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 KannappaSara9 (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 24 October 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Tennis_Premier_League). 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


October 18

00:31, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Bluebeamblue

I am understudying the behavior of Wikipedia editors and I have come to some very disturbing finding: Many draft articles declined at the level of Afc meet the guidelines for notability but because such articles have been hastily declined from going into the main space by a first reviewer, the decision affects other reviewers and such articles never see the light of day. It appears there is a behavioral law, “If the first reviewer declines the submission of an article, no matter how it has been improved, it has to be declined again until it is deleted”. For example, the draft article on “Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ejikeme_Patrick_Nwosu) is obviously notable. The submission's references show significant, even multiple full page coverage about the subject in “published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. The newspapers referenced are so reliable that they have their own profiles in Wikipedia. Guardian is one of them. The Nation (Nigeria) is another. AllAfrica is another. The Punch is another. Daily Trust too. And many more. And they all reported about the subject, independent of the subject. I am surprised that Wikipedia administrators saw these references and ignored them. I then compared the references to many stubs already in Wikipedia main space and saw that this article, “Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu” is obviously better than they are. I do not want to lose confidence in this online encyclopaedia. I hope that editors should be trained in instantly knowing which newspaper is reliable and which is not by first checking if such a newspaper has a page in Wikipedia and what has been said about them. I am bringing this article to public notice so that more administrators can look at it. It appears African inventors are under-reported because the media used for their reportage are deemed unreliable. The management of Wikipedia needs to focus more on understanding the media problems of reporting Africa so that Wikipedia won’t unwittingly leave out very important world heritage data that are hidden in oral information or other forms that are deemed unreliable. 

Bluebeamblue (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluebeamblue: this draft has been resubmitted, and will be reviewed in due course to see if the subject is, indeed, "obviously notable" as you claim.
Other than that, do you have an actual question you wish to ask? Or did you just come here to rant and hurl accusations at us? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. But please, this is not an accusation, and I am not ranting. Sorry, if that is the impression created. It is not at all intended. I am a rationale being making an observation.
The question I have is this:
What other quality qualifies a stub that has only three reliable newspaper references acceptance into the main page, while a comprehensive article that has more than four reliable references (whose cited newspapers have positive wikilinks) declined acceptance? see "Becky Okorie" for example etc Bluebeamblue (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluebeamblue: articles can end up being published in many different ways; some predate the current guidelines and policies, others have been published directly by editors with the requisite user permissions, etc. There are well over 6 million articles in the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only deal with the ones that we become aware of: if you find an article that you feel doesn't meet the current requirements, you're welcome to either improve it or propose its deletion. In the meantime, it is pointless comparing a draft with any articles that might exist, as they may well have their own problems, and we do not wish to create more of the same. For that reason, we assess drafts with reference to the currently applicable policies and guidelines, not by comparing them to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
It's also worth noting that the number of sources isn't strictly relevant (beyond the basic requirement of having 'multiple'), as three solid sources always trumps a large number of flaky ones. Bearing also in mind that it isn't enough, in what comes to establishing notability, that a source is reliable and independent, it must also provide significant coverage of the subject. In other words, a source has to meet every aspect of the WP:GNG notability standard at once. So it is perfectly possible for a subject to be mentioned in highly reputable publications such as the ones you mention, and yet notability not be demonstrated if those publications only mention the subject in passing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:41, 18 October 2023 review of submission by RagingPichu

There aren't a whole lot of sources on this game. It basically amounts to reviews, interviews, and Quell's Dev Blog on Tumblr. How should I proceed, keeping the verifiability criterion in mind? RagingPichu (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can’t find any reliable sources then there really isn’t anything that you can do. KingTheD (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:38, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Amit241903

I want to write and add an article about my self and my journey but the article has be rejected, please suggest the changes so that i can as an article aby myself Amit241903 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amit241903: you should not be writing about yourself, for the reasons explained in WP:AUTOBIO. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you need to find another place for that. In any case, Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.) have said about the subject, whereas I'm guessing you would just like to 'tell your story' yourself? Again, that's not how this works. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 18 October 2023 review of submission by 185.130.156.203

how can this page be improved? 185.130.156.203 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be improved, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:59, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Yoursfrag

Hello, you rejected my proposal to create an Eviden company page for the spin off of Atos group. Can you advice me how can we create a simple new page for this new company representing 60k employees and many sub brands and acquisitions. Also I see that someone created the french page for Eviden; can you please authorize the english version, as there are now many press and indépendant sources mentionning Eviden ( Atos group spin off). Many thanks for your feedbacks and advices Yoursfrag (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoursfrag This draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. We don't have "company pages" here, we have articles about companies. If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. You should also read conflict of interest. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject.
We don't have "simple new pages". Wikipedia is not a directory of companies or things that exist. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inculsion, which for companies is described at WP:ORG. We don't want sources with brief mentions of the company, or that describe its routine business activities(like acquisitions of competitors), but independent reliable sources that on their own and not based on materials from the company, go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about the company. Every company thinks that what it does is important/significant/influential, we want to know what others think.
The French Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Thony-Ferro

I appreciate my colleague Johannes Maximilian's comment. However, the sources we possess concerning the band are reliable, including an article on SIC TV, one of the largest and most-watched Portuguese TV networks. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the vocalist, it is recommended to review this material. Notably, there are more references available for Master Dy compared to those provided for Alia Tempora, a band that already has a Wikipedia page. At the time of Alia Tempora's page publication, they had fewer releases and less prominence than Master Dy. I have included the link to "All Music," a certified source by Wikipedia itself, for Alia Tempora don't exist a simple link to All music. My intention is not to advocate for the band, but to underscore the research efforts I have undertaken over the past three years. While I could continue to cite additional instances of less prominent bands featured on Wikipedia, my focus is to provide insight into my ongoing work. In view of a lot of current content, my content does deserve a position. Thank you. Thony-Ferro (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thony-Ferro: it's not enough for sources to be reliable, for notability per WP:GNG they must also be sufficient enough in number and in the extent of their coverage.
Whether AllMusic is reliable is debatable, but it isn't "certified" in any sense, and notability doesn't hinge on having an AllMusic entry.
Self-published albums also do not satisfy the special WP:BAND guideline, unless this group has some other merits which I've missed.
I don't know what other article(s) you refer to, but this draft is being judged in its own right, not by comparing to any other articles that may exist out there; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Wikinewteam1

