirements. Every statement in your draft must have an in-line citation. Qcne (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So does this paragraph also need references?
During the same year, he began collaborating with various ensembles, including the Toscanini Orchestra of Parma, the ORT - Orchestra della Toscana, the Abruzzo Symphonic Institution, and the orchestral groups of the Fiesole School of Music. Mk6778 (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every statement needs referencing. Qcne (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 25 January 2024 review of submission by Anuragkanttiwari

What is the reason my article is not being published. Where as many sources has been provided. Kindly help. 

Anuragkanttiwari (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anuragkanttiwari: the reason is given in the decline notice and accompanying comments. Namely, the sources are insufficient for establishing notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 25 January 2024 review of submission by EmeraldRange

Reviewing this draft and while there are also issues with lacking inline citations, I believe a good portion of this was AI-generated- specifically the Production subsection. Is that grounds for copyvio? Not sure what the policy is. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EmeraldRange Even if its not AI generated its completely inappropriate for Wikipedia so I would decline it on tone grounds. AI work cannot yet be copyrighted so its not a copyvio. Qcne (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying and suggesting the tone reason! EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 25 January 2024 review of submission by 138.246.3.242

The submission is claimed to appear to "read more like an advertisement" and needs more sources. Is there a specific area that needs extra attention to avoid such issues? 138.246.3.242 (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really any specific are. The whole draft reads like what the Institute wants the world to know about itself.
Wikipedia doesn't care what the Institute wants the world to know about it: what Wikipedia is interested in is what people unconnected with the Institute have chosen to publish about it. ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 25 January 2024 review of submission by Kalakpagh

Per the secondary source, does it mean I should look for different websites, journals, etc that also talk about the subject? Kalakpagh (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Find some that meet the golden rule, and base your article on them. ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kalakpagh (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 25 January 2024 review of submission by LunaSparks

Would this page meet the reference requirement? LunaSparks (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 25 January 2024 review of submission by Xcgolds

Hello,

Can you provide information on how the arrangement should be made? Where do we make mistakes? Xcgolds (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xcgolds: what 'arrangement' would that be, then?
This draft has been rejected and is pending deletion.
BTW, what is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

00:42, 26 January 2024 review of submission by LunaSparks

This isnt a question about editing, but I was wondering if I would be allowed to post this article to a fandom community while I wait until Red Leather himself meets all requirements to have a wikipedia page. LunaSparks (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask the relevant Fandom community; you would need to attribute the posting there to Wikipedia to just reuse it elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 26 January 2024 review of submission by HAL 7C0

I find the reason given ('topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia') for rejecting the submission difficult to understand and very subjective. Depending on the interests of the person making the decision, this entry may be more or less relevant. The fact is that mital-U is an independent music label that has produced some relevant releases (including chart entries in Germany + Austria with Eisbaer by Grauzone, as well as Record of the Week of the song automaten by mittageisen on the John Peel Radio Show BBC1). Therefore, I would be grateful for a reversal of the rejection and an indication of where there might be a need for additions to the list. HAL 7C0 (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL 7C0: this draft was declined five times before being rejected. I'd say that's plenty of opportunity to demonstrate notability, but if this isn't forthcoming, then eventually we have to reject as we can't keep reviewing the same draft indefinitely.
Notability of companies is defined in WP:CORP, and there is very little, if any, subjectivity in that guideline. It certainly does not in any way consider the "interests of the person", or "relevance" of the subject (whatever that means, exactly). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 26 January 2024 review of submission by JuniperChill

First thing, is the layout of the article Sun Haven alright? I have been looking at other video games that are released in 2023 like Coral Island (video game) and My Time at Sandrock.

And second, are reliable sources required since I think none of them (other than the link to the official website presented in the 'external links' section) are primary sources. I feel like the main reason for my article being rejected (even though I put a few reviews on that game) is because of the fact that there are little to no reliable sources for Sun Haven at WP:VG/S and does not really meet GNG even though I thought it just creeps it (see the history) Although I did find a few reviews of it. There is also not currently a Metacritic review. I was thinking this game is quite popular it is more popular than Fae Farm IMO but I think what matters is that not how popular it is but if there are at least a couple of reliable sources. The closest I can find is from RPS but that is not its own page.

As well as my comment here, you should see the reviewers one too. JuniperChill (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JuniperChill: in short, yes, reliable sources are very much required, because everything you say must be supported by (ie. come from, in practice) a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 26 January 2024 review of submission by 2603:3024:1526:EB00:90DF:2BAB:6CC3:EDC0

This band was a very well known 1990s punk band. I can provide many more references. I wanted to ask which type you find most credible - 1) Scholarly Journals, 2) rock/music magazines, 3) fan pages, videos. -- One of their songs is a viral tiktok song - the #yeastiegirlz hashtag on TikTok has 2.5M views. They were on Lookout records, there are lookout bands with Wikipedia pages that I would argue are much less significant that the Yeastie Girlz. I am sure that I can meet the standard, but I want to know what sort of references that best meet your requirements. Thank you. 2603:3024:1526:EB00:90DF:2BAB:6CC3:EDC0 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly Journals and rock/music magazines would be best, fan pages and videos would confer zero notability. TikTok views confer zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 26 January 2024 review of submission by Youraveragemothra

don't ask for that, because i was maked jeff boi on wikipedia page Youraveragemothra (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 26 January 2024 review of submission by Youraveragemothra

when i was 11 year old. i was be created of jeff boi to make a page for wikipedia, however this page got Rejected i guess. anyway i live on brazil fortaleza and my youtube username is YourAverageMothra.i hope this page was accept, thank you Youraveragemothra (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1199335996"