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
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
Pbioilp (talk | contribs)
4 edits
Requesting assistance regarding Wang ke
Line 744: Line 744:


:After 6 months, it will be deleted however you can retrieve it [[User:Tesleemah|Tesleemah]] ([[User talk:Tesleemah|talk]]) 15:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:After 6 months, it will be deleted however you can retrieve it [[User:Tesleemah|Tesleemah]] ([[User talk:Tesleemah|talk]]) 15:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

== 15:30, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Pbioilp ==
{{Lafc|username=Pbioilp|ts=15:30, 15 December 2024|draft=Wang ke}}
i didnt understand why my draft was declined, i would love to understand why so i can fix it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wang_Ke_(Singer) [[User:Pbioilp|Pbioilp]] ([[User talk:Pbioilp|talk]]) 15:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:30, 15 December 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 9

10:59, 9 December 2024 review of submission by 62.224.56.173

Please let me know why my page was rejected and what might be helpful to get published on Wikipedia? Thank you. 62.224.56.173 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected because there is nothing to indicate that the person is notable under any of our notability standards. There isn't anything that could be done to get it published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 9 December 2024 review of submission by Mishal Mehmood

can you specify why the article was rejected ? 

Mishal Mehmood (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected, which means you can resubmit it once you improve it and address the problems the reviewer noted. As DoubleGrazing pointed out, the sources currently in the draft do not adequately demonstrate that the subject is notable per WP:NPROF. Additional reliable sources will have to be added to establish this notability before you resubmit or it will be declined again. cyberdog958Talk 12:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 9 December 2024 review of submission by LindsayCTC

Hello,

The submission for a page for Canadian True Crime podcast keeps getting declined. We have added as many credible sources that we have. What further sources is Wikipedia looking for?

Thanks. LindsayCTC (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LindsayCTC, there was a warning left on your user talk page about managing a conflict of interest. Please review that and kindly make the necessary declarations on your user page. As far as the draft article, it needs to show that it is WP:Notable, that is, is has coverage from secondary, independent sources but presently your draft is written very promotionally and with a lot of external links. While the awards are nice, there needs to be in depth coverage of the things you have written about in the draft. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent commentators have published (in reliable sources) about the subject - that and almost nothing else. What you know, think, or believe, about the subject is irrelevant, and should play no part in creating the article, except where it is corroborated by independent published sources. This is especially the case if you are connected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 9 December 2024 review of submission by ZachRivard72

How can I change the name of my draft? It is Charles Milliard... not Charles Millaird. ZachRivard72 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZachRivard72: page titles can't be changed, as such; this is effected by moving the page.
However, your draft is in French, whereas this is the English-language Wikipedia, so I'd say you have bigger 'issues' than the page title? :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 9 December 2024 review of submission by 2405:DA40:35DB:5600:ADE3:5203:6493:3FE0

what kind of reference are you after? how many do I have to have? 2405:DA40:35DB:5600:ADE3:5203:6493:3FE0 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For notability, we need to see three or more independent and reliable secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject.
For verification, we need to see as many sources and citations as is necessary to adequately support the information in the draft. These must be cited inline.
Currently this draft has one source, which does not meet any of these requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For more information, see WP:42. Ca talk to me! 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, 9 December 2024 review of submission by Kgbalint

I would like to know, what was the problem specifically. I would really love to create this article, and I want to know what should I improve about my draft. Kgbalint (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that this band meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. This may be different than the German Wikipedia, as each version of Wikipedia has its own policies. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:59, 9 December 2024 review of submission by Nichooas li

I have already used 90% of professional terms and a large number of references. Why am I not being approved? Nichooas li (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have not understood what a Wikipedia article is. This is a common problem for people who try to create an article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
No Wikipedia article should ever present arguments or conclusions, except when it is summarising an argument or conclusion from one single cited source. original research is not permitted. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nichooas li, that is not an encyclopedia article. It is an essay. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

02:00, 10 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:4081:88:35A0:0:0:29DA:F8A0

He is very popular person in the india 2409:4081:88:35A0:0:0:29DA:F8A0 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:05, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Writer Johnc

Hello ! Kindly want to follow up regarding the status of my submission, "Lincoln Lu," which is currently under review. I would greatly appreciate any guidance you could provide on how to expedite the process or if there are any amendments I should consider.

Thank you very much for your assistance!

Hello! As the submission of " Lincoln Lu" is still under review, really want to know how can spped up or what i need to amend ? pls help, many thanks! Writer Johnc (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Writer Johnc: see my answer to your next question below. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Draft:Lincoln Lu isn't "your submission" – you didn't write the draft, and you didn't submit it; Beetea220 did. Or are you saying you're operating both accounts? Or are you two working together? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:12, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Writer Johnc

Hello ! Kindly want to follow up regarding the status of my submission - Orion Land which is currently under review. I would greatly appreciate any guidance you could provide on how to expedite the process or if there are any amendments I should consider. Thanks in advance! 


Writer Johnc (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Writer Johnc: you have resubmitted this draft, so will get feedback when a reviewer gets around to reviewing it. We don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk, although if you have specific questions you may ask those of course. And no, there is no way to expedite the process, the review could take place today, or it could be several weeks away.
What is your relationship with this subject? If you work for this business, you need to make a paid-editing-disclosure; I will post instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:33, 10 December 2024 review of submission by TJH2020

Need help with adding references in the correct places in the article. All the references are credible and correct for the article and information. TJH2020 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TJH2020: presumably you mean Draft:John Santiago?
See WP:REFB for advice on referencing using inline citations, which is what is required in articles on living people (WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 10 December 2024 review of submission by 103.121.26.106

Hello. Could you please tell me why this submission is not accepted? I do see that there is another one here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Underground_Orange . The film title exists in Italian and Spanish under "Bajo Naranja". Thank you. 103.121.26.106 (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will only consider one draft at a time on any given subject. Draft:Underground orange was declined procedurally, because there is a previous draft Draft:Underground Orange already in the system, which predates Draft:Underground orange by several weeks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that this previous draft has been waiting for review for about 6 weeks. 103.121.26.106 (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:02, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Napa comms

Hello! Could you please explain why the page I have submitted for pubblication has been rejected so that I can amend potential errors? And what should I do to bring it up to a publishable standard? Many thanks Napa comms (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Napa comms: this draft has been declined because it provides insufficient evidence that the subject is notable. There are two sources cited, one routine business reporting (appointment news), the other an interview (apparently – I can't actually read it); neither of these contribute anything towards notability per the WP:GNG guideline. We need to see significant coverage of this person, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked for username, clearly a company rep. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 10 December 2024 review of submission by ThatOnePixle

how much information do I need? ThatOnePixle (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell about yourself, please see the autobiography policy. I would also suggest that you read this page with a parent/guardian/custodian. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatOnePixle: To expand on what 331dot says, we generally do not entertain articles on minors unless the claim to notability is unambiguous and the sourcing is practically flawless. This is because a Wikipedia article irrevocably denies the subject a chance at a private life. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 10 December 2024 review of submission by KishorWhite

I am neither related to company nor a employer. I don't know why this article is not accepted. The purpose of creating this article is neither for promotion nor advertisment purpose. The purpose of creating this wekipedia page is only for accurate information for other people or students. Thanks. KishorWhite (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sir what should I do, I am neither from CTEVT nor paid for article. Help me. KishorWhite (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KishorWhite There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. How did you come to edit about this organization? (The main topic you have edited about) 331dot (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't start multiple threads, please. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia articles about organizations summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is rejected already, won't be considered Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

I have submitted my draft again, this time much better; May I ask if there is any advice you can give me to improve it? Also previous comments i have responded to on the talk page; Additionally there is quite a lot of red links linking to the 7th marine brigade/Jiaolong commandos so I really hope it can be accepted Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've resubmitted it for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you
I was more of asking if i needed to improve anything in general Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do, to the point where the draft is not accepted, the reviewer will let you know. That's what the process is for. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Oluwakayodelucas

Dear Wikipedia Editor Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to address the recent decline of my draft article on NLNG due to the existence of a similarly titled article. I would like to highlight that the company has officially changed its name to NLNG (as evidenced in its corporate communications and branding materials), and the draft I submitted reflects this update alongside comprehensive, fact-based, and encyclopedic content.

