Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pioussouls (talk | contribs) at 08:12, 14 September 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Oleg Parashchak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


September 8

01:39, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Pathania1009

please suggest advice in changing the article Pathania1009 (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you will have been informed, this draft has now been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:16, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Deadstay

The message given "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is very broad and doesn't explain the issues with the page. Deadstay (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deadstay: without commenting on whether or not the rejection was done correctly, the concept of notability is explained in detail in the notability guideline to which the link in the rejection notice points (and further elaborated by the multiple links in the earlier decline notice). Please study those, and if you still have a question after that, come back to us. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still somewhat confused on the topic of notability. What does 'sufficiently notable' mean exactly? How notable does a topic have to be in order for it to mean the 'sufficiently notable' criteria? Deadstay (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Sufficiently notable" means "notable enough for a Wikipedia article". The vast majority of the sources in this draft are about routine activities about it- that it was in development, that it reached Beta, and that it was released- these things happen to every video game. Any article about this game must do more than tell of its existence- it must summarize independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the game- coverage that goes beyond basic information and goes into detail about the significance of the game. For most creative works(films, books, games, etc.) that means independent, unsolicited reviews of the work by professional reviewers. The award nomination doesn't really contribute to that unless there are sources that discuss the significance of the award(to the point where the award itself merits an article, like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks alot. Deadstay (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 8 September 2023 review of submission by ReverseDelay

My submission was declined and the reason stated was: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, my article does cite sources from major news organizations in the country where this article is most relevant. There is also a page on a similar topic that is already approved even if it has the same citation quality. When I looked at the talk page of the editor who rejected my submission, I saw that there were multiple discussions regarding issues about the editor's recent work in AfC. Given these, I think my draft was wrongly disapproved. Can I just resubmit again without further edits? (I'm worried about the note that the draft might be deleted.) ReverseDelay (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ReverseDelay: my take on it, FWIW, is that this draft has been correctly declined, although possibly for the wrong reason. I would have declined it for lack of notability, rather, because I don't think the sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, and as a very new release I doubt it would meet WP:NFILM, either. You may wish to ask the reviewer directly for their rationale in picking that decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:22, 8 September 2023 review of submission by A smart kitten

Hi! I’ve had my draft declined with the reason Fails WP:DISAMBIG. However, with no other explanation or pointers, I admit I’m struggling to understand exactly which part(s) of the guideline my draft fails, so I’m not sure how to improve upon/fix the issues prior to resubmission (or even if the issues are considered fixable). I’d therefore be grateful if an editor could provide me with some extra information on which part(s) of the dab guideine my draft fails.

For context, I created this draft with the intention of greatly reducing the length of the hatnote currently present at Adam West (Family Guy). As there are three links currently there to other ‘Mayor West’s, and a fourth ‘Mayor West’ I found while creating the page (that may also be otherwise added to the hatnote), I thought that this was a good opportunity for a dab page.

All the best

A smart kitten (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A smart kitten: the Adam West (Family Guy) article is considered the primary topic, meaning the majority of people searching for 'Mayor West' are likely to be looking for that. If there were several articles with competing claim to be primary topics, ie. each getting a significant proportion of searches, then a disambiguation would be needed. But I'd wager that nobody (or at least very few people) looking for, say, Ben West, would search for 'Mayor West'. That's my interpretation of it, at any rate; someone with better understanding of dabs may come along shortly. (I recommend reading that DISAMBIG guideline, BTW, if you haven't yet.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing for your response! I understand what you’re saying — all I think I’d really have to say in response to that (at least right now) is that the hatnote has been in place at the article since 2015, was reaffirmed by other editors in 2016 and 2019, and so I’d argue that the hatnote has an implied consensus to remain. I’d also argue that, as the purpose of this draft dab page is to take over much of the functionality of the hatnote, that this implied consensus would also in a way apply to this dab page.
In terms of reading the guideline, I often find it hard to read things like that all in one go; so while I have probably read (or at least skimmed!) a fair bit of it by now, my immediate recap of it isn’t yet enough to be able to refer to it without going back and checking/re-reading the specific bit I want to refer to.
All the best, A smart kitten (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A smart kitten, I have accepted this draft in accordance with my response on the Teahouse. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 10:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Visokoblagorodie

Dear all,

As I have added new sources of Serbian media, please reconsider the article.

Best Regards, Visokoblagorodie (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Visokoblagorodie, as your draft has been rejected you'll need to reach out to the reviewer directly via his talk page, User_talk:Taking_Out_The_Trash. Qcne (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:41, 8 September 2023 review of submission by Igreo

I don't understand what the non-referenced sources are, there are many sources and they are all online from referenced and important sites. Is there something to correct in the wikitext? Thank you Igreo (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Igreo: it's not enough to list sources, they need to be cited with inline citations, so that it's clear which source supports what content. Also, it's not enough to cite each source once, they need to be cited wherever you're making a material or potentially contentious statement, or disclosing some private personal information. There are currently several paragraphs, and the entire 'Private Life' section, without a single citation. See WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice on referencing, and WP:BLP on writing articles on living people. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for the answer, but I ask you a favor: could you give me an example? that is, point me to some statement not supported by a source. In short, I could use a hand to fix the draft. Thanks again Igreo (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Igreo: for example the DOB on the first line, and the 'Private Life' section. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you very much, I made some changes, is that better? Do you find any other significant ones? How long do you think the draft is left to go well? Igreo (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Can I try and send a new review of the draft? Igreo (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Igreo: yes, unless and until the draft has been rejected, ie. has only been declined, you can resubmit, once you've addressed the reasons for the previous decline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 8 September 2023 review of submission by DCM2015

I have added citations and believe this to now meet the criteria required. DCM2015 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DCM2015: while this is an improvement, in that some of the information is now referenced, some remains unreferenced, and there is still no sign of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep going then! All of those citations make him pretty notable though! Thanks. DCM2015 (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DCM2015, it's not necessarily the amount of citations that make someone notable, but the quality. The sources must pass the WP:SOURCE criteria. We would rather see three good quality sources than 20 poor quality ones. Qcne (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... they don't. None of the sources meets the WP:GNG standard for notability. And I'm still not seeing any credible claim of, let alone evidence for, WP:AUTHOR notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added citations to virtually all the awards and are all reputable sources! Thanks. DCM2015 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will keep going! Learning a lot about Wikipedia in the process! DCM2015 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 8 September 2023 review of submission by NBhistory43