Hi there,

Please can you let me know which areas need referencing or if unable removed in order to be successful during the next submission. Wikinewteam1 (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinewteam1 Your username suggests that this is a group or shared account. Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to rename your account to an individualistic username. If you work for or are associated with Ms. Lasi(perhaps associated with SI), please read conflict of interest and paid editing.
Your references are bare urls, and are only somewhat in-line with the draft text. Please see Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format references. Most of the references seem to document her activities and few have significant coverage of her personally. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 18 October 2023 review of submission by 128.151.150.25

My submission was declined for lack of reliable sources. However, I’m not sure what would count as a reliable source since the majority of sources on my topic are local newspaper articles which I have cited. What do I do? 128.151.150.25 (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, it appears most of the sources are statements about people who played there rather than in-depth coverage about the club itself or interviews with those involved which are not independent and much of the content does not appear to be supported by the sources so fails verification). Also some of the sources are not reliable such as blogs, YouTube (see [[WP:RSPYT for more info), social media, etc. It's an interesting article but it appears your approached it the wrong way, at least in part. You you start with collecting independent reliable sources then summarize what they say (see WP:BACKWARD), not what you think or know (see original research). Even so, have you checked Google Books? S0091 (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:39, 18 October 2023 review of submission by AMRLPRHJR

Hello, I am creating my first wikipedia page and my first draft was declined as I need to "cite independent sources not ones that are associated with the subject". Apologies for my ignorance, I am uncertain what sources would be more suitable - I believe it might be that I used the subjects website as a reference. Since being declined, I have found pages on the film website Mubi that I believe are independent, which provide information about the films I am referencing and cite Maureen's involvement. Are these sufficient as reference replacements? Any advice would be very welcome. I want to make sure the page sticks to community guidelines. AMRLPRHJR (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AMRLPRHJR I fixed your link to your draft(it must appear exactly for it to work). IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user-editable. "Foxtrot Films" seems to be a primary source that you are using to merely document people who worked with Murray. This isn't necessary usually as the film credits serve to do that- one can just watch the film.
You say things like she has acted as an industry mentor, but offer no reliable sources to support that claim or that describe her particular influence. An article primarily must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the person and show how they are notable- either as a notable person broadly or more narrowly in this case as a notable creative professional.
Do you have an association with this person? 331dot (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:32, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Origagari

Hi Again,

I updated, can you check again?

Good work. Origagari (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Origagari: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The draft was rejected, which typically means that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft since it was rejected, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as promotional. 😢 Left 'm my standard notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Mint tin 5506

I need to know how to add the category box 

Mint tin 5506 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mint tin 5506: what's a "category box"? If you mean the section on the bottom with categories in it, categories are only added when the article is published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ohhhhhhhhh ok thanks for the help I appreciate the help. Mint tin 5506 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Sidharthsnair

What is the reason why my draft was rejected an how can I make it better Sidharthsnair (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sidharthsnair: it was rejected because it is clearly not notable. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about yourself or things you made up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:20, 18 October 2023 review of submission by 37.5.253.134

I need assistance copying results and entries on to graphs in the page. 37.5.253.134 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I suggest asking for help at the Teahouse. The AfC Helpdesk is here to answer questions related to reviews rather than general editing questions. S0091 (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Khalifasheraz

If I remove the links, then it can be approved? As i was searching for turbo filters in Wikipedia and didn't find ay relevant articles thats why I write this one. please let me know. Khalifasheraz (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is a completely unsourced essay of original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state, in an encyclopedic style. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 18 October 2023 review of submission by 188.150.13.167

Hello there, I would love some assistance to my current project, the pianist Matti Hirvonen. I recently published his article but was declined due to reference incorrectly. I would love to have some review of my article and assistance in the matter. It’s my first wiki. :)

Thank you 188.150.13.167 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the posts left by the reviewer, as well as the links therein, especially Referencing for beginners. You may then resubmit when you've added proper references. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please log into your account when editing. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend turning on the WP:VISUALEDITOR and following the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. This is an easier-to-use editor and has automatic in-line citations. Qcne (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 18 October 2023 review of submission by 72.34.120.68

i just wanted to know: why can't you guys just hire more people to check the drafts of everybody, making things go a lot quicker? 72.34.120.68 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This website is run by volunteers, there are no paid employees of Wikipedia. Every draft review has been done by someone in their spare time. Qcne (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was reviewed within 18 minutes of you submitting, I think that's pretty good? Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Thomson Walt

I want to resubmit this draft after the fully-protected redirect page of Miss Grand International 2020 was reduced the protection to ECP as per this DRV.

Best, Thomson Walt (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:28, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Dreadfibre

i dont know what else to write Dreadfibre (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. See WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

01:17, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Drcool 25

Can you help review the article parts which are considered promotional parts of the article and edit to remove whichever is unnecessary. I am still new and would need guidance on writing Drcool 25 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drcool, your draft is overtly promotional and his been rejected for that reason. Promotional editing is forbidden on Wikipedia, and your draft will not be reconsidered, since it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Early on in your draft, you say that this business exists to make the world a more beautiful place. This overtly promotional sentence is followed by many other overtly promotional marketing sentences. That style of writing is not permitted on Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:42, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Aishu.m

All rejections of this draft have been for not citing reliable sources. Need assistance in understanding which sources are considered reliable and which are not. Aishu.m (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aishu.m: it's a combination of some sources used (eg. YouTube) not being reliable, and some of the content not being referenced at all. However, that's not the only reason why this has been declined (not 'rejected') multiple times; it's also that the sources have been insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind pointing to which content were not referenced?
Also, the cited sources are interviews provided by the subject to recognised publications/magazines. Are these considered reliable? I'm trying to understand why they are considered insufficient. Aishu.m (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews may be reliable, but they are not independent. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for the explanation. This really puts things into a better perspective. Aishu.m (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 19 October 2023 review of submission by NadellaMou

My article is declined due to the reason which is missing the neutral point of view and seems like a promotion. But my article is subject of public service application which is helping citizens. This is a worthy application which needs entry in Wikipedia it's a prestigious application of a State in India. The information I sourced from various news papers which I attached as references. Pls help me in publishing my article  NadellaMou (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NadellaMou: the app may well be "worthy", but that doesn't give you a licence to write about it in a promotional manner. "Innovative", "dynamic", "progressive", "harnessing the power", are all peacock expressions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest

What can I do to improve this article? I feel it has enough third person sources to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: this draft hasn't been submitted for review yet, you'll get feedback once you submit it and it has been reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:42, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest

What can I do to improve this article? I feel it has enough third person sources to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: this draft hasn't been submitted for review yet, you'll get feedback once you submit it and it has been reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest

What can I do to improve this article? I feel it has enough third person sources to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: the reviewer left you a comment with their decline, have you considered that? Good sources are important, but they're not quite the be-all and end-all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I had a quick look at the sources, and FWIW they probably are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Can't say conclusively, as I couldn't access the EDV ones (paywall), but looked okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 19 October 2023 review of submission by 91.141.48.4

Hi - this draft article was rejected on account of the sources, but I belieive they meet Wikipedia's guidelines. RE: Apple Award, surely the best source for this is Apple Inc itself? Other sources in the article include Techcrunch, Forbes magazine and Entrepreneur (magazine), all of which are regarded as reliable sources in the business world and meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. So I am trying to understand why these sources are not considered sufficient by the editor? Thank you 91.141.48.4 (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that a draft may be resubmitted.
The sources themselves are not the issue, but their content. The draft largely summarizes the routine business activities of the company,(like raising funds) which does not establish notability. One unremarkable award is mentioned; awards do not usually establish notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Any article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as significant/important/influential about the company. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article- even in the same field- it depends on the sources.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID, as well as conflict of interest. Disclosing is easier to do with an account, but even if you don't wish to create an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Syler.mi4

Please suggest more sources Syler.mi4 (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Syler.mi4 the article has been rejected, there is nothing further you can do. Qcne (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Gitte bei Medienservice UHH Bio

I submitted an article revised according to your requirements, which was named as the new version "2" by you. Now this has been rejected because apparently the first one still exists and the new one is considered a duplicate. What can I do so that this new version is checked and released? Gitte bei Medienservice UHH Bio (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created the second draft- you should just edit the original draft. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 19 October 2023 review of submission by MariaMorris1

I initially created this page to give information about Daniel Ashville Louisy. Since then others have added to it and we have added credible links and the basic information required by Wikipedia.

I would like some help in what parts specifically I need to change as I am now worried about adding or removing any parts that will be needed for this article.

Thank you MariaMorris1 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MariaMorris1 Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and disclose your connection with Mr. Louisy. You must have one since you took a picture of him and he posed for you.
Wikipedia articles(not "pages") are not for merely providing information, but should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You describe his activities and background, but you do not tell what sources consider to be important/significant/influential about him. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok I will do more research on what to write that establishes better reliable sources as the articles I found on him seemed to be very reliable due to how popular the sources are but I will try to amend it and republish for review.
I only have seen Daniels show and social media and that picture is from his own website. MariaMorris1 (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Danceguru1212

Submission has been declined twice for my article despite providing several credible references. I am unclear on what specifically needs to be done to improve the article. Can someone help me with this please? Danceguru1212 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the external links within the text need to be removed.
In one part, you say she has "received acclaim" but do not describe what the acclaim is. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Sadid Lailuma

Hello Sir, Madam,

I just submitted my first Wikipedia page, but it is rejected. could you please give me advice on what should i do? Thanks Lailuma Sadid Sadid Lailuma (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadid Lailuma: writing your username is clearly not a viable article draft. What were you trying to do? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 19 October 2023 review of submission by BhikhariInformer

In this article I have attached citations from The Times of India, Ei Samay Sangbadpatra, The Economic Times, The Telegraph (India), Anandabazar Patrika and also Youtube. All of these are usually the citations present for many other Bengali films and are considered to be reliable sources in many of the Bengali films, which have their Wikipedia pages based on the citations from these news websites. My draft has been denied on the basis of not being supported by reliable sources for verification. The film is already released with positive reviews from all critics. Hence, I don't understand why has this draft been denied. Do I need to submit it a few days later? Can you please tell me the reason. Can you also enlighten me on what can I do and what kind of other citations are required to verify this film, which are usually not present in the other Bengali film pages.

Thank you BhikhariInformer BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BhikhariInformer: it's not enough for the publications to be reliable and independent (and it's debatable whether the Times of India is that, esp. when it comes to entertainment and business reporting), they must also provide significant coverage of the subject. Given that the film was only released today, the sources are pre-release publicity, which usually does not establish notability. (I offer this as a general comment, I haven't looked at the sources cited in this draft in any detail.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info about Times of India. Then I will submit after a few days. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BhikhariInformer: rather than "after a few days", you should wait until there are sources which demonstrate notability by WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, however long that may take. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Articles published before a film's release almost never meet those criteria. Wait until some articles are published that do meet the criteria. This might take months or even years, but that is not an issue in Wikipedia, since there is no deadline. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 19 October 2023 review of submission by 195.43.130.152

Hi, why as it been rejected? He's an icon in advertising, the most influential man that formed most of the most influential creative minds in advertise in the world. An incredible professor that became a dad of hundreds of kids to which he gave the opportunity to build a second life to themselves. You could say that most of the ads out in the world today has been influenced by him. He recently passed away and the ad world across the globe is crying him. Could you please help me open up a profile for him? He NEEDS a wikipedia page. Thank you, a would very much appreciate your help. Please look him up on Google if you don't believe me. 195.43.130.152 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there is no draft for Tony Cullingham, and secondly there are no profiles, only articles on people who pass the guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in the universe "NEEDS" a Wikipedia page, because that statement assumes that a Wikipedia article is in some way for the benefit of its subject. It is not, except incidentally. Please see PROUD for how wrong that idea can be, in some cases. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 19 October 2023 review of submission by ChoudharySamrat

Kindly check the article I have one new reference for notability ChoudharySamrat (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added new reference to the article ChoudharySamrat (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Sidharthsnair

But these are the only sources I could find on the page Draft:HERONICS_Series Sidharthsnair (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the draft was rejected, and as such will not be considered further. The sources are just not there at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 19 October 2023 review of submission by ChoudharySamrat

kindly refer to the other source I have mentioned in the references section please help if I'm missing something ChoudharySamrat (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChoudharySamrat As the draft has been rejected, you will now need to appeal directly to the rejecting review and try and show this person passes the WP:NPEOPLE notability criteria. Qcne (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked the Wikipedia:Notability (Academic) and it does passes the criteria for notability in point number 6 of WP:NACADEMIC as the person has a role of Vice-Chancellor of the Institute ChoudharySamrat (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChoudharySamrat I am not sure if he does pass #6, as I am not sure if ICFAI University, Tripura counts as a "major institution". I see you have re-submitted it, though, this paragraph is written in an inappropriate way: "Dr. Biplab Halder is a distinguished individual who has served as a National Advisory Committee Member in a notable capacity. His contributions and expertise have made a significant impact in his field". Please re-phrase to conform with WP:NPOV. Qcne (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Zahwa Jameel

Hey there editors.