It has proven difficult to edit the title of the existing page to reflect this name change, especially as the existing article lacks some of the detailed historical and operational insights presented in the draft. Furthermore, my draft is designed to align with Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability by including authoritative references and updated data.

I respectfully request one of the following solutions:

If possible, bring down the older article to prevent confusion and reflect the organization's updated name, allowing my draft to be elevated to the mainspace. This action will ensure users encounter accurate and up-to-date information.

Alternatively, I would appreciate guidance or administrative support in merging content from my draft into the existing page, prioritizing accuracy and encyclopedic standards.

Your assistance in this matter will ensure Wikipedia remains a trusted resource for users seeking reliable information on NLNG. I am happy to collaborate or provide further clarifications if needed.

Thank you for your attention and support.

Best regards, Oluwakayode Lucas 

Oluwakayodelucas (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oluwakayodelucas: We do not entertain requests made via chatbot, and this draft is written more like an investors' brochure. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment.
What i did was to provide adequate information on the company, which is the largest gas company in the whole of Africa. I am grateful to get your support on how this can be done better and ultimately, support on the best way to get my request entertained. Oluwakayodelucas (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oluwakayodelucas: Stop using chatbots to write this out. If you don't care enough to write out a request (or an article) yourself without resorting to AI, then you don't care enough to edit Wikipedia, where we both have zero tolerance for AI-generated text which tends towards non-sequiturs and view people relying on AI as unwilling to actually put in the research and work to actually write an acceptable article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oluwakayodelucas: no, we will not "bring down" the existing article so that you can publish yours instead. Nor is there any way of "merging" the two. You may update the existing article with new information, appropriately supported by reliable sources, and written in a neutral and factual manner; this is how Wikipedia articles normally evolve over time. (If you have a relationship with this business, however, you should make edit requests via the article's talk page, rather than editing it directly.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback.
Is there a way to change the caption of the article from Nigeria LNG to NLNG. My Management has really queried that this is not working hence the need for me to create this new article. I am thankful for your support so far but would appreciate if you can guide me through how that can be done please. Oluwakayodelucas (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"My management"; the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure on your user page(click your username above). 331dot (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oluwakayodelucas: the page title is changed by moving the page. Whether it should be moved is a different matter, and one I cannot comment on, except to say that per WP:COMMONNAME we tend to use the most commonly-used, rather than the 'official' name, for most things. What any representatives of your business have to say about this may not have much bearing on the matter. In any case, there is already a redirect from NLNG to Nigeria LNG, so anyone searching for the article by either expression should have no trouble finding it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 10 December 2024 review of submission by 94alec

Article was marked for speedily deletion which seems a bit excessive. This is a local artist that is doing amazing things for the veteran and mental health communities. Why would this be marked for deletion so quickly? How can I edit to best increase odds of it getting published? 94alec (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

94alec You need the "Draft:" portion when linking to a draft(existing or not). The draft was a glowing promotional piece filled with promotional language. ("Committed to sharing his journey", "passionate drummer"). Please see neutral point of view. Also note that Wikipedia is not merely a place to tell about good works. You must show he is a notable artist, and an "emerging artist" is unlikely to. Artists must have already arrived and be noticed to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Mr. Kost is your client, you need to make a separate paid disclosure for him(I see you made one for yourself) 331dot (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I will try again then being sure to speak from a more neutral point of view.
And I will do that as well since he is my client however he is also a friend of a friend. 94alec (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that it's my experience that marketers have great difficulty in creating Wikipedia articles. Marketing is a very different skill set from encyclopedia writing. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have noticed. My goal is to comply with Wikipedia policies and procedures as well as get a article created for a an artist who has been mentioned by both the library of congress and google (which would not define him as "emerging"). I'm not interested in spamming the Wikipedia community nor getting denied access to it because of my background or skills. 94alec (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @94alec. A very quick guide to creating an acceptable article:
  1. Find several sources that are at once reliably published, wholly unconnected with the artist, and contain significant coverage of the artist. None of your current sources is independent, as they are all published by organisations connected with Kost; and (as far as I can see), none of them has significant coverage of him. See WP:42 for more detail.
  2. If you can find at least three sources which meet all the criteria of WP:42, then it may be worth continuing. Forget every single thing that you know about kost and write a neutral summary of what those sources say, citing them as you go along.
  3. If that gives a reasonable encyclopaedia article, then you can add a limited amount of non-controversial factual information (dates, locations etc), from non-independent published information.
  4. You may also add a selected list of works. All these should be cited from reliable sources (not, eg. sales sites), and preferably from independent sources (eg reviews).
ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:27, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Verbal23

Why is my subject not suitable for a wikipedia article? He has credible authorship in scholarly literature and involvement in various court cases. My sources included a faculty page and the court cases themselves, which I have seen similarly utilized on other academics and lawyers. Verbal23 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make appropriate edits? Verbal23 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal23 Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). You say he's notable but the draft is very thin as to what sources consider notable about him. It lists notable court cases or legal theories he developed, or what have you. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The personal life in particular is notable, as the ACLU case was the first to reverse the ban on gay marriage in Pennsylvania, and the remainder is background information. What changes can be made to showcase notability or publish? Verbal23 (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:36, 10 December 2024 review of submission by JLD120

The reason the wikipedia page I created got denied makes no sense and gives me no direction for what to write differently. JLD120 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JLD120: After the lede the article very quickly devolves into a research essay. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:52, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Waxilo

Hello, I hope you are well, As we are getting close to Christmas, I was wondering if there’s any chance my page will be reviewed before then. Thank you very much, Waxillo Waxilo (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waxillo Reviews are conducted by volunteers, doing what they can, when they can. There's no timeframe. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Josache00

Hello, Thanks to the reviewer for reviewing my draft. I appreciate the concerns for NPOV and the references used for the article. I was curious if I could get more specific feedback before I make edits and resubmit.

Issues I am aware of:

- Ref 1 and 8 are duplicated

- Ref 2, 3, 5, and 14 are strictly defined as primary sources. However, the justification that I would make is that, per No original research, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." And the following information is what is supported by the primary sources:

- Number of employees

- Location of company

- Note of origin on company CEO such as where he went to school and what he studied in school (which, to be fair, I could have used secondary sources to reference this instead, so this would be a good edit to make)

- Types of clothing the company produces (for example, saying the company sells shirts for exercise on their website)

- Objective features of an establishment (square footage, what apparel companies they distribute, how many gyms they own).