Hey there! I was just wondering what specifically was deemed unreliable (A NYTIMEs review, College Alumni Magazine, Website URLS, additional, etc?) Happy to accommodate what's needed to get this up there. NBhistory43 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NBhistory43: your draft is not referenced, which is required, but instead has inline external links, which are not allowed. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using inline citations and footnotes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

03:42, 9 September 2023 review of submission by EdgarBrown

The article was rejected for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." For this type of article, what additional corroborating information would be acceptable? EdgarBrown (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EdgarBrown: most of the content is unreferenced, with several paragraphs and even whole sections entirely without citations. (Also, at least a couple of the sources you've cited are non-reliable.) In all articles, but especially so in ones on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details such as DOB must be clearly supported with inline citations (next to each statement) to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I still get confused as to non-reliable sources. Could you please tell me which two non-reliable sources you refer to to help me gauge that? There are several of these that I think need to be hear as they are strong movers in the Progressive movement. This just happens to be a first and I am sure I will need much less help soon. Is a website with from the organization giving the Awards sufficient even if not on your reliable source list. How best to corroborate employment or serving on a board whose website in not on reliable list? Again, thanks for your help. EdgarBrown (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't lookekd at the draft or the sources, but it sounds as if you're concentrating on the issue of reliability of sources, but ignoring the equally important (for this purpose) independence. The website of the organization which gave the subject an award is not independent, and so cannot be used to establish that the subject is notable. It may be usable as a primary source; but if the only source for the fact that such and such an award was given is the awarder's own website, one must ask if the award is actually worthy of appearing in an article. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 9 September 2023 review of submission by 223.190.197.127

Whats the probkem . hes is famous in the state kerala 223.190.197.127 (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we don't care if hes is famous in the state kerala, we only care about reliable, independent sources that cover the subject significantly. the draft is only cited to a youtube video and a blog. those aren't reliable. ltbdl (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:32, 9 September 2023 review of submission by TheNewYorkTimesIN

What is the problem in this article, please explain to me in a simple language and if there are some minor mistakes so please suggest.., TheNewYorkTimesIN (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In simple terms, your draft was deleted as promotional. It was also completely unsourced- Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. Please use the new user tutorial and read Your First Article for more information.
If you work for The New York Times, that must be disclosed, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 9 September 2023 review of submission by 87.0.57.85

I made this draft, but what is not accepted? I mean why it's not accepted? What can I do? 87.0.57.85 (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left a message at the top of the draft explaining what the issues were and what you can do. Please also read the policies linked to in that message. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 9 September 2023 review of submission by Gornos

I have created an important article, but it needs grammatical correction and adding English sources because I don't know English well. Please help. Gornos (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gornos: from which source(s) did you get all that information? You need to cite those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a Google translation from Ukrainian and Russian articles. Gornos (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gornos: okay, then cite those. Sources don't have to be in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me, use, for example:
https://mil.in.ua/en/articles/first-trophy-how-russian-crew-passed-mi-8-to-ukrainian-intelligence/ Gornos (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Понял, добавлю Gornos (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I'll add Gornos (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gornos (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gornos Accepted It requires linguistic improvements and will benefit from additional references, but I believe the incident is notable and that the article stands a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process.
I've noted the source pages on the article talk page using the correct template. It is now also linked to Wikidata. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gornos (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 9 September 2023 review of submission by Englishseva

Some edits have been made to the article and would like to resubmit for approval ES (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Englishseva I see no reason to appeal the rejection. The gentleman fails WP:GNG, specifically WP:NPOL, certainly as presented here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my learned friend, in that there is no reason to resubmit, but if you were to do so, you cannot take this up with the rejecting reviewer, so please bring your case to me instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 9 September 2023 review of submission by Psychodrama-trainer

This page draft that I submitted to Wikipedia was denied. This is not a personal business; it is a professional non-profit membership organization, much like the American Art Therapy Association and similar membership groups. I do NOT make any profit in relationship to this group in any way. Please help me find out how I can get this page listed. Psychodrama-trainer (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychodrama-trainer Have you asked the reviewer who declined Draft:American Society of Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama? It's a good place to start. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will look to see if I can locate that person. Psychodrama-trainer (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion in Wikipedia's terms is not limited to commercial promotion. If you are trying to use Wikipedia to tell the world about something, that is promotion. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which the world has already been told about in independent reliably-published sources, and its articles are supposed to summarize what those sources say, nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:29, 9 September 2023 review of submission by Ewhauss

I re-submitted this draft page, adding more sources and details. Can you tell me where it is in the review process? Ewhauss (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it. It is therefore in the unstructured heap of drafts waiting for a reviewer to decide to look at it. ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 9 September 2023 review of submission by Zayani55

i wanna an accepted review pls for this page Zayani55 (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zayani55: the draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

08:02, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Dermacorrect11

How can i Approve this Article Dermacorrect11 (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dermacorrect11: this draft has been rejected and will not therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:07:10, 10 September 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Harshrane21



Harshrane21 (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshrane21 It was deleted as a copyright infringement and as advertising, as your user talk page tells you. You have also been warned there against auditing promotional material 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:43, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Averus19

I have made some changes regarding the lack of notability in the previous draft, can my changes be reviewed and hopefully verified. Averus19 (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Averus19: this draft was rejected and won't therefore be reviewed again. If sources are now available which establish notability, you can make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have posted a query on your talk page about paid editing, please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:13, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Malayalamauthor1

Hi everyone, I’m trying to create a page and it’s getting declined. I have cited the reference from the various indian medias to support the texts (the cited links include times of India special feature about the person in the article and the remaining links are in our Native language malayalam) . Please help me to complete the submission Malayalamauthor1 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Malayalamauthor1: to establish notability per WP:GNG, the sources must be independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject. Of the three sources, the first has the subject commenting on something, the second is an interview, and the third a book review, none of which meet the GNG standard.
BTW, what is your relationship to Mannarkkad? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Naniu9hei

my submission was declined on September,8 but I have since updated it. Can you confirm if the submission is still under review? Thank you for your time and attention Naniu9hei (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the notice on the draft indicates, you have successfully resubmitted it. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Millicentatasie