This is my first time trying to publish an article. Please help me out and show me where I'm going wrong. I tried my best and still got rejection Zahwa Jameel (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something and what it does. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. "Significant coverage" is that which goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the subject- it doesn't just document its existence, tell what it does, or briefly mention it. Please read Your First Article.
You also used highly promotional language("the driving force"; "professional journey", etc.) which needs to be removed. If you are associated with this subject(paid or unpaid), that needs to be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should add links to other Wikipedia articles and because there are so many programming languages in the list I would recommend putting them in a paragraph form. You should also have at least one reference per paragraph. KingTheD (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Soroudh

Hello, I have prepared more than 35 reliable sources throughout the internet for my article from different websites. I avoid personal websites or organizations. I only use reliable newspapers and news agencies like the Guardian, the Tehran Times, and others like that. However, my translation of a Persian article has been rejected due to a lack of reliable sources. I have seen articles on Wikipedia about people who had less than 1 source and that source is the person's private website. Could you please help me or give me any hints? Thanks Soroudh (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soroudh Please see other stuff exists. Wikipedia has many inappropriate articles that have gotten past us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, you can identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help.
Note that what is acceptable on the Persian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, as the two projects are separate.
It's not a lack of sources that is the problem, but the ones provided do not seem to be reliable. I would suggest asking the reviewer directly for clarification. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Avenging soldier

Hello, what is the reason why you did not allow my article to be published? Do you not have a problem that innocent people's lives are taken? Avenging soldier (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avenging soldier Wikipedia is not to be used to host your personal essays. Please carefully read What Wikipedia is Not. Qcne (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 20

00:50, 20 October 2023 review of submission by Snvrk

An editor said I don't have enough sources. I need help proving that this article is actually authentic. Snvrk (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snvrk, not authentic, notable there is a difference. No one is claiming you lied about anything in the draft about yourself we simply said you did not prove anyone else has written about you in reliable independent source in any significant way. All your sources are connected to you which makes it seem like only you have noticed yourself. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have no references. KingTheD (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snvrk You also have to disclose that your writing about yourself KingTheD (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how to add that? Snvrk (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the autobiography part or whatever it is called on wikipedia Snvrk (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nevermind, i've done it Snvrk (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snvrk Social media accounts can’t be used as sources on Wikipedia. KingTheD (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:17, 20 October 2023 review of submission by IVickyChoudhary

He's a famous bollywood movie director, still unable to create valid article for him. So requesting fellow and senior contributors to help and improve the draft so it can be published. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IVickyChoudhary: unlikely anyone here at the help desk will get involved in editing; you may wish to raise this at some of the WikiProjects, esp. India and Film. That said, if you cannot find sufficient sources to show notability, then perhaps the subject simply isn't notable enough? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned many of reliable sources (news articles from mainstream media properly based on this person) still why it's not eligible ? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 20 October 2023 review of submission by Martha1

Reviewer TimTrent declined this article because I used copyright material -- it was my own copyright -- I wrote the obituary in the paper that I quoted. Unfortunately, i couldn't figure out how to give my permission for its use in wikipedia --So I changed the wikipedia article to get rid of the copyright material.. (I still footnoted the source.) Is there anything more I should do? I am really not very good at this -- I promise I won't try to write another article. However, I have put a lot of work into this one and want to know what to do to get it published. Will TimTrent get back to me when he can or has the article been cancelled? Advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Martha1 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft may be resubmitted. If you have contacted TimTrent I'm sure he will get back to you. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See donating copyrighted materials for information on donating text for use in Wikipedia- though original text is preferred. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 20 October 2023 review of submission by M1-sh283h1

I am unsure as to why my article was declined, a very generic reason was give and I am not sure how to improve or edit the article - any advice or guidance would be most appreciated. M1-sh283h1 (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M1-sh283h1: my guess would be that it was rejected (not 'declined') because it isn't a viable draft for an encyclopaedia article.
BTW, do you have some involvement with Shoppp3D? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 20 October 2023 review of submission by Angiemcc2023

I have created this draft and have mentioned it all in shot terms. Can I get help to improve it and add the details that are required to submit the draft again? 

Angiemcc2023 (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Angiemcc2023: the onus is on you to create the draft and find the necessary sources etc., we don't get involved in draft creation here at the help desk. If you have specific questions about the process, you're welcome to ask those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 20 October 2023 review of submission by MoltenSalts02

Hello, I recently submitted this draft that was declined almost immediately for not providing reliable sources. I tried to follow this guide as best I could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide

Could someone help give me some feedback so that I can improve the draft? Thank you MoltenSalts02 (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of your references are from the publisher of the journal; an article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the subject. See WP:NJOURNAL about what makes a journal notable and how you can show it. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MoltenSalts02: my guess (and it is only that) is that because all the citations are to the publisher's own website, the reviewer felt that this wasn't sufficient to verify the information. You can only use close primary sources to support entirely non-contentious statements, such as the name of the editor, or the frequency of publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 20 October 2023 review of submission by Sadid Lailuma