Of all of this, I find this to be "straight-forward" information, but I do think the draft could be improved by using secondary sources as much as possible to state this information.

In regards of notability, ref 4, 6, 7, 15, and 18 are all sources I would consider reliable or highly notable (Houston Chronicle is the third largest in Sunday print circulation, for example). Of those, ref 4, 6, 7, and 15 I would consider offer significant coverage of the company or a part of the company. If someone can pin an objective point as to how this topic is not notable enough given these references, I will digress.

The other main concern I received was that the draft read as an advertisement, which I understand the concern. I would like feedback on which statements I made were not written from an objective view. I personally thought that all opinionated statements I wrote were cited from other articles, and these statements were not intended to advertise but to show that there was interest from popular sources such as Men's Health, Forbes, or CNN Underscored, which review products. Although, I can agree that independence is questionable of sources like CNN Underscored when they write at the top of their page, "When you buy through links on our site, we may earn a commission." Anyways, I understand that including these positive reviews might read like an advertisement, but this is not the same as if I cited a Reddit forum. Personally, I would consider these sources mostly reliable for Athleisure product reviews, but as I said before, please state your argument if you would disagree.

Just to answer any questions that I might receive regarding my COI on my user page, my COI is that I am friends with someone who has a family relationship with the CEO. I do not know the CEO nor am I getting paid to create this draft. My friend told me that there was not a Wikipedia page created yet for the company, and I figured that the company likely was notable enough for its own page. I also wanted to learn how to draft a Wikipedia page.

Thanks in advance to any further review, responses, and feedback. Josache00 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with people associated with the company do not establish notability, as an interview by definition is not an independent source. Yes, the primary sources are okay for basic factual information, but do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Tobych

Hi. I'm trying to get a page for my dad accepted. Was just declined on the basis that there's not much written about my dad's work. Which is fair enough, because I didn't mentioned much. There are scores of reviews of his work, including in a file at the Poetry Library in London that I can get to while I'm in town for a couple weeks.

My question is: how best to get reviews cited in the article, in order to establish his notability, without it looking like I'm trying to just quote all these folks saying wonderful things about him? I'm willing to put in the work necessary to back everything up with full citations.

Suggestions welcome! tobych (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tobych you can summarize what the reviews said. I can appreciate you're worried about balancing our WP:NPOV policy which is good (and thank you for declaring your conflict of interest!). Be sure to include all WP:DUE weight to the reviews and start there. Don't only include the positive things but if the reviews were critical write about those as well. You can also attribute the phrases so that they aren't written in Wikivoice but instead "John Doe of Daily Journal said x, y and z.". That would be a good place to start. And it should go without saying but please cite the reviews so we can make sure they are verified. These poems and, more importantly, their reviews will how the subject will demonstrate cumulative notability, possibly at WP:NAUTHOR. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your question at Draft talk:Ken Champion#My dad's CV, my suggestion is to not copy-paste from the CV as the reviewer may deem it promotional and because Wikipedia is not the place for it. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 10 December 2024 review of submission by 2600:1011:B08B:6945:80DE:EEF1:62E8:7EB7

For years probably 12, the wiki page Johnny Angel Wendell was active 2600:1011:B08B:6945:80DE:EEF1:62E8:7EB7 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? Yes, that was one of Wikipedia's thousands and thousands of seriously inadequate articles. Two years ago it was nominated for deletion, and turned into a draft. Two days ago it was reviewed and declined, and somebody (you? Please remember to log in) has removed some promotional text and has resubmitted, but without yet addressing the even more important issue, that the sources cited do not establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. My guess is that it will be declined again, unless the sources are improved. Please see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:50, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Tracey Capobianco

I removed som statements that could have made it sound like an advertisement as instructed and this page was active for at lea12 years prior. Thank you Tracey Capobianco (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tracey Capobianco: Because of the nature of the previous article's deletion, you may request it be undeleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Angel Wendell. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is the undeleted article (diff). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:40, 10 December 2024 review of submission by TJH2020

Need help with the references and linking them to the article sections. The references listed all have info to support the information in the article. Just don't know how to link them with the numbers and all.

Thanks for any help TJH2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TJH2020, please review WP:REFB and follow the walkthrough that uses your editing style to place citations inline. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:40, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Dairb

There are many references included in the draft, are all of them invalid? Dairb (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dairb, references to Motion Impossible's website are worthless for establishing notability and just muddy the waters. Any references generated by Motion Impossible's press releases or promotional activities or based on interviews of Motion Impossible personnel are not independent and therefore of no value in establishing notability. What's required are references to reliable sources entirely independent of Motion Impossible that devote significant coverage to Motion Impossible. When it comes to references needed to establish notability, quality is vastly more important than quantity. It is far better to have three or four indisputably excellent sources than dozens of mediocre sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, but I debate the notability argument. All the references are technically accurate and notable. There is a reference in AGITO being used with the following, Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions Dairb (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dairb The whole url is not needed when linking to a Wikipedia article or page, just place the title in double brackets. The mere use of the company's products does not make the company notable; maybe the product itself, but not the company.
I note that you claim that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo. You must disclose your relationship with the company, see paid editing and conflict of interest.(note that "paid editing" includes employment in any capacity) 331dot (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now seen the content of your user talk page and will discuss further there. If you did not personally create the logo and the company owns the copyright to it, you will need to go to Commons and work there to adjust the image information to match. Note that it may be unwise for your company to release its logo for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution(which is what uploading it to Commons does) but that's up to your company. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:55, 10 December 2024 review of submission by Roseamadiora

You keep rejecting saying the refrencing isn't enough.....from what site do i need to get an eligible refrence link Roseamadiora (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roseamadiora. Your draft has been declined rather than rejected. Declined means that you can try to improve it. WordPress sites are not reliable sources and neither are Medium sites. A Google search page is of no value. What's required are several references to reliable sources completely independent of Fashionbing that devote significant coverage to Fashionbing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like what exactly because am so confused Roseamadiora (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read Reliable sources and Your first article. What is your relationship with Fashionbing? Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

02:39, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Informationappeared

Is my draft too short? If you agree with this statement, please submit it as a stub. Informationappeared (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the length requirement for a draft but you should add an infobox. EEpic (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Informationappeared: there is no such thing as "too short", really, as long as the draft provides enough information to be a meaningful description of its subject and the context.
I've no idea what you mean by "submit it as a stub". It probably is stub length, but this has no bearing on anything.
And no, @Ethiopian Epic, there is no requirement to add an infobox, and this wouldn't in any way affect a draft's chances of being accepted. Please don't give out misleading information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Rhumagai

why my article not accepted Rhumagai (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a completely unreferenced essay that draws conclusions; original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet our criteria. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 11 December 2024 review of submission by 111.92.104.16

What is the error in this draft. help me complete this 111.92.104.16 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers are here to advice, not co-write. The sources in the draft are not significant coverage, and more reliable sources are needed to establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "error" in it is that there is no evidence that the subject is notable. The draft cites two sources, of which one makes only the briefest of passing mentions of this station.
And if you just resubmit without even trying to address the decline reason, eventually the draft will get rejected outright, without the option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Petsquirrel

hi! this page recently got approved for creation and was rated Start class. I'd like to improve it, can you recommend some steps I should take? thanks :) Petsquirrel (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Petsquirrel: once an article has been accepted it is no longer within the purview of the AfC project; you should therefore ask for general advice and support at the Teahouse or Help desk instead. That said, I would suggest that you take a look at the content assessment grades and criteria at WP:ASSESS; these will give you an indication of what is needed for an article to reach the next grade level. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:52, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Ridademello

hello this article am trying to submit keeps getting rejected, i have provided decent sources. can you give me any advice for it to advance through Ridademello (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ridademello: this draft has been rejected due to persistent failure to comply with the relevant policies. It will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 11 December 2024 review of submission by MegKat1