Hello, Everyone My recent publication was rejected because I included the references from a press release. But that's the only reference I have that talks about DivVerse. Is there any other way I can published an article by citing references about the terms used in the article.. Millicentatasie (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Millicentatasie: Wikipedia articles are created by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. ('Independent' emphatically excludes press releases and other primary sources.) If you cannot find such sources, then you cannot summarise them, and therefore aren't able to draft an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Pakistannewshere

We want to make young talents appear globally using wekipedia 

Pakistannewshere (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pakistannewshere: that may be what you want, but Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting anyone or anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Hubertgromny

Dear Wikipedia Community,

I wrote a draft for a public sculpture "Reversed Dunk" which was constructed in Berlin just recently. I find the topic important as it does reflect on the changes in the city and especially on the construction of EastSide Tower and hosting Amazon headquarters, which will have significant impact on the neighbourhood and the city at large.

As the construction was just built there is not yet proper secondary sources and I referenced the website of artists, the BKK which is association of artists in Berlin which organised competition and website of architecture buro which organised the competition for the sculpture.

From the feedback I understand that my referencing is not accurate, nevertheless I was thinking if to simplify the text to limit it for facts and withraw opinions and readings of symbolic dimension of the artwork. In this case however I wonder if the primary sources will be enough to accept the article---from my perspective it should be all right as they state facts that the sculpture was built and it was a result of the competition.

I would appreciate advice how to make article publishable with this limited amount of sources which axist at the moment, as I believe that wikipedia entry will help other writers to create the secondary sources while researching the artwork and the article will grow with time.

Best wishes, Hubert Hubertgromny (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertgromny So what you are trying to do is get an article created so that others will then see it, write about the topic, and then create the references to put in the article. That's not how this works. If the references do not exist, the subject does not merit a Wikipedia article. A topic must be shown to be notable first- you can't create an article to generate notability. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

Hello! Kindly help me out. Why is this so??? This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Assist me to improve this. Pioussouls (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pioussouls You may appeal the rejection directly with the reviewer who rejected it. Be aware that promotional pieces are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, so consider why they say is is promotional 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pioussouls your article is promotional in nature- it is full of WP:PEACOCK language and is not written from a WP:NEUTRAL point of view.
Despite three declines the language has not improved, which leads me to suspect your only want to promote this person - use Wikipedia to WP:SPAM. This is not permitted. Qcne (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:26, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Seihlanunez22

How do I edit a citation already entered? Seihlanunez22 (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:29, 10 September 2023 review of submission by Melindam15

This was rejected, but don't understand why listing the episodes of a podcast (similar to a tv show) is not the purpose of Wikipedia? Thank you. Melindam15 (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a podcast must not merely list the episodes, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

05:45, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Amcdougle

Hi Im requesting assistance for this article because I was denied. I'm not to sure how I can make the article more credible even with the links I provided and wikipedia citations with the producers name in the other artists wiki page. Amcdougle (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've documented his work, but not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. If you have no such sources, this person would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Raymondsiyluy05

Could you review my draft? Raymondsiyluy05 (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymondsiyluy05: we don't do reviews on demand here at the help desk. The draft has been resubmitted, and will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:10, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Ashok Dhoble

unable to understand why is my submission being declined Ashok Dhoble (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashok Dhoble: the reasons are given in the decline notices, those grey boxes inside the larger pink one; please read them carefully (incl. the linked content), and come back if you still have questions.
I should add that I declined this on those grounds before I noticed the copyright violations, otherwise I might have declined for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 11 September 2023 review of submission by AnglistEd

Hello,

Thanks for your work on this! Can I ask why, precisely, the sources I used are not "reliable"? Do I just need to include more of them? I have now added some more.

Among them, there's a reference to a book which Werner Habicht co-edited, which grew out of a conference he co-organized; his obituary, published in an academic journal; a tribute to him on his 70th birthday, again published in an academic jorunal; and his biographical profiles on at least two reputable websites -- one of which is the website of the Mainzer Akademie, and the other to the Bayerische Akademie: two of Germany's leading scholarly 'academies'.

I will admit that there *is* the problem that most of the sources are in German -- which is inevitable, as the article refers to a Germanist of a generation when a lot of work in English studies published in Germany (not to mention its reception in the form of reviews etc.) was published in the German language itself.

There doesn't seem to be a way round this -- but I want to assure you that Werner Habicht was an extremely eminent and influential figure in the field of English Studies in Germany. User:AnglistEd page. (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AnglistEd: based on a quick glance, the referencing was quite sparse when this was reviewed (still is, to some extent), so it may be a case of "not adequately supported" rather than the sources being non-reliable, per se. That said, I'm only guessing, so I'll ping the reviewer Idoghor Melody in case they can shed more light on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not required that sources be in English. Sources can be in any language. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Nothing wrong with using German-language sources; sources don't have to be in English, per WP:NONENG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer, which may go some way towards explaining the request for revisions. I'd be extremely grateful for Wikipedia NOT to delete the article while I work on revising and adding to the sources. Thank you! User:AnglistEd page. (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be rest assured that it is not going to be deleted. Since you've added more sources and submitted for review, someone else is going to look at the article sooner or later. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Werner Habicht meets our notability criteria.. I have linked to his Wikidata record. You will see a banner at the foot with links to his academic works, or a catalogue thereof. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 11 September 2023 review of submission by TheProEditor11