Dear yours, the text that I sent to be published on Wikipedia is my biography. As a public person, I consider it as interesting for many people. Would you be so kind as to advise me on how should I modify my text to become acceptable to be published? I'm already registered and I have a Wikipedia username and password for a while. Sadid Lailuma (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadid Lailuma The only content you submited in the draft was your name, but Wikipedia is not a place to publish your biography. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what they want to say about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadid Lailuma: you asked about this already yesterday, and I said that just writing your name is not a viable article draft. That's beside the bigger point that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadid Lailuma You seem to be ignoring what we are writing here, and creating new sections of this page with every comment. Please read and edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 20 October 2023 review of submission by KfcClash

why my draft was rejected? KfcClash (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not a place to put the biographies of non-notable Youtubers on. Qcne (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok. still there are alot of youtubers that have wikipedia pages and there is a question in the send draft for review to choose the most appropriate category and one of the options is "Biography of a living person" KfcClash (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, people must meet the WP:NPEOPLE criteria in order for an article to be written about them. Your draft did not prove this YouTuber met that criteria. Secondly, biographies of living people have exceedingly strict referencing requirements. Your draft had no references other than a link to his channel. Qcne (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you. KfcClash (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth did you re-submit it? It was rejected. Don't do that again. Qcne (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 21

00:12, 21 October 2023 review of submission by CooperRiverRunner

After an article is reviewed/declined and then resubmitted, does it get any priority for a second review or does the process start all over again at the beginning? The first draft took nearly two months to be reviewed. CooperRiverRunner (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CooperRiverRunner I fixed your link for proper display; the whole url is not needed. Resubmissions are treated no differently than initial submissions. Reviews are conducted by a limited number of volunteers in no particular order. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two months is actually pretty good; the current backlog is four months, and that's really just an average. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CooperRiverRunner: this isn't a direct answer to your question, and may not be what you want to hear, but I'll say it anyway. You would make the reviewer's job easier, thereby possibly encouraging a quicker review, if you were to cut down some of the content (including references – 53 sources, really?!). The 'High School Career' section is already longer than many athletes' entire articles. And in the 'College Career' 2023 section, do we really need to know the blow-by-blow account of her every competitive run this year? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a log of everything someone has done; it would be better (not just for the reviewer, but more to the point for the future reader) if you focused on the truly important and noteworthy things, those that are likely to be remarkable still in ten year's time, rather than trying to cover every detail. As it stands, you're tempting the reviewer to just decline this for the easiest reason they come across, which probably would be insufficient citations (with much of the biographical information unreferenced, in violation of the WP:BLP rules). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 21 October 2023 review of submission by Waqar ul Aziz Khan

we want to create a bio page of Waqar Khan, Forex Expert but it is rejected. What is its solution. Waqar ul Aziz Khan (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Waqar ul Aziz Khan: we don't have "bio pages", we have encyclopaedia articles about topics which are deemed notable. There is no evidence of notability in this draft, which is why it has been rejected. And rejection means there is no "solution"; this is the end of the road.
In any case, you should not be writing about yourself; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 21 October 2023 review of submission by Nurul.easn

for accepting my article Nurul.easn (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 21 October 2023 review of submission by SkylerClock

The page doesn't actually promote any kinds of things SkylerClock (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SkylerClock your draft has been rejected and will soon be deleted. You also vandalised the Voting page, which is prohibited. I have undone your vandalism. Qcne (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single sentence is promotional, correctly rejected and tagged for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 21 October 2023 review of submission by 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:A422:9C2:F51F:3416

New article rejection, as Asgog Castle is a historical place and is currently part of Asgog Loch article, Asgog Castle CANNOT be listed in Categories on its own merit?

That is why I submitted for Asgog Castle to have its own article. 

2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:A422:9C2:F51F:3416 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible to have a separate article on the castle, but you need to show that it is notable either by WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a castle recorded in 1581 is notable, it was besieged and eventually destroyed by Clan Campbell in 1646! The castle deserves its own article, so it can be listed in Wikipedia articles in its own right, which is impossible as part of Asgog Loch article.. 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:A422:9C2:F51F:3416 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may well suggest that, and you could even prove right, but nevertheless we don't determine notability by endorsement. Provide reliable sources showing that this meets either GNG or NBUILD, and then you're welcome to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have added more refs, including historic environment Scotand, designation LB12082 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:A422:9C2:F51F:3416 (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content appears to have been copied from Asgog Loch without attribution? Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If historic environment Scotland think Castle Asgog is notable enough to give a designation, but Wikipedia editors know better, I give up! 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:A422:9C2:F51F:3416 (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying it's not notable? Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 21 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest

Does anyone think this article is ready to submitted for review. I think it has enough sources to justify a Wikipedia article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dwanyewest, the key to success in writing a Wikipedia article is providing references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. What I am seeing are statistics pages and passing mentions, plus one local newspaper article about her athletics and academics in high school. Her claim to notability is as a professional soccer player, not as a good student and good athlete in high school. There are literally millions of such people. Where is the significant coverage devoted to her as a professional athlete? Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 21 October 2023 review of submission by 103.150.206.94

What my fault? Please tell me to I fix them and iam also on wikipedia plz accept my submission 103.150.206.94 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been rejected as non-notable, time to drop it and move on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 21 October 2023 review of submission by OliverRoads

My draft has been rejected due to a lack of reliable sources. I have done my best to include sources, and it looks OK to me, so can somebody explain where I am going wrong? OliverRoads (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OliverRoads: your draft was declined (not rejected) because half the sources (Blogspot, Discogs) are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah okay.
yes but Discogs was Just used used a online source for the track versions that were listed in the Case bound CD book. I found it easier this way to copy some of the info than to write it out word for word from the CD Case Bound Book.
If it is useful I can remove the cite for discogs.
I know about Blogspot but it was included because Davearama the creator of that blog page is mentioned in the case bound CD book.
Also noting that there was not much info online as this CD set is out of print (now only available seccond hand) and the temporary licencing rights (not sure if this is the best wording) to Rhino to release Bananarama Stuff (As well as other London Records Artists) expired years ago. Don't know hat Demon has to do with it though.
If there was more info online i would cite and include it.
It seems that this this collection had Tracks licensed courtesy of Warner music UK ltd. OliverRoads (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information does not need to be online, but it does need to be reliably published and (to contribute towards establishing notability) independent and containing WP:significant coverage of the subject of the article (see golden rule). On a quick look, it doesn't look to me as if a single one of your sources meets that tripartite criterion. ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 22