I tried to search for additional references meeting the criteria, but was unable to locate substantial sources to add credibility to the article. Is it possible to delete it entirely? I couldn't find a way so far. Thank you. MegKat1 (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MegKat1: you want this draft to be deleted? Okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete it per your request. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. MegKat1 (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 11 December 2024 review of submission by It's Ferdux

My page was lost so double tapped It's Ferdux (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@It's Ferdux: I don't know what "double tapped" means, but you need to stop this before you get yourself blocked. Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself, or anything else for that matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Johnytiger

I hope this message finds you well. I am seeking assistance with creating a Wikipedia page to document my career and contributions. Over the years, I have worked on several notable projects, including collaborations with the band I Set My Friends on Fire and appearances in their music videos.

Unfortunately, many of the references I previously had in major publications have since been removed, making it challenging to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have compiled the best available references and am exploring whether my documented contributions to music videos and other media can be used as valid citations.

I would greatly appreciate your expertise in navigating Wikipedia’s requirements and ensuring my page adheres to their standards. Please let me know how we can collaborate or if there are additional steps I should take to support this effort.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your guidance. Johnytiger (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnytiger! Unfortunately, your draft has been rejected - this often happens when you submit drafts quickly without fixing the issues noted by the previous reviewer. This means you cannot submit it again. If you are quite sure you want to try again, you'll need to read through the policies I'm about to link, as well as the pages linked by the reviewers, and fix the draft to the best of your ability. You can then appeal to the last reviewer - but be sure you've followed all the policies to have a chance of success.
The main policy that you would need to follow is WP:BLP, for biographies of living people. It might sound silly for us to say you need to be able to prove that every single sentence you've written is correct - after all, it's you who's writing it - but we do this for the protection of anyone who has a Wikipedia article, so that no one can insert untruthful and potentially damaging lies. Take a look at WP:REFB, referencing for beginners, as well - your draft is effectively unreferenced, since all the references are in a pile at the end rather than supporting statements in the draft. You'll need to make sure the references support each statement as specified there. Make sure every reference conforms to all three criteria in WP:42!
Last but certainly not least, keep in mind that if your draft is accepted, it leaves your control completely. Other people can and will begin to edit it, and anything in your past - or your future! - that you would want to keep hidden may show up in the article. There are many reasons not to want a Wikipedia article; see WP:ABOUTME for more information.
I hope this helps, and wish you all the best. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not "to document" anything - it is only interested in subjects which have already been documented in reliably-published places, independently of the subject. So an article about you should be based almost entirely on what people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you, not on what you or your associated say or want to say.
More fundamental in this context is that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, as very few people can succeed in writing sufficiently neutrally about themselves. ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 11 December 2024 review of submission by BarComos

Hello, I would like to know the exact reason for the rejection of the draft. As an additional note, the person mentioned in the article could have been the youngest individual to present at the Guadalajara International Book Fair, especially considering their age. BarComos (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BarComos The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You haven't demonstrated that he is a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot thanks for explaining the difference between "declined" and "rejected". I’d like to share a few reasons why I believe Gio Canto meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and why this draft deserves another look.
Participation at FIL Guadalajara 2024: Gio was one of the youngest authors at the Guadalajara International Book Fair, which is a major literary event in the Spanish-speaking world. This is a significant achievement for someone so young, and it’s been covered by reliable sources like El Occidental and Quadratín Guerrero.
Established Publishing Record: He’s published four books since 2022 in genres like sci-fi and fantasy. These books are available on international platforms like Open Library, which shows his work isn’t just local but has a broader reach.
Media Coverage: There’s been consistent coverage of his work and achievements by Mexican media outlets like El Sol de Chilpancingo and El Sol de Acapulco. This shows there’s ongoing public and media interest in his career.
Entrepreneurship: At 13, Gio founded his own publishing imprint, Gio Canto Books, which he’s used to publish his works. He also wrote a thoughtful article on AI in publishing, showing he’s engaging with relevant issues in the industry.
Meets Notability Guidelines: Wikipedia considers people notable if their achievements are widely covered by independent, reliable sources, and Gio’s career ticks these boxes.
I’d be happy to improve the draft further if needed, :) BarComos (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the Fair doesn't contribute to him being a notable writer, as while he presented his work in the fair, it doesn't sound like it was "a substantial part of a significant exhibition"(my emphasis), it was one small part of the fair. He started his own company, which is uncommon but not unheard of for children, and little of the draft is devoted to that aspect of his life. Self-publishing a novel does not contribute to notability, as anyone can self-publish anything. Writing an article means little unless you have sources that describe a particular influence his article had. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He might be a notable person, but if his claim to notability is "he's a young businessman and writer" you'll need sources that discuss the significance of that. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot thank you for taking the time to respond and share your perspective. I’d like to address your concerns in more detail and clarify why Gio Canto meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Gio’s participation in the Guadalajara International Book Fair (FIL) 2024 was not just a casual inclusion. At the age of 15, he was one of the youngest authors to present at the fair, an event that is widely recognised as a major cultural platform in the Spanish-speaking world. This achievement was highlighted in media outlets such as *El Occidental* and *Quadratín Guerrero*, which drew attention to his unique position and talent. While I understand that presenting at the FIL alone may not establish notability, the media coverage surrounding his participation demonstrates that his presence was considered significant by reliable sources. Regarding his work as a publisher and writer, Gio founded his own publishing house, Gio Canto Books, at the age of 13. Through this imprint, he has published four books in multiple genres, including science fiction and fantasy, which have been distributed on international platforms such as Amazon and Apple Books. Additionally, Gio Canto is officially registered as a publisher with Mexico’s National Institute of Copyright (INDAutor), a status reflected in the public ISBN catalogue (https://isbnmexico.indautor.cerlalc.org/catalogo.php?mode=detalle&nt=435299). This formal recognition adds to the legitimacy of his contributions to the literary field. Gio Canto Books also has a notable online presence, including a professional profile on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/gio-canto-books/about/?viewAsMember=true) and, if I recall correctly, a dedicated 800-number in Mexico as part of their contact system. These elements reflect an operational publishing house with efforts to reach a wide audience, further legitimising Gio’s entrepreneurial endeavours. While self-publishing itself is not inherently notable, Gio’s ability to consistently attract media attention for his works suggests a broader public and cultural interest in his career. Publications such as *El Sol de Chilpancingo* and *El Sol de Acapulco* have discussed his achievements, further supporting his relevance. You mentioned that writing an article alone does not establish notability, which I fully agree with. However, Gio’s article on the role of AI in publishing, published on Zenodo, reflects his engagement with contemporary issues in the literary industry. While its influence may not yet be widely documented, it complements the narrative of a young professional actively contributing to his field. I recognise that Wikipedia requires significant and independent coverage to establish notability. Gio’s story has been covered by multiple reliable sources that discuss his achievements as a young writer, entrepreneur, and cultural participant. If the draft does not sufficiently emphasise these aspects, I’m more than willing to make improvements to better align with Wikipedia’s standards. I appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing if these points help address your concerns. :) BarComos (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source about the fair came up as not found. You say sources brought "visibility to his efforts in the literary community" but don't say what the significance of that visibility is or what his specific impact to the literary community is.
You say "Gio founded his own publishing imprint, Gio Canto Books, at the age of 13. The company not only serves as the platform for his self-published works but also reflects his entrepreneurial approach to the publishing industry." What is that approach? What is the significance of him founding a company to publish his own books? And a LinkedIn page is not an acceptable source. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your thoughts, and I’d like to address the points you’ve raised as clearly as possible. About the Guadalajara International Book Fair (FIL) source, I apologise if the link didn’t work earlier. Gio’s participation was highlighted by media outlets like *El Occidental* and *El Sol de Acapulco*, focusing on his status as one of the youngest authors at the event and his journey as an emerging writer. While his age alone might not be enough for notability, the media coverage suggests that his presence caught attention and resonated with the public. I can look for additional sources if that would help make this clearer. On Gio Canto Books, I understand your question about its significance. While many people self-publish, founding a publishing imprint at 13 is uncommon, especially when it’s structured as a registered business. According to the official website (https://giocantobooks.com/), Gio Canto Books is a trade name owned by Gio Antonio Canto Gómez, formally registered as a "Persona Física con Actividad Empresarial" in Mexico under the Commercial Code and Income Tax Law. This formal registration adds legitimacy to the imprint and distinguishes it from casual self-publishing efforts. Additionally, the website outlines the editorial services offered by the imprint, demonstrating its active role as a professional publishing entity. As for his impact on the literary community, it’s fair to say his career is still evolving. However, his work has already gained visibility through media coverage, his participation in FIL, and the distribution of his books on international platforms. His efforts are starting to carve out a space for him as an emerging voice in young adult speculative fiction. This visibility has brought attention to his books and his story, which have inspired interest in his journey as a young writer. I completely understand that notability needs to be demonstrated through reliable, independent sources, and I’m more than happy to strengthen the draft with better references and clearer explanations. If there’s a specific part of the draft that needs more detail, let me know, and I’ll work on it. Thanks again for your feedback and for taking the time to guide me through this process. BarComos (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of the terms "emerging writer", "career is still evolving",."starting to carve out", "emerging voice" etc. is a strong indication that it is too soon for an article about him. Being visible isn't in and of itself notable, there needs to be an impact. He sounds to me like a smart young man getting an early start on his career, but his impact hasn't really been determined yet. Feel free to not rely on me alone and get other opinions. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion aligns with 331dot's. A Wikipedia article is little more than a distraction from one's career and isn't going to help them be found; a badly-written-and-sourced Wikipedia article also runs the risk of damaging their career as it comes across as the guy trying to use it to promote themselves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 11 December 2024 review of submission by Mxs116