I wrote a article on Wikipedia about a famous personality, Indian YouTuber and Music actor - Ujjwal Chaurasia, who have currently over 35.4 Million subscribers on YouTube which is one of the largest individual channel in Asia was rejected. Why was it rejected on baseless grounds which states "it does not qualify for Wikipedia's creation since the article is not about a famous person'. My article was written in neat and clean way and the personality is also very famous. (Draft:Ujjwal Chaurasia) Need assistance ASAP because I am feeling sad and depressed since I was working on this article for 6 months (since April) TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheProEditor11 The good news is your draft was declined, not rejected. Here, "rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means it may be resubmitted if you can address the concerns of the reviewer. Note that the decline reason is not as you state- it was "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". Fame and notability- what we are looking for- are not the same thing. A person can be notable but not famous, and famous but not notable. Please read the comments left by reviewers on your draft. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the good news ? I am so sad. I think that the person is both notable and famous. The references added were from DNAIndia, RedBull India, India.com and LiveMint which are said to be the best and powerful news websites from India (except Redbull). Also, I have read all the comments by reviewers. TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is that your draft may be resubmitted, the decline is not final as a rejection would be.
Several of your sources are interviews. Interviews do not establish notability(though they can be used for other purposes). Most of the other sources describe his being included in a video game, which doesn't add to notability unless the significance of this is described(and that sounds more relevant to the game, not to the person). 331dot (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheProEditor11 Please take a pace back, and read carefully. You may resubmit after making the required and recommended changes 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheProEditor11: the draft wasn't rejected, only declined. And the reason it was declined was lack of apparent notability, as defined in Wikipedia terms. We don't care how many YT subscribers he has, or whether it was "written in neat and clean way", or if the person is "very famous". We care whether they satisfy the notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Please tell me the notability criteria and also Please help me edit that draft article. Thankyou! TheProEditor11 (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the criteria in notability. In short, you need to find several places where people who have no connection with Chaurasia have chosen to write at some depth about him, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. Nothing written, created, published, or commissioned by Chaurasia or his associates will count, nothing which merely reports his or his associates' words (such as anything based on a press release, and most interviews). Nothing on social media, or user-contributed sites such as blogs, wikis (including Wikipedia) or iMDB.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:59, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Chickenb4Egg

I cited the source of the text at the end of the paragraph but got declined. How do I fix this? Chickenb4Egg (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chickenb4Egg Your question is imprecise. Please be specific, and ask again. Ask in this thread.
Thank you for declaring that you are paid for this article. I have migrated the template to your user page where you ought to have placed it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got it answered in the live help, thank you though. Chickenb4Egg (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Xuppu

When I type something, like 1 January 2022 (2022-01-01) How do we make it go in a go like a box? It only says those words on the page when I’m done editing! Thanks! Xuppu (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xuppu Try as I might I do not understand what you have been attempting. Please ask again, with more detail, and ask in this thread. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I want a box like here, List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes if you go to the section that says Series Overview, below that, when I try to make a box like that, it says the code, it doesn’t show to box! If you don’t understand, I’ll try to explain later, thanks! :) Xuppu (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xuppu: your immediate problem is that you haven't closed the template call, it needs the double curly brackets }} to complete it. Try it yourself. (I don't know if that's the kind of 'box' that you actually wanted to create, though.)
That being said, this question isn't really related to the AfC process, this is just basic Wikipedia editing skills, so you should probably ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! :) Xuppu (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 11 September 2023 review of submission by Hadley99

Just updated sources. Thank you Hadley99 (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hadley99 If you feel it to be ready for review, please submit it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just submitted. Thank you Hadley99 (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

05:34, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Raheel.Abbas5

Dear Concern,

I hope you are doing great. I have submitted the details about Transparent Hands but it's not getting approved after several attempts. I made a few changes a couple of days ago and am still not sure if this will be approved or rejected. Could you please help me in submission.

Thank you Raheel.Abbas5 (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raheel.Abbas5: you'll have to be more specific – what help do you need, or what question do you wish to ask?
Also, please don't remove earlier AfC declines and comments, they need to stay there until the draft is accepted.
Finally, I've posted on your talk page a question regarding any relationship you may have with this organisation; please read and action it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Jitendrajmaurya

what is missing in it Jitendrajmaurya (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jitendrajmaurya: speedy deletion tag? I'll add it.
Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. This is not the place to tell the world about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 12 September 2023 review of submission by 111.92.45.241

My draft has been rejected for many times now. I have only added reliable sources in the reference. My subject Newton Cinema has produced movies and short films which has got significant coverage and won several prestigious awards. Please let me know the reason behind the rejection 111.92.45.241 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please log into your account when editing. Thanks.
Secondly, please do not remove the earlier AfC tags and comments, as they form a part of the reviewing record until the draft is accepted.
Thirdly, this draft has not been rejected, only declined. The difference being, with a decline, you get to resubmit the draft once you've addressed the decline reasons. With a rejection, that's the end of the road.
As to your question, the latest decline was for lack of notability, as explained in the decline notice, esp. the grey box inside the large pink one. Please read that, incl. the various guidelines that it links to, carefully, and come back if you still have questions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Taibhseoir

Hi, I hope to resubmit this draft - this literary journal and publishing house has been an active part of the Irish literary scene for nearly ten years and I think I've made their significance clear in the text and citations. Is there any other reason this page might be rejected? Taibhseoir (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted if you can address the concerns of reviewers. I'm not clear on how this publisher passes WP:ORG- you've done a nice job telling what the publisher does, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize independent reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage- coverage beyond merely telling of their existence and what they do- showing how they are notable. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 12 September 2023 review of submission by 37.238.91.9

I want to know how I can avoid rejection and accept this article . Please help me or teach me how can I submit the article without rejection. 37.238.91.9 (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that the process for this draft is now at an end, it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Cptcopy

Hello, I would like someone to help me review my new article submission. The initial article was declined because it "read more like an advertisement". I have now rewritten it in a more neutral/encyclopedic tone using citations of articles as the basis of proof of notability. There was also a challenge of 'Conflict of Interest', which there isn't. Thanks in advance for any further input. 

