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 Interstellaradrian (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 21 January 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Boston Proper, LLC). 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


January 15

00:59, 15 January 2024 review of submission by 71.105.135.126

Various newer updates have been placed along with more publicity and notable placements have been cited, looking for updated placement and approval of the platform wiki page, specifically since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Terror?wprov=sfti1# has been placed.

There seems to be an overt sense of targeted gate keeping in comparison to other platforms placed with wiki pages 71.105.135.126 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking, if anything, but this draft has been rejected a long ago, and will therefore not be considered further. If new evidence of notability is now available which wasn't considered at the time, you may make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your last comment seems to be a reference to Other stuff exists. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of articles which, if they were submitted today, would not be accepted. Ideally, these would be improved or deleted, but as this is a volunteer project, people work on what they choose to work on, and that doesn't happen a great deal. ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:04, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Bhdshoes2

Hi - is there a way to link the Wikidata (Q17123817) number from German Wikipedia to this draft page? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhdshoes2: the links between different projects are added after the draft has been published as an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry - I'm unclear - i meant that there's a data number but i don't see a place in the draft side panel to add the wikidata number, not a link to German page. (I assume the number exists in first place bc someone once made a German page). Can a person add a wikidata number to a draft page? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. A draft is not (yet) part of the encyclopaedia, and should not be linked to Wikidata. ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Judyvu214

Hi, I've just been denied my draft, how did I make it get approved? I want to provide information, but somehow it's still being considered as promoting action. Can you guide me on how to fix this? Judyvu214 (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Judyvu214/sandbox
@Judyvu214: you need to read and understand the relevant notability guidelines, in this case WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, and provide evidence that satisfies either of these. Until you do, and until your draft summarises what reliable and independent sources have said about this company, you're just "telling the world about it", ie. promoting it, by definition. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 15 January 2024 review of submission by 2001:44C8:41CB:8C2:7821:9AE0:592A:383E

Please tell me whats wrong? I have cited references , theres nothing here from the owner, I followed all your rules. Thank you. 2001:44C8:41CB:8C2:7821:9AE0:592A:383E (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have two sources (please see referencing for beginners about how to format references) both of which just document the availability of courses, and much of your draft is unsourced; any article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:16, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Wdallen49

I'd like to get some assistance in correcting this article for compliance with Wikipedia standards. Is there someone who can help with this? Wdallen49 (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Edward ambele

I need to be directed in this article on how to fix it Edward ambele (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward ambele: this draft has been rejected, hence there is nothing to "fix" as it won't be considered further. It is completely unreferenced, with no indication (let alone evidence) of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:07, 15 January 2024 review of submission by QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI

please approve this page. because this is most vip of sahiwal pakistan QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:09, 15 January 2024 review of submission by QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI

please what a problem QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI: would you say that looks like an encyclopaedia article to you? No, didn't think so.
Apart from that, and the complete lack of apparently notability, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in any case, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't post the same question over and over. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 15 January 2024 review of submission by QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI

what a problem please help me QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI we do not allow promotion of any kind. Qcne (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 15 January 2024 review of submission by KevinMorgan2

Hi, why is this article being rejected? It is not promotional. KevinMorgan2 (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may need to revise your definition of promotional because each and every line of that draft is promotional in nature. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 15 January 2024 review of submission by 2601:601:100:D260:B45B:E5C:76D2:CF97

Is there one way I could improve this draft? 2601:601:100:D260:B45B:E5C:76D2:CF97 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, no, because it has been rejected and therefore won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Dpn427

How do we properly use reliable sources like articles, etc... It seems how I cited information was incorrect. Thank you! Dpn427 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at the Teahouse (WP:TH#Properly citing sources). Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:29, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Trainrobber66

How can I expand on my Draft. I'm in a bit of a pickle on what sources to find about the find and need a bit more guidance on how to add more. trainrobber 21:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for disruption. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:35, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Wikipcontributor800

My draft has been declined on ground that it is not adequately supported by reliable sources. But I supported article with resources. I dont know how to proceed further. Wikipcontributor800 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may be blacklisted. Double check, happened with me. That or they are too flawed even for Wikipedia. Wilhelm444 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please don't give misleading answers. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipcontributor800: Goodreads and IMDb are not reliable sources, as already mentioned in the draft comments. Adding citations to section headings is not recommended, as it (among other things) does not make it clear which part(s) of the section is supported. And it would be great if you could translate the 'meta information' in the references; in other words, publication titles can of course be left in the original language (although they can also be additionally translated with the trans-title parameter), but the descriptors and other details should be translated so that it is clear to an English-language reader what the sources actually are.
In any case you have resubmitted this, so another reviewer will take a look at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not have an answer again. Sorry for the inconvenience. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:33, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Justaguy003