Why was my article rejected? Mxs116 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell about your own projects. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 11 December 2024 review of submission by 47.178.25.93

I'm reaching out to request further information about the decline reasons provided for my Wikipedia article draft.

Upon joining a new Wiki user, I was prompted to peer edit a handful of live/existing pages when I joined the platform that appeared to have many glaring issues. I am trying to understand why the one I drafted was declined in contrast, so I can better ascertain what to fix in my draft to avoid having it declined in subsequent reviews.

First, regarding "reliable sources" — it appears the draft was declined on the basis of citing a first-party source- i.e. the subject/topic's (Gem Pack Berries) own website. 1) is that assumption correct? and 2) is there ever an allowable instance where the subject's own website can be cited a Wikapedia page's source list, or will that always be flagged as a decline reason? I'm asking because I initially included it in my draft's source list since the material provided on the Gem Pack Berries website was informational and I had wanted to reference some of those notes in the Wikipedia page.

Second, regarding the subject "not qualifying for a Wikipedia article" based on the source criteria listed (in depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent). Again I'd like to better understand how that's evaluated, as I have seen several other examples that do not meet some or all of these criteria. Is the expectation to meet all? Some? Most? Any additional detail on how this is evaluated would be much appreciated so I know what exactly to improve for the next round of revisions to my draft. I.e. does it just boil down to removing the subject's first-party website from the source list? That's the only thing I can really spot from my end that seems to go against the criteria. But again I wasn't aware that it was all or nothing and would thus decline the whole page.

Thanks for bearing with my questions as I'm learning and adapting to the platform. Appreciate any insights you can provide. 47.178.25.93 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PRIMARY for more information about how primary sources can be used- but they cannot be used to establish notability. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. We don't want to know what a subject says about themselves or what their associates say about it, but what people wholly unconnected with the topic choose on their own to say about it, and not based on materials fed to them by the subject.
You have only summarized the routine business activities of the company and what it sees as its own history- routine business activities do not establish notability(see WP:ORG for the notability criteria) and we don't want to know what the company considers to be its own history, we want to know what others say it is.
Please see other stuff exists; it is usually a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as these other articles could themselves be inappropriate and simply not addressed yet by a volunteer, and you would be unaware of that as a new user. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so we can take aaction. We need the help; we are only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

00:08, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Natiejournalist

I submitted the draft a few times now with ALL the cited references inline and with direct links to the footnotes. Still, my last submission was declined because it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources". What does it mean? Can you instruct on how to finally get the draft approved? Thank you! Natiejournalist (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Natiejournalist as this article is about a living person, every statement is expected to be supported by at least one reference. The "Education" and "Career" sections are mostly unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:20, 12 December 2024 review of submission by BarComos

The input of another editor is requested to confirm or accept the draft mentioned in this discussion: "19:18, 11 December 2024, review of submission by BarComos" with user 331dot. A second opinion is requested to determine the page. It is recommended to review the previous conversation for additional context. ; thanks you :) BarComos (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarComos, what are you looking for? Are you asking for someone else to review the draft? If so, you can resubmit it - however, I would not do this without paying attention to the feedback given by both Ibjaja055 (in the draft) and 331dot (on this helpdesk). Both are experienced editors and they have given you good advice. If you are asking whether to listen to 331dot, then the answer is yes, you should pay close attention and take their advice. They have gone out of their way to help and given you detailed information that is very relevant to your draft. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StartGrammarTimeSorry if I was a bit insistent on this topic, but I just wanted a second opinion. Now that I have it... it stays as it is. (｡•́︿•̀｡) BarComos (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Laffuble

I am simply confused on how to use the citation bot. Laffuble (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:16, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Laffuble

I am simply confused on how to use the citation bot. Laffuble (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laffuble Citation bot only fixes formatting issues in references, but there aren't any in the drafts. What would you like the bot to do? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! My sincere apologies I am still new to wiki and did not know.
Thank you. Laffuble (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, I do have one more question. What does it mean by "Submissions should summarize information in
==>"secondary"<==, reliable sources? Laffuble (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts need to demonstrate notability in order to be accepted. Secondary reliable sources establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks! Laffuble (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Aarush indus

How Do I Take This Page Down?

Aarush Indus Aarush indus (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aarush indus  Done, tagged for deletion per WP:G7. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Writer Johnc

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (December 2024)

I recently received a notification indicating that I need to report to Wikipedia regarding i work for my employer to create an article about "Orion Land." I would appreciate guidance on where I should report this information and any instructions or guidelines on creating the article content.