Cptcopy (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cptcopy I fixed your link(it was missing the "Draft:" portion). You have resubmitted it for a review and it is pending.
You didn't pick Mr. Martin at random to edit about him. How did you come to edit about him? 331dot (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the link. Good question, I was looking for a subject that didn't already have a page, which can be tricky (I tried lots of searches based around my interests including publishing, history of my local area, TV Series and Books but didn't find a gap anywhere). I am interested in Typography and Design - and I knew of Pablo Martin when he was working at Atlas studio, and saw that his then business partner Astrid Stavro does have a page. I Googled, and there were a number of articles online about him that I figured would help me write a page, so I gave it a go. It was a challenge I set myself to edit a page from scratch, although I'm starting to question why myself now! Cptcopy (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just quickly looking, I would suggest that the "teaching posts" and "Recognition" sections just be removed. Awards do not usually contribute to notability unless there is an article about the award itself(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award) or if there is otherwise extensive discussion on the significance of the award and its being given to the subject. The Teaching posts section adds nothing to notability.
I'm also concerned about "While in Majorca he partnered with the charitable foundation Esmet, set up to support people with intellectual difficulties, suggesting the EnsaimadArt concept as a means of celebrating the foundation's 50th birthday and raising funds. The project brought together a who's who of the visual arts to design a sticker to be placed on boxes containing ensaïmadas - a Majorcan sweet pastry. The small-scale charitable initiative ended up a global phenomenon, attracting the participation of international stars such as Wim Crouwel, Vince Frost, Paul Sahre, Javier Mariscal, and three-star Michelin chef Carme Ruscalleda". This adds nothing to notability as it just describes that he was involved and associated with notable people. Notability is not inherited by association, and this passage does not describe the significance of his involvement. Did the charity raise more money because of his involvement? You describe it as a "global phenomenon" but I see nothing that attributes this to his involvement. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take your point on Teaching Posts and Recognition, I will remove those. Thanks
I had a few reasons for including the EnsaimadArt section, it was an article in Wallpaper magazine - which I thought lent gravitas. The article implied success, although I can't find any further detail on the amount of money raised. I also thought that his association with such international stars would add notability - but I see that isn't the case. The Wallpaper article also features some of the gorgeous designs these international contributors came up with, which I thought made nice further reading for design geeks like myself. Cptcopy (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that a particular outlet publishes about a person doesn't contribute to notability- that publication must go into detail about the significance of the person(example, John Public headlined X event and the organizers of X event said many donors gave money due to his speech/activities") 331dot (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to advise Cptcopy (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Ahmed.bn.hossain

What is the reason for this article to be rejected, despite all the reliable sources in the article, the article was rejected, please explain Ahmed.bn.hossain (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the rejection was given (the notices must remain on the draft), "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion". Rejection meams it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

Kindly check now!!! I revamped the whole content. Is it acceptable now!!!! Pioussouls (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means the draft will not be considered further. No amount of editing can change this. You will need to move on from this. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pioussouls 7 of your references are to Wikipedia articles - this is not permitted, see WP:CIRCULAR. Qcne (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:57, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Adambanks11

Edited to reflect feedback (main point was that the page read like an advertisement). However, the page has now been edited down to only include the intro and company timeline, which is historical fact. Adambanks11 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adambanks11: this draft has been rejected, and as there is no evidence of notability, there seems no reason to review it again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not apparent to me what I must do further to get the page accepted. Since the last rejection I have removed a whole section and now the page only has an introduction and a timeline of the company, short and factual, and does not read like an ad. Adambanks11 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing you can do further - rejection means that the page can not become an article. You can try to appeal to the reviewer directly via their Talk Page. Qcne (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adambanks11: every article must demonstrate that the subject is notable, which in most cases means citing sources which satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard. This requires significant coverage of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. (And in any case, the draft has been rejected.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Zabir939

This page is wright for PowerTe CEO. Zabir939 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zabir939: I don't know what you just said, but this draft has been rejected and is awaiting deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 12 September 2023 review of submission by 102.220.159.102

because everytime we try to create an article about him you guys delete it immediately 102.220.159.102 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wonder why that is... Could you stop, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Thedirtlover

Well, i was writing this about an event/death about Porshe Crash history Not for the news, its also to make people realize that driving fast, drinking, etc… is bad, i know wiki isnt a news page, but i want to make learn people that Driving fast, etc… is dangerous.

Thank you. Thedirtlover (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thedirtlover: did you have a question you wanted to ask? As you say, and did the reviewer, Wikipedia is not a news website, it is an encyclopaedia. Besides, your draft is entirely unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all i did is write a wikipage about a crash on the Autobahn 14, which i got information from polanddaily24 (news site) and they said to me that wiki is nor a news site, but i tried my best to make it a good page, plus im on a Iphone which annoy me more Thedirtlover (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I empathise. I don't like iPhones, either. ;)
I've now rejected this draft, so can we leave it at that, please. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dude, that’s why reverse wiki is better Thedirtlover (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's where you should go to write about this sort of thing. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok boz Thedirtlover (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 12 September 2023 review of submission by 62.255.128.58

Can you provide more detail on why the referenced sources are not considered reliable enough? 62.255.128.58 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because five of the seven citations are to works authored or edited by the subject; anyone can say whatever they want about themselves. We need to see what others have said; 'others' meaning secondary sources that are fully independent of the subject, and have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think you may have posted this while logged out- remember to log in when posting. I fixed your link(you were missing the "Draft:" portion). Five of your references are to her own works, which are not an independent source. The rest do not seem to be significant coverage of Alida, showing how she meets the definition of a notable creative professional. Notability is not inherited by association; if she had an influence on Charlotte Mew, that might be better placed as part of Charlotte Mew, not as a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:09, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Lo9999*

Please what can I do about this issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:197.148.73.155 Lo9999* (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lo9999*: you can't, other than maybe wait for the SPI to be done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 12 September 2023 review of submission by Dukology

I need help to tidy up the references to have this article approved Dukology (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have far too many references for such a short draft. As I said in my decline comment, please find the three (And only three) best sources that demonstrate how this person meets the WP:NPEOPLE criteria. The sources must show significant coverage, be reliable, independent, and secondary - not interviews or PR pieces or passing mentions. Qcne (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dukology (ec) As noted by reviewers, you have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. Please choose the three best sources you have and summarize those three sources only. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dukology: you have four sentences, and 34 (!!) citations; almost every word is referenced. As the reviewer said already, pick the three strongest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 12 September 2023 review of submission by SaiSanF

I created an article about this artist, originally as a literal translation of the Spanish Wikipedia entry (I have experience as a translator and am interested in DIY/political and feminist art). The draft submission was declined because the article "read more like an advertisement". I fully agreed with that statement: when I started rewriting it, I realized that the original authors had copied and pasted a lot of content (from the references used) that had been posted in gallery websites and cultural media with the intention of promoting the artist's work to get visitors. Thus the "advertisement" tone.