Hello,

Which part are you rejecting? The logo is important because of The Long Crimson Line, which is sourced. The topic itself is important because it is a Veterans society with a long ranging benefits for Veterans. Justaguy003 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Justaguy003: what do you mean 'which part'? The whole draft has been rejected. That's because there is no indication that the subject is notable. It cites only one close primary source, whereas we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. And the reviewer felt that for a society founded only two months ago, such sources are highly unlikely to exist, hence why they rejected rather than merely declined the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

01:05, 16 January 2024 review of submission by McMi!!ian

Hello,

I am trying to publish a page on Storm Internet Services (please note: I do not work for this company). I am trying to publish this page so that Storm Internet Services can be added to the list of Canadian ISPs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_internet_service_providers_in_Canada

There are several companies on that list with less references, that read more like advertisements. I am wondering why these entries were accepted, but the one about Storm Internet Services has been rejected? McMi!!ian (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be suspicion you were hired to advertise this company. Whilst the others for whatever reason were accepted. Someone higher up may let you publish it if you get enough attention. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilhelm444: I'm sorry to say, nothing in your answer is correct; please don't give misleading 'advice'. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@McMi!!ian: we don't assess drafts by comparing to articles that may exist out there; there is almost certainly a completely unreferenced article among the 6.7m or so in the English-language Wikipedia, and that would mean that we can accept every draft without any sources at all. Also, those articles you refer to may not have been 'accepted' as such; they may predate the AfC process, or have been created by users with sufficient permissions to publish directly. (PS: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:33, 16 January 2024 review of submission by 103.144.27.118

Why I'm getting rejected ? 103.144.27.118 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected as it is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:55, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Wilhelm444

Is it possible to use your own personal evidence as a source? I do not want this topic to be left alone, I feel strongly about it. Wilhelm444 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilhelm444, You cannot do anything with this draft as it has been rejected and tagged under CSD G3 criteria for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for any time wasted. I do intend on becoming a journalist now, it was not a hoax. It lacked all evidence except my small community's witness to this cult. I may go to a more expert on the topic and then publish the article. If it is cited one day, I may finally write the article I hoped of making. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilhelm444: no, it isn't possible to use 'personal evidence'. Sources must be not only published, they must be reliable and secondary. Wikipedia isn't for recording your own experiences, it is for summarising what published sources have said about a subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Andykatib

I was wondering if this article is ready to submit. The article covers the film development, casting, and production process. I have also attached reviews. There are 12 sources in the reference list. I have done Google searches but there are not too many sources on the series. Do you think it is ready yet or is there still room for improvement? I could archive the references if it helps. Andykatib (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Kingnuel001

i am requesting assistance to add this article as its being constantly declined because of lack of enough references and i can see other articles not up to this that are being accepted 

Kingnuel001 (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingnuel001: never mind other articles, they have no bearing on this. Your draft has failed to demonstrate that the subject is notable. And you have now created this so many times, that although you finally disclosed your COI, you are getting close to being blocked for promotional editing. My advice would be to stop now, and find something else to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingnuel001 Please see other stuff exists; there are many reasons that inappropriate articles could exist, this cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. that another article exists does not mean that it was "accepted" by anyone. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, inappropriate articles can get by us and take time to deal with. If you would like to help us, please identify any inappropriate articles you see so action can be taken. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:25, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot

The Tromanale Filmfestival was the only counterpart festival of the Berlinale in Berlin - and it was very specal because of its underground feeling touch. There are many Wikipedia-Sides, that reference to the Tromanale. But all these references are dead links, because there is still no Tromanale Wikipedia Side on the english part of Wikipedia. In the German Part of Wikipedia there ia a Tromanale page. I can not really understand what the matter is. There are many Dead links on Wikipedia because the Tromanale-Links are red, there is a German Wikipedia Side of the Tromanale - so why cant there be a english side of the Tromanale? Tromaggot (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tromaggot: the reason (for the time being, at least) why there isn't an article on this subject is that no one has written one. Or to be more precise, you have written a draft three times, and three times abandoned it, causing the drafts to be deleted after six months. The fourth attempt is now awaiting review. Does that answer your question?
As for the redlinks you mention, there is no fundamental problem with having redlinks.
And whether the German-language Wikipedia has an article on this subject isn't strictly relevant, as each language version is completely separate.
BTW, do you have some connection with this subject? If so, please see WP:COI. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the references from the homepage tromanale.org - Now there are only references from official Berlinale Homepage and old online newspaper articles. Tromaggot (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Justsstdesigns

what wrong with this article 

Justsstdesigns (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Justsstdesigns: what's wrong with it is that it's WP:ADMASQ, and you haven't disclosed your paid editing. And even if/when you do, you still aren't allowed to use Wikipedia to promote your clients. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:32, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Fuzeen