Thank you for your assistance. Writer Johnc (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Writer Johnc: the instructions for disclosing your paid-editing status are given in the notice(s) posted on your talk page. Simply put, you need to place the {{Paid}} template, duly filled-in, on your user page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Writer Johnc, thank you for being open. You'll find lots of information at WP:PAID, but the quickest and easiest way to make a disclosure is to place the following on your userpage:

{{paid|employer=Orion Land}}

(if your employer is Orion Land - if not, change 'Orion Land' to the correct name of your employer).

With regards to the content of the draft, your goal is to find sources that show us Orion Land is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are very specific. For a company, the relevant guideline is WP:NCORP. All your sources should meet the triple criteria of WP:42. Sources do not need to be in English, if that helps. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I had just place the link "{{paid|employer=Orion Land}}" on the Writer Johnc User page , is it okay for my action ?
And what's the next i need to do? pls advise and guide me , ,many thanks Writer Johnc (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Writer Johnc Forgive me, but aren't you the one being paid to learn? You've made a correct disclosure. You have been given sufficient advice. Now, what comes next is your doing the work. That's why youi are being paid.
We, by contrast, are not being paid. That means we are unlikely to be interested in helping you to be. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
That advice applies if anything more strongly to paid editors, since your work is likely to be scrutinised especially carefully. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Al Dorecl Sina

Hello dear Wiki team, why my article is denied???? It's a legit, I just wanted write about a photography company!!! It's not an adult nor scam!!!! Wtf?? Isn't Wikipedia for every things...???? I couldn't even post any pictures on the article 😞 Anyway, Kindly review my article and reconsider it to post it.

Thanks & Best wishes. Al Dorecl Sina (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Dorecl Sina: the draft was declined, because it is blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You also have another draft at Draft:MAHMOOD • iNKSTECHSHUB STUDIO INTERNATIONAL which does have content, but that's not the one you submitted for review.
Does that answer your "Wtf"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no, Wikipedia is not for everything. There is criteria for inclusion, called notability. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Aasiea

The editor said that the references were not verifiable and were vague about which one. I'm struggling to pinpoint which one. Aasiea (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aasiea, have you reviewed the comments made during the previous reviews? There are still large sections of the draft uncited. Further, have you made a new account? I've left a notice on your talk page about using multiple accounts, please review the necessary information there. Thank you, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 12 December 2024 review of submission by MMM2267257

Hello! I struggle to understand why the draft article was rejected. All information is based on the two articles I linked, one of which is an obituary published in a highly reputable journal, and the other a scientific paper.

Do you have suggestions on what needs to be changed for the article to be accepted? MMM2267257 (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One obituary by people who evidently knew him is not an independent source; and neither is an article by him. And normally at least three sources that meet WP:42 are required. The draft either needs to satisfy WP:NPROF or WP:GNG: at present it does neither. ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:29, 12 December 2024 review of submission by A Real Living Person

My article here was just declined. This is my first article. It was something about sources and notability. Are my sources not credible? I am I lacking citations in important spots? This band I am writing about isn't giant but they have 190,000 monthly listeners on Spotify and articles written about them so I can't imagine their not notable enough for a Wikipedia page. So, as a new editor, I must've screwed some things up. Any and all help is appreciated. A Real Living Person (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of listeners is meaningless in terms of notability. You need to show that they meet at least one aspect of WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @A Real Living Person. I'm afraid you are having a very common experience for people who create an account and immediately start trying the very challenging task of creating a new article. Would you enter a major tournament immediately after you took up a sport for the first time?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 12 December 2024 review of submission by 17081968DavidNeilHowes86918071

Critic needs to read the content!!! 17081968DavidNeilHowes86918071 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @17081968DavidNeilHowes86918071. No, the reviewer does not need to read the content: you need to read what Wikipedia is not. A Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject, and very little else. In particular Wikipedia absolutely does not publish original research. ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17081968DavidNeilHowes86918071, your draft bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

00:26:15, 13 December 2024 review of draft by Susan Hackett


Susan Hackett (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to add find my title page for my article: Laura C. Gentile, renowned figure in the sports and marketing industry

Susan Hackett, your draft is located at User:Susan Hackett/sandbox. It has a promotional tone in violation of the Neutral point of view, a core content policy, and must be rewritten to comply. Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I toned it down. thank you. Susan Hackett (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Susan Hackett you need to tone it down more. There are still peacocky words such as groundbreaking platform, Her vision to amplify, crucial in adapting, etc. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Susan Hackett, your draft is exceptionally poorly referenced. Every substantive assertion requires a reference to a reliable source that verifies that assertion. So, when you write that she was Born in 1972 in Oceanside, NY, you need to provide a reference to a published reliable source verifying that. When you write that she was earning accolades in high school, you need to provide a reference to a published reliable source discussing her "accolades". And so on with every other assertion that you make. You have many inappropriate External links in the body of the draft article. Almost all of then should be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Susan Hackett. Like most editors who plunge into the challenging task of trying to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft Backwards.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:29, 13 December 2024 review of submission by Ravi Venkatraman

May I open a page for me with my name and after page is created can I post credits Ravi Venkatraman (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravi Venkatraman I'm not sure what you mean by post credits, but we cannot accept blank drafts. Also note that you are strongly discouaged from writing about yourself. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 13 December 2024 review of submission by 2001:FB1:E3:9902:3859:44D5:E5BE:12E2

T0829 13De mber/12/2024reviewot Sbmissionby2001F13.E39902385944D55EBE12E2 edit 

2001:FB1:E3:9902:3859:44D5:E5BE:12E2 (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please unscramble that – do you have a question you'd like to ask? (And is it about a draft or the drafting process, as opposed to an existing article?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 13 December 2024 review of submission by 145.224.95.51

Is this worth of persuing or we should abondon it. If it is please advise how we can best do it. 145.224.95.51 (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no further prospect of changing the draft to address the concerns given, it's not worth pursuing. It will be deleted after six months of inactivity, or you can place {{db-user}} on the draft to request its deletion faster. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 13 December 2024 review of submission by Sophie.hampson

Hi

I recently submitted a page on Bransby Horses, but it was rejected by Wikipedia as it read like an ad. It stated that I needed to have a range of sources from independent and reliable publications and not from the charity itself. But not one of my sources links back to the charity's website and every single one is an external source, so I'm really confused how Wikipedia have come to this conclusion.

Please could you advise on how I fix this. Sophie.hampson (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sophie.hampson: just to explain, the draft was declined for informal or non-neutral language, and I think it does have a vaguely promotional feel to it. (Also, information like opening hours and cost of entry is absolutely not needed and quite inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article.)
Where the decline notice mentions independent sources, it means (among other things) that when you say things like "their experts also take part in external events and contribute to the global research community on equine health", this must come from an independent source, you cannot call their people "experts" or contributors to global research, and neither can they themselves, that makes it just peacock language.
I haven't looked at the sources in detail, but it's also possible that some of them regurgitate what someone from the charity has said (eg. in an interview) or written (eg. in a press statement), in which case although superficially the source looks independent, the ultimate source is actually the charity itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Thank you for this feedback. This has really helped :) Sophie.hampson (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:39, 13 December 2024 review of submission by RHAMGA

How to show the notability of the subject?