I've done some editing to try to improve the point of view and keep it as neutral as possible. Also, no references are used that have been produced by the subject being discussed. Still, I'm afraid to resubmit because I'm unsure of whether the draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.

I would love to have another pair of experienced eyes take a look at the new version of the article and let me know if it reads like a proper encyclopedia entry, or what is there to improve.

Thanks so much to anyone willing to help out! Really appreciate it. SaiSanF (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews; the best way to get feedback is to submit it for a review. Drafts are not deleted merely for being declined or even rejected. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:48, 12 September 2023 review of submission by People for all

Because I keep making changes to this page, and its never getting approved. I want this page to be published as soon as possible. People for all (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@People for all: why ASAP? Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline.
In any case, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your user talk page for important information requiring a response. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:42, 12 September 2023 review of submission by DerekTheAnonymousWriter

Why was it rejected, and I have nowhere else to upload it too. DerekTheAnonymousWriter (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for rejection was given by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


September 13

00:08, 13 September 2023 review of submission by 162.201.121.103

Hello, i have created a page under the url "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wii_003_error". i know that it is kinda crappy and was written in just a few miniutes but i just want a little more details on why it was declined, what i did wrong and what i can do to make it fit for submission. thank you. 162.201.121.103 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S you don't even have to answer that third question 162.201.121.103 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first & second source are user-generated so it is unreliable. The third source is not independent nor give in-depth coverage. Ca talk to me! 04:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 13 September 2023 review of submission by SilverQuill27

I need help regarding character summaries for a movie. Can I use text from websites and are they allowed in the draft after providing citations?

I have removed the text blocks that a reviewer struck down and have replaced them with paraphrased sentences. It would be helpful to know if any further modifications are necessary! :) 

SilverQuill27 (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:16, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Maq Zeeshan

Hello,

I'm curious about the reasons for the rejection of my paper. If it was due to a lack of resources, I want to clarify that the subject matter is my hometown, and unfortunately, there is limited information and reliable articles available on this topic. Most of the content in my paper is based on my personal experiences, making it challenging to provide external references. However, I did include the few available references that I could find.

Thank you for your consideration. Maq Zeeshan (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maq Zeeshan I fixed your link(it was missing the "Draft:" portion). If there are no independent reliable sources about your hometown, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. No amount of editing can change that. Your personal experiences are not acceptable as sources, either. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:00, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Iamlenaluna

Hello, I understand your decision to decline the submission of this page's publish, although I do not for sure agree the topic is not sufficiently notable. There are quite a few independent and reliable sources about Skycop in Lithuanian but those were not included because it is in different language. I was also planning on translating this topic to Lithuanian language (as it is a Lithuania based company and is rather notable in there) and including those sources then. However, sources that are used for this page are not promotional and were published independently. Please, let me know if I can change anything to make this topic public on Wikipedia. Iamlenaluna (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iamlenaluna This draft already existed before you began editing it, as a company employee created it. Are you in communication with the company about the draft?
Sources do not need to be in English- if the sources available are in Lithuanian, you can certainly use them. However, rejection typically means that a draft will not be considered further. If Lithuanian sources provide more information, please discuss that with the last reviewer.
Note that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. Any article about the company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the company, showing how it meets the definition of a notable company. There are certain claims made like "played a significant role" but it is not said who considers the role significant and what that role was. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Microarc

This article was declined by Superboilles, the reason given being: "...rather than describing her latest works need to focus on JZ's life that can then feed a biography."

When I replied, I never got an answer, so I thought I'd seek assistance here. Here's how I responded to Superboilles' reason for declining:

Thanks for your message. What I don't understand: Isn't a new entry on a filmmaker more valuable when it focuses on his or her work? After all, in the case of a filmmaker, the significant coverage that is required deals first and foremost with his or her work, not his or her personal life. That's what makes an artist notable (or not). Maybe I'm wrong? Microarc (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sources available are about her work, then it's likely that it is the work itself that is notable and not her personally. A creative professional can create notable works without being notable themselves. For an article about her personally, there must be independent reliable sources that discuss her importance as a filmmaker or person as well as her life generally. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification. This still doesn't make sense to me, though: "A creative professional can create notable works without being notable themselves." A body of notable work defines a person's notability as a creative professional, doesn't it? Microarc (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Microarc: it can do, but not automatically or necessarily; if you see the special WP:CREATIVE notability guideline, some works may be so significant that they make their creator inherently notable, but that is quite an extreme scenario, and applies in the exception rather than as a rule. For example, a book may be notable by simply being critiqued in a few publications, but that would still fall far short of being so important or even seminal as to make its author notable per CREATIVE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, according to the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline, a creative professional is notable if:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) Microarc (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Microarc: you don't need to quote verbatim what it says in the guideline, we all know if, and if we don't, we can always look it up. Instead, what you need to do is demonstrate – including producing the necessary evidence – how the subject meets this standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What DoubleGrazing is telling you (correctly) is that criterion only applies in very rare cases- and as I say below, generally that work would have to be on the level of Shakespeare or Edgar Allen Poe or even Stephen King. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's just not what the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline says. If a person has created well-known work that is also widely reviewed, that's apparently sufficient for that creative professional to meet the standards of notability. Or maybe I'm wrong? Microarc (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show that the work is "widely reviewed"- and again, that is going to need to be on a very high level. Perhaps Shakespeare is an extreme example, but the point is her work will need to have been reviewed and analyzed very extensively, and you haven't shown that yet. A few reviews here or there are insufficient. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was helpful now. (What concerned me in the first place was this reviewer's insistence on the subject's life being more central than his or her work, which I found strange in the context.) Microarc (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE is a subset of the notability guidelines for people which itself is essentially a subset of the general notability guidelines. Most other articles rely on the broader guidelines, not the narrower ones. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably her work would need to be on the level of William Shakespeare's work to merit an article merely based on her work. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the benchmark, 99% of entries about creative professionals alive today would have to be deleted. Also, that's not what the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline says. Microarc (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There likely are many inappropriate articles among our millions of articles. We can only address what we know about. Most of those 99% probably merit articles for other reasons- not merely for the fact that their body of work exists, which is what you are claiming here. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Microarc: that would only be true, if all articles on creative professionals relied on CREATIVE for their notability. The vast majority of articles rely on the general WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for helping! Microarc (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Convex geometry