00:11, 22 October 2023 review of submission by TheCuratedConsumerJoshua

I am having trouble getting correct citation practices down. I have read and rearead, The guideline at WP:ILC and the tutorial is at WP:INTREFVE. I am still having some disconnect with creating the proper authoritative sources. If anyone has any advise or recommendations I would be very appreciative for the support! TheCuratedConsumerJoshua (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheCuratedConsumerJoshua. Wikipedia already has an article, Greetings Tour, which does not even mention the Bend mural. I fail to see why the Bend mural requires its own separate article when it can be mentioned in the main article. Your draft currently has eight references, and six of them do not even mention the Bend mural and are therefore of zero value in establishing the notability of the Bend mural. The other two are clearly based on press releases and interviews with the artists, and are therefore not independent sources and do not establish the notability of the Bend mural. I recommend that you abandon your draft, and instead focus your efforts on improving and expanding Greetings Tour, which has not had substantive content edits for several years. Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:48, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Crystal S. Brown

What do I do to put my information out in the world? I am getting an error stating double gazing, prolimic??? Crystal S. Brown (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystal S. Brown: I rejected this draft, because it is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. It starts with "How deeply is the overturning of Roe V. Wade going to affect women of color?" – posing a question like that is the hallmark of an essay. And it is polemic, arguing a particular point of view: "In closing, we as women, at the core should have the right to choose the decisions we make with our bodies."
You can express your opinions on any number of blogging, social media, etc. platforms. However, Wikipedia is not the place to "put [your] information out in the world". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal S. Brown, I agree with DoubleGrazing. Your draft bears little resemblance to a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystal S. Brown: I agree with DoubleGrazing and Cullen328. Surely, the plight of women of color (and all women) in the US is an important subject, but not here.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Jrmango

I have been trying to write this page, but people have said the sources don't meed the Notability guidelines, but I can't seem to find sources that can, and the wording is kind of unclear. Jrmango (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrmango: what "people" have said that? It doesn't look like this has been reviewed, or have you made your previous attempts under a different account or IP? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jrmango, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and content like If you like this song, and would like to play it yourself, I must warn you that it is extermely difficult to find sheet music for it. A plain Google search yields almost nothing for it. is completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia editors never address our readers directly. and never use the word "I" in Wikipedia's voice. You need to provide references to independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the song itself, not coverage of the movie that the song is a part of. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an iencycolpedia is to give information to other people, so this would be helpful infformation that it would be very difficult to find sheet music for the song, so a person would not have to waste their time trying to look for it Jrmango (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jrmango No, that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. This encyclopedia summarizes independent reliable sources; it doesn't merely provide information. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Oxford Dictionary, an encycolpedia is "a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.", and that definition says nothing about it summarizing anything. Jrmango (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Five Pillars. It gives information to tell you Walmart has a sale on computers, but that is not valid encyclopedia content here. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it has been reviewed Jrmango (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can i have some help finding notable sources? Jrmango (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion about this draft in this section. We can't find sources for you- it's up to you to have sources in hand before you attempt the difficult task of writing a new article. See WP:BACKWARD. If you are unable to find sources that show notability, the topic would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Jopje dropje

I've been rejected multiple times by the same moderator for "not going in-depth enough". i think this is completely false, as i've made the complete documentation, explaination on how to download / use and reerences to the only original source i could find. also, i quite literally have the original creator of the programming language and the writer of the only source of information (Github page) sitting right next to me reviewing what i do. there are no other resources i could possibly link, and i've quite literally listed all information there is Jopje dropje (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jopje dropje: firstly, from what I can see, it looks like the draft was declined once, resubmitted immediately without any improvement, and then rejected. Not sure that counts as "rejected multiple times".
This draft has no evidence that the subject is notable. And based on what you say, it seems that absence of evidence on this occasion really is evidence of absence. We don't want to hear what the developers or others closely associated with the subject have to say about it, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources; GitHub meets none of those criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
then your system must be broken. i've quite literally made multiple changes to it after the first review, including a section going in-depth about the installation and what to do when you want to compile the source code. as for the significant coverage, pages like github are quite literally the only way to get significant coverage in the world of programming. Jopje dropje (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history is as DoubleGrazing described. You have edited it since the rejection, too, but the history indicates you resubmitted it without changes prior to the rejection. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that some topic areas may be underserved due to a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources, but this requirement is necessary for verifiability purposes and in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to summarize such sources, not what a topic says about itself. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jopje dropje, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable topics, not for writing about or promoting your own pet projects. KylieTastic (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, didn't wikipedia start off as a pet project? contracting nerds to do work for them without pay? second of all, how is an in-depth documentation about a sophisticated programming language, made by a team of people, considered "promoting"? an awnser would be much apreciated, although i am beginning to suspect you're just a troll Jopje dropje (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jopje dropje. Firstly, please don't call @KylieTastic a troll. They are an experienced reviewer.
Wikipedia articles are not designed to simply state that a topic exists. You have GitHub or all the software listing sites for that. Instead, Wikipedia articles should paraphrase what reliable, independent, secondary sources state about a topic. The independent part of that is really important: we don't want to see articles (like your draft) where the only source is a link to the project homepage. That isn't enough to establish notability under the WP:NSOFTWARE criteria.
For your draft to be acceptable, you'd need to include significant coverage of the software in those reliable, independent, secondary sources. Tech magazines, reviews, etc. If there are no sources like that then there can be no article, unfortunately.
I hope that helps make you understand how Wikipedia articles work. Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's fine. i would like to know some sources considered "reliable, independent and secondary" that are actually related to the topic (programming languages). Jopje dropje (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jopje dropje Well, that's you to find as the author of the draft, but I would suggest as follows:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of creation), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis, review, discussion, or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website, and not interviews with people directly connected to the topic.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: Ideally we would like to see three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Finally, your draft in it's current form also breaks the WP:NOTGUIDE, as it's really just a tutorial on how to install and use the software. That is appropriate for a README, but not Wikipedia!
I understand we have pretty strict rules and it can seem frustrating but it's the only way to ensure Wikipedia doesn't devolve into a self-promotional spammy SEO-farmed mess. Qcne (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't find sources for you. It's your topic. You should have the sources in hand first before attempting the difficult task of writing a new article. Perhaps you could find other articles about programming(preferably good ones) to see what is looked for. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jopje dropje: when it's the makers of the software (or whatever) telling the world about their software (or whatever), that is by definition promoting - see WP:YESPROMO.
And let that groundless slur on KylieTastic be your last one. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, 22 October 2023 review of submission by Eboss09

How do I get it inclusive on wiki? and what would you suggest I improve on. Eboss09 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eboss09, I have rejected your draft so there is nothing more you can do. It will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 23

00:00, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Jrmango

Hello everyone, I would like to know if anybody could take a look at the draft I am writing, to see if the sources meet the notability requirements. If the link isn't already shared, this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mercedes-Benz_GLC_43

Thank you so much! 