I have made a submission for adding a page, but it has been rejected due to the fact that the primary sources do not establish notability. Other UK based bodies that are related to the Guild currently have their own page, including:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquarian_Horological_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Clockmakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Horological_Institute

The Guild was established in 1907 and has a larger membership that 2 of those 3 bodies. The British Horological Institute's (BHI) page only has sources that are from their own website, and so it is unclear why the notability for the Guild is being rejected, but not for the BHI.

I am happy to make any necessary changes, but having read the notes from Wikipedia on the subject, I am not clear what I need to do. Thanks RHAMGA (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RHAMGA: it doesn't matter whether other comparable organisations have articles in Wikipedia, that is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy. We don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, but rather by reference to the applicable policies and guidelines. Organisations must establish notability per WP:ORG, which requires significant coverage in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other. Your draft cites almost exclusively primary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out those woefully undersourced articles. I have tagged two of them with their shortcomings: the third was already tagged. I suspect that suitable source to establish notability do not exist for any of the three, but I have no interest in searching for such sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:57, 13 December 2024 review of submission by Untitledwriter17

please tell me what is the problem so that I can resolve it Untitledwriter17 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a message as to what the reason was. Do you have questions about it? 331dot (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Untitledwriter17: apart from the fact that you're not notable, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:52, 13 December 2024 review of submission by Fryeng1990

Soccer team Fryeng1990 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fryeng1990 "soccer team" isn't a question, and the draft has been rejected as a blank submission. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

05:13, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Skronk monster13

i would like to change the article name to “StuGo” instead of “Stugo” but i can’t figure out how. Skronk monster13 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skronk monster13 the title doesn't really matter, as the reviewer will pick a suitable one if the draft is accepted. Also, there is already a Draft:StuGo with more content. Perhaps you'd like to work on that? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i didn’t realize there was already a draft for the show. thank you! Skronk monster13 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:11, 14 December 2024 review of submission by 2.138.115.80

I recently submitted a draft for a Wikipedia page and am seeking your help to ensure it meets the community's standards and guidelines for approval.

I want to make sure the content is accurate, neutral, and well-cited, but I may need a clearer understanding of what specific adjustments are required to make it suitable for publication. Could you kindly review my submission and provide feedback on:

Whether the content sufficiently demonstrates notability through reliable, independent sources. If there are areas where I might unintentionally include promotional language or lack neutrality. Any additional suggestions for improvement in formatting or tone to better align with Wikipedia’s standards. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated, and I am more than willing to make the necessary revisions.

Thank you for your time and assistance! 2.138.115.80 (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting for review is the way to get reviewed. But in my opinion, this promotional piece has been written BACKWARDS, as usually happens when a new editor attempts to create an article without having spent time learning how Wikipedia works.
Wikipedia is not interested in what Van Rongen says or wants to say, or what his employers or associates say. It is (almost) only interested in what people wholly unconnected with him have chosen to publish about him, in reliable places.
  • First, find severaal sources which meet all three of the criteria in WP:42.
  • Then, assuming you can find at least three such, forget everything you know about van Rongen, and write a summary of what those sources say.
By the way, please remember to log in: I assume that you are @Voice007.? ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 14 December 2024 review of submission by HKLionel

A previous draft by a now inactive user was deleted. Is there a way I can view and use the contents of that draft for my current draft without requesting undeletion, which is impossible since the draft already exists (after I created it)? Thanks. HKLionel (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HKLionel: I was going to say that I can restore the deleted draft for you, but I've just looked at it and there is so little content in it (two short paragraphs of pretty pointless blurb, if I'm honest) and no sources, so it's not really worth it. I'd say proceed with your draft, it's already much more advanced in every respect. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted with thanks! HKLionel (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Trishanthreddy

Why my page is getting declined, please help me and. Tell how to improve this, I am an 14 years child, and this is my first attempt please please and I am from India, explain me clearly how to do this and what changes and where I have to do the changes. Please Trishanthreddy (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, such as a notable organization. Your draft is completely unsourced. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is recommended that you first gain experience by editing existing articles, as well as use the new user tutorial. I'd also suggest that you read this page with a parent or guardian or custodian. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trishanthreddy: every one of the decline notices (remember, the ones you deleted?) gives details of the decline reasons; I also added comment to point to the notability guideline you needed to comply with (but you deleted that, as well). So once more: your draft is completely unreferenced, and therefore presents no evidence that the subject is notable. And given that the vast majority of schools are in fact not notable, it is virtually a given that this subject can not be included in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


You have tell what i need to do, but it was not done, why why are doing like that, please explain simply me what I have to do and I am an indian Trishanthreddy (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new thread with every post, just add to this existing section. What we are saying is there is nothing you can do. You keep emphasizing you're Indian for some reason- whether you're Indian or Russian or South African is not relevant. Please reread my earlier post and follow the advice. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Felixjordanbind

Why was this declined? 

Felixjordanbind (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Felixjordanbind: Almost all of your sources are merely listings or content-free profiles, none of which would be a viable source (too sparse). https://www.clydeco.com/en/people/d/nadia-darwazeh?section=profile is written by her employer (connexion to subject) and https://www.breakingthrough.de/portraet-nadia-darwazeh is an interview (connexion to subject). This draft falls under the auspices of the general sanctions in the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, and you have not met the 500 edit+30-day threshold. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Kamalı Zeybek

Please Submit Ok Kamalı Zeybek (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamalı Zeybek: We do not accept unsourced, content-free "articles". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:06, 14 December 2024 review of submission by WitchYouAllShallLove

I have re wroten this article and put refrences i need someone to EXACLY tell me whats wrong with it NOW. im super confused 

WitchYouAllShallLove (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WitchYouAllShallLove, your unreferenced draft violates the Neutral point of view because it pushes a pro-witchcraft point of view. It fails Verifiability and violates the No original research policy. It bears no resemblance to an acceptable Wikipedia article. It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read What Wikipedia is not. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung A04

Hello, please, please accept it, I won't do it again. Why are you doing this? I swear, don't do this. Accept it, I won't do it again. Kamalı Zeybek (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamalı Zeybek: Your repeated pleas to accept a draft that is not ready for main space is disruptive. You have been advised what needs to be done on Hammersoft’s talk page to fix the draft so it can be accepted. Until that happens, nothing will be done. cyberdog958Talk 20:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:35, 14 December 2024 review of submission by StarDate108

Hi, my submission was declined because it was improperly sourced. The thing is that it is a translation from these Japanese articles: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%96%A2%E5%B1%B1%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E3%83%8D%E3%83%AB https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%96%A2%E5%B1%B1%E5%B3%A0 I selected sources from them that seemed relevant. Unfortunately I don't have access to any other sources than these. Is it possible to get the article approved anyway? I understand that in general it is not an excuse that the sources on the original pages are subpar, but in this case I belive that they still are satisfactory. StarDate108 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StarDate108 Put simply, no. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StarDate108 When you translate articles, or parts thereof, please use {{TRanslated page}}. I have done this for you here on the talk page.
Now you have had time to digest the simple message ^^^^, please seek further references for the draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:06, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Swmpz

The draft got rejected for notoriety, could I get some clarification on what specific grounds, and what my next steps would be? Swmpz (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's "notability", not "notoriety"(which has a more negative connotation). As told by reviewers, you have not shown that your game is notable. Rejection typically is the end of the line for a draft, but if you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you must first appeal to the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:33, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Jag612red

I want someone to review my article. Jag612red (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jag612red, you have to wait for a review just like everyone else. Why do you think that a separate article is needed when we already have Greensboro Complex? Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just decided to make something that stays on the topic of the coliseum Jag612red (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

03:16, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Nehasrm2518

please share advice Nehasrm2518 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehasrm2518: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:13, 15 December 2024 review of submission by WistahHoney508

Question about needed edits for approval Hello,

My draft article for Caitlin McCarthy was recently rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Caitlin_McCarthy. Is there anything that I can add to help the approval process? The subject has many articles about her, as listed on her website www.caitlinmccarthy.com/press.