There are already dozens of articles for Fellows of the American Mathematical Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Mathematical_Society) where their work and career are described and who have not received further prizes etc. Why is this one rejected? Convex geometry (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convex geometry It was not rejected, only declined. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that a draft may be resubmitted if the concerns of the reviewer can be addressed. Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note you have re-submitted without addressing my concern of the references, so I am forced to decline again @Convex geometry Qcne (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the reference to the website and the information taken from it. I added a reference to the Member Pages of the Institute of Advanced Study. I suppose that is a reliable reference.
He is a Fellow of the AMS and many (more than thousand) fellows have pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Mathematical_Society Convex geometry (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Convex geometry. I am unsure if being a fellow of the American Mathematical Society is an eligibility criteria on WP:NACADEMIC #4, so feel free to re-submit and another reviewer can have a look and I'll post a comment. Qcne (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Convex geometry I've re-submitted it on your behalf. Qcne (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Convex geometry As stated in my decline notice this person may be notable under WP:NACADEMIC but we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Nearly all your sources are WP:PRIMARY. Qcne (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:47, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

Hello I have edited the whole. Can you please review and share your valuable insight? I am waiting for your kind input. Pioussouls (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed since the rejection, such as new information that the reviewer did not consider, you should first attempt to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pioussouls. You still have inappropriate language: esteemed, dedicated focus on economics, valuable experience, profound analysis, fresh insights, proud proprietor, fostering networking etc. Please closely read WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK.
You must also remove all external links from the body of the text, see WP:EXTERNAL. Qcne (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 13 September 2023 review of submission by YordleSquire

Hello, I submitted an article for review and was declined for WP:NPOLITICIAN. I'm thankful for the review and reminder about that specific policy.

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

The general notability guideline states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

There is coverage from reliable sources of record: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/us/politics/susanna-gibson-virginia.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/ https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-of-delegates-sex-acts-9e0fa844a3ba176f79109f7393073454 https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-sex-acts-c2a130b84452b524279b0a496fca2c99

But I am too new here to assert that the coverage is significant. Thinking about the policies again, it might also fail WP:RECENT

If she wins her race, then I think I am safe to resubmit. But otherwise, I would appreciate any guidance on what counts as significant coverage. 

YordleSquire (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy is related to her running for office, so I'm not really sure it contributes to her meeting the broader WP:BIO instead of the narrower WP:NPOLITICIAN- unless there is something additional to hang our hat on, like someone being charged under Virginia's laws related to the dissemination of the video(the conduct described in the sources is not illegal itself). Yes, if she wins, she will definitely merit an article at that time. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thank you! The scope of the controversy falls under WP:NPOLITICIAN YordleSquire (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YordleSquire: you're certainly right to consider not just the publications but the extent and depth of the articles; I think in this case the sources may be enough to show notability. However, the bulk of the draft, and if they are anything to go by, her main claim to fame (or perhaps rather infamy) for the time being is the video controversy, and that probably puts this under WP:BLP1E at least until such time as she gets elected and becomes more of a public persona. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E is a good policy to know. Thank you! YordleSquire (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the draft summary to contextualize why her race may be notable.
AP: "The race has attracted large amounts of spending and interest for an off-year legislative race." ... "The parties are waging intense legislative battles as GOP rising national political star Gov. Glenn Youngkin looks to bolster his conservative agenda with full control of state government."
However I will not resubmit unless there is further development. YordleSquire (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Saparagus

The page I initiated was declined. The first time was reasonable - it was really a stub, intended to be filled in later. However, the second submission had certainly met the requirements for academic notability, as far as I can tell from the website. Could you please let me know what is still lacking in this page to be released ?

Important: once the page is released, many other colleagues will contribute additional details. Thank you. Saparagus (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saparagus: if you're relying on one of the special notability guidelines, in this case WP:NACADEMIC, you need to make it clear which of the criteria is met, and provide evidence to support that. I note that quite a lot of the content is unreferenced (which in itself is grounds for declining, as this is an article on a living person), so it could be that the claim for NACADEMIC notability is there, but just isn't referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the criteria, and criteria 1-6 are met, and substantiated with plenty of references, as far as I can tell.
Should I list here all these criteria AND their corresponding references on the draft page ?
Criterion 3 - that's references 3 and 4: fellowship in a prestigious international organization.
Criterion 1 (and 4) - reference 11: a textbook used worldwide in university education.
Criterion 6 - he held chairmanship of CIMS/NYU department of Computer Science (one of the top schools in CS).
Criterion 7 - his work with Defense agencies, references 7,8
Criterion 1 - reference 10: a huge number of citations on Google Scholar, that means enormous impact worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saparagus (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know,
Thanks again. Saparagus (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saparagus Anyone may contribute to the draft now, they don't need to wait. They should declare their status as colleagues per WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I understand that. However, I was more referring to the criteria, which I see as fulfilled - please see the detailed breakdown above.
Could you please address that question - why are the criteria not sufficiently fulfilled?
Please note that two (at least) of his doctoral students (Friedman, Ji) have Wikipedia pages..
Thank you. Saparagus (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not his doctoral students have articles is absolutely not a factor here; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Saparagus: without commenting on whether or not this person meets NACADEMIC, I do think you're being quite liberal in your interpretation. For example, #6 refers to the "president or chancellor... of a university [etc.]", not to chairmanship of an individual department. Similarly, #3 requires membership of not just a "prestigious", but "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" or "fellow[ship] of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor". And while an h-index of 67 (RE your last point, ref #1) is certainly respectable, I don't know if I would describe it as "huge" for very topical areas of science such as CS, AI, etc. Again, I'm not saying these categorically aren't enough to satisfy NACADEMIC, only that the case isn't necessarily quite so self-evident as you make it out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, thank you for your response. Could you please clarify what we are arguing about? The guidelines say that even one criterion is sufficient for inclusion. OK, let's ignore his Chairmanship at a top CS Department in the country (certainly one of the top 10 according to academic ratings). Are we arguing about Criterion #3? ACL is the top organization in the field, there is no more important body in CL/NLP. A highly selective organization, granting ACL Fellow status is a huge deal, given to only a couple of top scientists each year -- as per the references provided in the article.
Also, he has been President of ACL, is that liberal interpretation too?
H-index of 67 with 23K+ citations is an indication of a massive impact on the scientific community in CS. (This is not biology, the citations in this field are not inflated.)
Which of these requirements is still not unmet?
Once again, my initial submission had no references, I apologize for that: I had created WP pages previously, clearly before the notability criteria were elaborated, and I had assumed I could do the same this time. Now a set of references is provided.
Thank you again. Saparagus (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 13 September 2023 review of submission by User09110