- Jrmango Jrmango (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jrmango, your draft is overtly promotional and is more suited to a Mercedes marketing brochure than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and following it is mandatory. Cullen328 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, we already have an article Mercedes-Benz GLC where the variants are discussed. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the neutral point of view, I wonder if Mercedes would include a big issue with the car in their marketing material. Jrmango (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some edits and removed some of the language that made it sound like an ad for the car Jrmango (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 Jrmango (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still have this utterly meaningless marketing language: It combines elegance with power, offering a comfortable ride and modern amenities, which is the sort of promotiomal language that every car company on Earth spits out. And you are directly addressing readers which is not permitted and giving prices on various options, which is not permitted. To be frank, your draft is pretty much worthless, Jrmango. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328, It is not very kind to call someone’s work “worthless”. 76.82.37.201 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, thank you @76.82.37.201 Jrmango (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2023 ( UTC)
IP editor, I offer frank assessments based on 14 years of experience editing Wikipedia. I recommended removing all promotional drivel and Jrmango left much of it in. Do you consider this draft "worthy"? Do you think that it has any redeeming qualities? Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328I believe that you still should not call something “worthless”. While @Jrmango could remove some more things, I find it to be an informative article. 76.82.37.201 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could have said "rejected" instead, new IP editor. Would that have been better? Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, Wikipedia articles are not for merely providing information. It provides information to tell you that Walmart has a sale on televisions, but that is not valid encyclopedia content. Not everything that is informative is acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Dinusha Jayaranga

My submission was get decline I am create in this biography for Dr. John Chresta if there anything i can prove this is authorised from the person let me know please Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinusha Jayaranga That's exactly the problem - you're not supposed to write Wikipedia articles for someone who asked you to write one for them. -- asilvering (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinusha Jayaranga: this draft is basically a CV with a personal statement, and as such wholly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. I'm surprised it was only declined, not rejected, but either way it is pending deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how can i add it to the wikipedia officially, can you help me that Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinusha Jayaranga No, we're not going to help you upload someone's CV to wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
undersa Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
understood, if i rewrite this in a biographical stand point without mentioning the personal details that much, and focused on the storyline as much as i can? please reply how can i fix this Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinusha Jayaranga: I would suggest that you read a few biographical articles, especially ones rated good, to get an idea of what is required.
You need to first find sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. You then summarise what those sources have said – you do not just write what you want, and even less what the subject wants you to write.
Speaking of which, the very next thing you should do is disclose your conflict of interest. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Mrinmoy Sharma

please help me with this 

Mrinmoy Sharma (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrinmoy Sharma: I'm sorry, but you will need to be a lot more specific than that. What is your question?
That said, you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. And anything you do write, either in this draft or elsewhere, must be supported by reliable published sources. As it stands, your draft is just you telling the world about yourself, which is not what Wikipedia is about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mrinmoy Sharma, unreferenced biographies of living people are forbidden by policy, and your draft is entirely unreferenced. Plus, as you have already been informed, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. In my experience, over 99% of people who try to write an autobiography fail. The occasional successful results are people who are indisputably notable and who have taken the time to deeply understand Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and behavioral norms, and have the dedication to do some very challenging work for inexperienced editors. People like that are extremely rare. Your draft is nowhere near being close to being acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:17, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Abayan leo

i have a published the article of a personality who is well known but declined 

 Abayan leo (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abayan leo: just to be clear, you haven't published anything, you have submitted a draft, which has been declined, and you have then resubmitted it.
The draft has all sorts of issues, but it was mostly declined for lack of evidence of notability. On which point, "well known" is not what we're looking for; we need to see significant coverage of this person in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing this was resubmitted after an 11 character "improvement" by Abayan Leo. I took the unusual step (for me) of reviewing for a second time with the suggestion that resubmission a further time without substantive improvement would probably lead to rejection. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 23 October 2023 review of submission by BrendaBerry13

I don't understand what the issue with the language is. I've had many people read it and they feel it is neutral. Please tell me exactly what is not neutral and an example of what you're looking for. I use Wikipedia often and feel my article reads like they do. Please advise with some specifics. Thank you. BrendaBerry13 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrendaBerry13, your draft relies on unreliable book sources. Rainbow Bridge Books is a fringe publisher. Morris Publishing is a self-publishing platform. Here are just a few of the inappropriate phrases and sentences: It refers to the time of transformation we live in now, on an individual, community, or global level. and It is an imaginary map of the universe, an archetypal cosmic landscape "energetically anchoring” to the curandero, a practitioner of curanderismo. and The Pachakuti Mesa Tradition is a living tradition taught to people worldwide and seen as a way to connect with the natural world to find healing and guidance. It is a container of spirit, a soul-infused artifact of the material world, a living and dynamic pattern upon and with which practitioners can consciously do personal and planetary energy healing work. and These teachings offer a vision of a more harmonious and integrated world and guide those seeking to cultivate greater awareness, compassion, and wisdom. I could go on and on. All of this language is highly promotional, and promotion of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia. We never use that kind of language in Wikipedia's voice. Acceptable Wikipedia articles must be written in a rigorously neutral fashion. Acceptable sources for an ethnographic topic like this would be books written by scholars and published by university presses or articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Your current sources are weak. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Charlotte Brum

I don't understand the detailed reasons why the article is been declined over and over again. Charlotte Brum (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charlotte Brum. It's been declined once and now rejected by me. That's only two reviews. Frankly, though, your draft is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. It reads like an advert, only exists to promote the company, and has not a single source.
Please carefully read Your First Article and let me know if you have any specific questions.
If you created this article for your boss, please have them read WP:BOSS. If you paid the organisation money to create this article, please offer them a refund. Qcne (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Can I understand why other translation companies do have an article on Wikipedia?
This one seems promotional: Lionbridge
This also seems promotional: Inc. (magazine) Charlotte Brum (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charlotte Brum Please see other stuff exists. That said, your draft had no independent reliable sources. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself.
Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID; if you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 23 October 2023 review of submission by 118.148.101.177

I am wondering if someone can please check this draft. I have changed it to say, Alex Kuch (born Alexander Marcus Dan Aurel Kuch) instead of Alexander Marcus Dan Aurel Kuch (born 19 April 1995). But not sure if that's suitable etc. Thank you. Really appreciate it. 118.148.101.177 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been submitted and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:10, 23 October 2023 review of submission by JewelHL

Hi there, This Wikipedia page has been declined because of the referenced sources. The sources I referenced were from either Flicks' website or from press releases published by independent publications.