Thank you so much! WistahHoney508 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WistahHoney508: your draft was declined (not rejected) because in the reviewer's assessment the sources cited do not establish notability. I won't go through all 31 (!) of them, but a quick scan finds a few user-generated sources (not considered reliable), and also a few where the link is merely pointing to a website home page, suggesting that the linked URL may not necessarily support information in this draft. If, as you say, this person's own website contains useful media coverage, you can cite them here; just make sure to cite the actual media, not her website. Also, note that such coverage must be in-depth, and about her, not written by her or with her commenting on things (such as interviews).
I must also point out that this draft is poorly referenced, with most paragraphs without a single citation. This is unacceptable in articles on living people, which have particularly strict referencing requirements. You must make sure that every material statement, and especially anything potentially contentious, any direct quotations, as well as all private personal and family details, are clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources (that actually verify them, per my earlier point), or else removed.
In fact, there is so much unreferenced content, eg. in the entire 'Early Life' section, that I need to ask where does all this information come from – do you have some sort of real-life relationship with this person? If so, that must be disclosed. I will post advice on this on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WistahHoney508 I fixed your post so the header links to your draft, you had what I think you thought was a header where the title of your draft should be. The whole url is not needed when linking to another Wikipedia page. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm new to this and learning. Appreciate your help! WistahHoney508 (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found info about early life from interviews and her mother's obituary. I don't have a real-life relationship with Caitlin McCarthy. I'm new to Wiki and learning, so I appreciate any and all advice on how to make this acceptable. I can go back and link to the actual articles with this information. Thank you! WistahHoney508 (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Pineapplebunbun

What sources are missing for this page? Will media coverages help or by adding an external IMDb link? Thank you. Pineapplebunbun (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pineapplebunbun: we need to see sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM guideline for notability. Pre-release publicity is not enough, as it's just part of the producer's marketing ramp-up, and we will not be used as a channel for that. In practice, unreleased films are hardly ever notable, so you probably need to wait a couple of months until this has been released and hopefully received some reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you for your reply. It's helpful. Pineapplebunbun (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:43, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Trishanthreddy

How can I upload my article, I changed it 50 times but no use, and I am new joined member, please help me and accept my submission please please, I am unable to understand what you wrote. Trishanthreddy (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trishanthreddy: you cannot; it has been rejected, both versions, and that's the end of the road. As I said on your talk page, you need to find some other topic to write about, as we cannot keep reviewing this over and over again. Please drop this now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trishanthreddy: can you please confirm that you have read what I've written on your talk page at User_talk:Trishanthreddy#Advice? I'm asking because your behaviour suggests otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Join Africa

Pls sir I need your assistance to guide me on how to be a better editor,teach me how to edit it in a proper way,I want to learn,I will be the happiest man on earth if I know how to edit with Wikipedia Join Africa (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say what specific help you are seeking. I can say that you have not shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician or a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. You may wish to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 15 December 2024 review of submission by User DEV 18

My this page got rejected User DEV 18 (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need the "Draft:" portion when linking to your draft, I fixed this for you. Your draft was declined, not rejected, rejected would mean that you could not submit it again. Declined means you can. You have resubmitted it, and the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F0:DF:CAFA:8000:0:0:0

My school has given me project to write a article on wikipedia about Our school, if I fail this test they don't give me good grades please accept this page or I'm gonna fail. 2409:40F0:DF:CAFA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't responsible for assignments you have been given. Our only interest is in if our criteria is being met. I'm sorry your teacher has put you in a difficult position, but they have given you a poor assignment. Your teacher should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials to learn how to design lessons that do not put their students in a difficult position. Please show your teacher this message. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has already been blocked. Blocks apply to you as a person, not your account, and you should appeal it instead of editing while logged out. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...as indeed I already told them.
I was trying to AGF by issuing only a short block to calm things down, but they seem determined to prove me wrong, more's the pity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 93.161.72.99

Had William Owen been composer to the hymn: "Lo, he comes with clouds descending"? 93.161.72.99 (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the policies linked to therein. You need to format your references so they appear in line next to the text they support. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:33, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Fckthewar

I don't know why it got rejected. Fckthewar (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fckthewar: because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media platform for some fictional clan war fancruft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Steyncham

I feel really helpless about this : an article being resubmitted after taking into account remarks from a previous reviewer has been declined with arguments that are at least difficult to make sense of, at worst biased or unfair: -"does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article" : this is woefully unspecific,and plainly wrong for what concens this article -the article would not be neutral : the secondary sources being quoted in the first version where mostly positive, but this was not the ressult of cherry-picking, these are the only ones I found. I have added new references that provide a contrarian viepoint, but they are about ecomodernism in general rather than about WePlanet in particular -"should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources" : this is the most grossly unfair comment : there are 22 references in this draft, mostly from very well-known media such as the Guardian "avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." WHERE are there such terms???

When I resubmit, can I have the assurance that the article would be reviewed by another reviewer?? Steyncham (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:WePlanet. I'll correct your link in a moment.
@Steyncham You have, however, created a magazine article, not a Wikipedia article. It contains glowing prose drawing conclusions. Please see WP:NOR. The article appears to me to be a brochure, an advertisement. And that means whole sentences of peacockery need to be eliminated. We require flat, neutral, dull-but-worthy prose, not advertorial.
It's a best practice not to review a draft a second time by the same reviewer, but there are exceptions to this. Have you raised your concerns with Tavantius directly? That should be your first action when not understanding a review. How can anyone else guess what was in their mind? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did raise all these issues with User:tavantius first thing, but did not get a reply Steyncham (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, but again WHERE do you see "whole sentences of peacockery"?? Such a demeaning comment would require being more specific Steyncham (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the reviewer but "Organizations affiliated with WePlanet claim, according to their websites, to differ from the more technocentrist tendencies of ecomodernism and to be human-centered and grassroots-oriented, with a strong emphasis on fulfilling the needs of developing countries and preserving practices rooted in traditional cultures, in a sustainable and consensual way. "
Im not the most experienced editor on wikipedia but this counts as peacockery or at least too promotional Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean he ain't wrong on the "formal tone" thing
sounds like some promotional ad Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 15 December 2024 review of submission by EmsterUze

I cannot find any sources to the article EmsterUze (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the sources, the article was rejected because it seems you are just testing how to create article, of which your sandbox is available for that. Also, Article about Wikipedia exist already. Tesleemah (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 15 December 2024 review of submission by EmsterUze

What are credible sources for UNIS Technology? EmsterUze (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just add some sources at least, your draft has no sources at all Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

What will happen to my draft if i don't edit it in a while? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After 6 months, it will be deleted however you can retrieve it Tesleemah (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Pbioilp

i didnt understand why my draft was declined, i would love to understand why so i can fix it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wang_Ke_(Singer) Pbioilp (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1263247153"