Added an independent source to the text and based it on straight facts. User09110 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to submit the draft for another review. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 13 September 2023 review of submission by 62.211.143.48

Hi, since i'm editing my draft, I saw Wikipedia pages with references to YouTube and social media. But why? 62.211.143.48 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because they have probably slipped through the net. It is rarely an acceptable style of reference 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A large majority of YouTube videos are not reliable sources. However, videos posted on the official YouTube channels of reliable media outlets are accepted as reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Annubana

why this page declined to publish ? anangpal 18:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Annubana The reason was left by the reviewer. Do you have a question about it? 331dot (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat, @Annubana: none of your references are from independent secondary sources, therefore you have not proven notability under WP:NORG Qcne (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added government links, third party linked including organisation's web link why government links not considered as independent sources ? anangpal 18:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
sorry to say but in reference you can see government of india website link which was published by govt. so how can you say not independent secondary sources ? anangpal 18:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annubana (talk • contribs)
The .gov.in sources are primary. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which links are secondary ? company website and other websites write about company right ? if yes this also added in reference.
please help me to write this article anangpal 19:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annubana (talk • contribs)
Annubana, the question you need to answer (in fact, the question you needed to answer right at the beginning, before you even created a draft) is "Where have people wholly unconnected with IPOSIS, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of IPOSIS, chosen to write in depth about IPOSIS, and been published in places with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control?"
If you have some answers to that question, then those are the sources that you need to base almost the whole draft on: the sources you currently cite are nearly irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
If you cannot find several such sources, then IPOSIS does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and any further time you spend on this draft will be wasted.
By the way, please sign your posts here. If you don't, a bot adds a signature, but people replying to you cannot use the "reply" feature. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Annubana

My Wikipedia page for IPOSIS has recently been declined in review. I would greatly appreciate guidance and assistance in addressing the issues raised in the decline and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and reliability. I'm looking for advice on how to make the necessary improvements and resubmit the article successfully. please help to create this article. Thank you for your assistance. anangpal 19:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You have failed to provide references to reliable secondary sources that are entirely independent of IPOSIS that devote significant coverage to IPOSIS. Without such references, the draft cannot be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Amaing!

Why was my page declined? Hello, I was wondering why my article about High Park Public School was declined? Amaing! (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amaing! I fixed your post for proper display and to provide a link to your draft. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaing! Elementary schools are not inherently notable. Draft:High Park Public School is an elementary school.The reviewer has said as much, but in different words 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the only source you provide is the school district website. There would need to be signficant coverage of this school in independent reliable sources in order for it to merit an article. Even schools where traumatic events have occurred rarely merit standalone articles- see Sandy Hook Elementary School(the site of a mass murder), which redirects to the school district article. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 13 September 2023 review of submission by Salma wahwah

I've been trying to publish this article but I am not sure what I should change.

It says it looks like a resume but I am not sure what I should remove or update

Your help is really appreciated Salma wahwah (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Salma wahwah. You need to find multiple reliable sources that are entirely independent of Romi and that devote significant coverage to Romi. Then format those sources as references and neutrally summarize what they say. Links to gallery websites are of no value in establishing notability because they are in the business of exhibiting and selling the artist's work. Interviews of Romi are also of no value in establishing notability, because they are not independent of Romi. Please read WP:ARTIST. Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

02:10, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Ryuaelv1407

My draft has been declined since 9 September 2023. Can someone help me to review it again? Ryuaelv1407 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please see our rules on paid-contribution disclosure at WP:PAID. You are required to disclose any connections you have with organizations that have paid you to edit. I also suggest you read through our policies at WP:Conflict of Interest. It is highly discouraged to write articles in which you have a conflict of interest, and in most cases they will be deleted. If your organization is truly notable, someone will eventually write an article about it. In regards to your draft, please keep in mind that drafts are reviewed in no specific order, and reviewers are not obligated to review any specific drafts. Just because your draft was reviewed quickly before, does not mean it will happen again. Please feel free to ask any other questions you might have. I also would like to invite you to the teahouse, a place where you can ask questions about Wikipedia that will be answered by other Wikipedians. Thanks, StartOkayStop (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the excellent advice from @StartOkayStop, I would recommend showing your boss the following essay: WP:BOSS @Ryuaelv1407. Qcne (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ryuaelv1407, references to general coverage of stem cells and anti-aging techniques are of zero value. Remove them. What is required are references to reliable sources entirely independent of the Swiss Stem Cell company that devote significant coverage to the Swiss Stem Cell company. Without several such references, your draft cannot possibly be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Huzaifakumo

Please the organization is notable and references are added but still rejected! Huzaifakumo (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Huzaifakumo: your draft was only declined, not rejected, meaning you can resubmit the draft once you've addressed the decline reasons.
References are only references if they actually support something in the draft. Adding links to websites' home pages doesn't help, you need to point to the actual URL which verifies what you've said in the draft.
Notability is demonstrated by the sources, not by you saying that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:34, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Dnlazr

Hello Good day. I am Danial and this is my first time I writing an article. May I know what is wrong with this article that it get rejected. Let me fix it. Thank you. Dnlazr (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dnlazr: it was entirely promotional, completely unreferenced, and looked like a copypaste text dump from somewhere (although I couldn't find an online source for it). It has now been deleted, so there's nothing to 'fix'. If you want to try again, you need to start by finding reliable and independent secondary sources that have covered the subject, summarise (in your own words) what they've said, and cite those sources in the draft. See WP:YFA for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:12, 14 September 2023 review of submission by Pioussouls

Hello! Kindly, can you please check now!!!! Tell me is this ok? Or there is still improvement needed? If yes.. Can you please specify?? Waiting for your kind response. Thanks Pioussouls (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1175325851"