Since these were insufficient/unreliable, can you please provide examples of sources that would be considered acceptable to reference in this case? Aside from websites and independent publications, what sources would you expect a company Wikipedia page like this to reference? JewelHL (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JewelHL: for notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, books, etc.) that are reliable and wholly independent of the subject. Your draft currently cites no such source.
In fact, the draft should be mostly written by summarising what these sources say, with each source cited against the information it has provided. That would also ensure that the contents are adequately referenced. In your draft, most of the content is unsupported by citations. Which among other things begs the question where, exactly, is that information coming from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:General Catalyst

Hello! I recently submitted Draft:General Catalyst for submission and have added WP:notable sources. I made adjustments based on feedback, but the article has not been reviewed. Is there anyone who would be willing to give it a look and let me know what you think? Thanks! Justwatchmee (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justwatchmee: as it says on top of the draft, "Review waiting, please be patient." We have over 3,000 drafts awaiting review, and we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 24

02:13, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Drcool 25

How to edit that it doesn't appear as promotional/advertisement Drcool 25 (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drcool 25: you shouldn't be writing about a business you're associated with, as it is almost impossible for you to do it in a neutral, disinterested manner.
In any case, this draft has been rejected, so the question is somewhat redundant now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:30, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Hamzaxeros

My page has been declined, I don't know the exact reason, And I am not familiar with Wikipedia, I read the auto biography policies, But I think I followed it, Kindly mention the exact things that are decline, Because I don't know what thing got wrong exactly. Thank you much for your service. Have a great day Hamzaxeros (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamzaxeros: you say you read the autobio 'policies', yet you went ahead a wrote one? Please have another look at WP:AUTOBIO.
This draft was declined because there is absolutely no indication of, and more to the point no evidence for, notability. The sources are primary, and mostly don't support anything in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Musitafa Kalyowa

I would like to help me with the best way I can reference this article to be accepted Kalyowa Musita (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Musitafa Kalyowa: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:36, 24 October 2023 review of submission by VishalParmar1

Re-submitted my article. VishalParmar1 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VishalParmar1: no, you haven't. And given that this draft was rejected already three months ago, you shouldn't, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Iamrohj

Mukesh Chhabra wikipedia Page has been deleted can you please look into it and let me know. and if possible revert it back again to the older version. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukesh_Chhabra Iamrohj (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamrohj: it hasn't been deleted, but rather moved into the draft space, where it is awaiting review:  Courtesy link: Draft:Mukesh Chhabra. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 24 October 2023 review of submission by HAjfdi

I want publish my own article because I am Student HAjfdi (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAjfdi: well, don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging site. We publish articles on topics that are deemed notable. In any case, you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Sathish punarjan

wikipedia place to find small hospital to big hospitals information. is this wikipedia only for rich peoples and rich private sectors only. why you dont allow small hospital that serve with ayurveda Sathish punarjan (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sathish punarjan: this draft (such as it is) is purely promotional, with no encyclopaedic content; accordingly, it has been rejected and is pending deletion. Wikipedia is not the right place for you to promote your hospital, you need to use other platforms for your marketing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sathish punarjan Wikipedia is not a business directory. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. You should use social media to tell the world about this business. Note that Wikipedia summarizes the prevaling scientific consensus that Ayurveda is pseudoscientfic and has no evidence it is effective in treating cancer. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:10, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Guinnesslassie


Hello, I have a query regarding the draft page Helen Leahey (musician/voice over artist). Although the article links to many independent, reliable news articles reporting on the artist it is being continuously declined. Are you able to say what is missing? The notability of the person in question is that she was the first Guinness World Record holder for Lowest Vocal Note by a female. Culturally this is significant as until her record, women were only awarded 'highest vocal note by a female'. The artist also has TV appearences (Voice Germany and Voice UK) and credit on IMDb for a voice over in a major film (Exorcist: Believer - 2023). Thank you in advance for any help with this matter. ~~~~ Guinnesslassie (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guinnesslassie Please disclose your connection with Ms. Leahey; see conflict of interest and paid editing. You must have a connection since you took an image of her and she posed for you. This would include working for her directly or for the publishers of Guiness World Records.
You have documented her activities, but not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her and what makes her a notable person. If it's the world record, you will need to offer sources that discuss that aspect of her more in depth than the sources you have currently. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness World Records confer zero notability, do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your posts suggest that you are Ms. Leahey, and others suggest you aren't. Only a single person should exclusively be operating your account. If you are her, writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I am Leahey's public manager and agree that it is of course more desirable for someone completely independent to write about the artist's activities. Leahey's significance has slipped under the radar until now. There are articles about persons with less credentials on Wikipedia. A quick google search will bring up countless articles about Leahey's activities and official press pictures from independent news outlets. Guinness World Records has officially published about Leahey and is sourced in the draft, a long with many independent news outlets which have also discussed Leahey and her public work to date in detail. To limit the risk of the article being permanently deleted, could you advise what would be the best way forward? Is this article being declined because of the question of notability or the sources used? Thank you very much in advance for any help. It is appreciated, especially as I am new to being a contributor here on Wikipedia. Guinnesslassie (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Guinnesslassie: given what you say, you must declare your paid-editing status; please do this as your very next edit. I will post information on this on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guinnesslassie First, you must declare your paid relationship- this is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. See WP:PAID.
Please see other stuff exists. Existing inappropriate articles does not mean that more inappropriate articles should be added. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inapproprpiate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify any inappropriate articles you see for possible action.
Persons in your position trying to force the issue of creating an article are not usually successful; articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who take note of coverage of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Your client needs to be aware of the very good reasons to not want an article. We have no interest in publicity or marketing efforts to increase her exposure. Our only interest is in summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 24 October 2023 review of submission by KannappaSara9

Have attached Reliable resources already. Can you guide me through what exactly the reliable sources need to be attached? KannappaSara9 (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1181644783"