Draft:Pureland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzeen (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why you had rejected my article Fuzeen (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested in things you made up one day. Qcne (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But really this is true that Pureland has established yesterday. Fuzeen (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read made up. Qcne (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not me that I had established Fuzeen (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? Qcne (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am Pakistani and a Bangladeshi unknown guy created this Pureland. Fuzeen (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Qcne (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my article Fuzeen (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it has been rejected. Qcne (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can I do now? Fuzeen (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, maybe you could improve existing Wikipedia articles. Qcne (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who made it up. If it hasn't been discussed by several independent reliable sources, Wikipedia isn't interested. Period. ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 16 January 2024 review of submission by 2A02:AB88:7083:A480:FCA6:CFC4:8623:F434

Hi, is this page under approval or is it declined? thanks 2A02:AB88:7083:A480:FCA6:CFC4:8623:F434 (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted Draft:Susan_Kosti for review. Qcne (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Fuzeen

Please accept my article .I am not involved with this Pureland. Fuzeen (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you are involved or not the topic is not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered your question above @Fuzeen. Qcne (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Ranjetkumar66

Dear wikipedia admins. 'i am writing to a request the undeletion of the Wikipedia page for Dr. Pretit Samdani the page was recently deleted, and i believe there are compelling reasons for its reinstatement. Ranjetkumar66 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranjetkumar66 but it was not deleted- it's right here. But I declined it as there is no evidence the person passes our notability requirements. Qcne (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked as a sock.-- Ponyobons mots 20:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Bhdshoes2

- In trying to establish this subject as notable did I "over-peacock" with laudatory quotes? They are all quotes, not textual language. Trying to call attention to the sources establishing Sanders as a notable jazz player. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:00, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Toysrusisbad

can you submit it looks a wikipedia article Toysrusisbad (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Toysrusisbad

i put a lot of time into this please sumbit it Toysrusisbad (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Toysrusisbad

SUMBMIT IT NOW OR I WILL LEAK YOUR HOME Toysrusisbad (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toysrusisbad threats against other users are prohibited on this platform and will lead to your account being blocked. Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why the article being rejected Sasyikumar (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasyikumar: because there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 17

01:31, 17 January 2024 review of submission by 企業チェック

Wikiページの修正ポイントがわからず、どのポイントをどのように修正すれば良いのかサポートをお願い致します。 企業チェック (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation: I don't know what points to fix on the Wiki page, so please help me figure out which points to fix and how to fix them.
@企業チェック: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further, so there is nothing to fix.
Also, please communicate in English here on the English-language Wikipedia. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:49, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Bilalhasm

I want to contribute on wikipedia. I just want to know that which persons are quilified to be on wikipedia so i can create articles on wikipedia Bilalhasm (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilalhasm: we only accept articles on individuals (or any topic, for that matter) who are considered notable by Wikipedia standards. In the case of people, the relevant guideline is WP:BIO. There are additional considerations specifically applicable to articles on living people, which are detailed in WP:BLP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:00, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Investronaut

Hi, recently we have uploaded an listing of our organization but we are unable to understand the exact reason of rejection. Please could you guide us what needs to be done to approve the same. Investronaut (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Investronaut: is this User:Investronaut/sandbox the draft you refer to? It seems to be the only one you've created. What is it that you don't understand?
If you're writing about your organisation or any related subjects, you need to disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:COI.
Also, please note that Wikipedia user accounts are for use by a single individual only. So when you say "we", if there are more than one of you editing, you all need to have separate accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:31, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Exam26

The reason why I am requesting assistance is because I need help with finding references for my draft and currently I don’t know where to find and add references to my article. I need some help alright. Exam26 (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Exam26: where did you get this information from? That's what you need to cite as your sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Isley LIN

I only can find one reference to support my new draft. Could you please tell me if I couldn't find another reference, there is no chance that I summit it successfully, right? Isley LIN (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Isley LIN: that's correct, one source (and a pretty useless one, if I'm honest) is not enough to establish notability; we usually require three or more, and they must meet the standard detailed in WP:NCORP.
In any case, you're going about this WP:BACKWARD. You shouldn't first write what you want about the subject, and then try to find sources that support what you've written. You should start by finding a few reliable and independent secondary sources that have published significant coverage of the subject, summarise what they've said, and cite them as the sources.
BTW, what is your relationship to this business you're writing about? Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID, and action as relevant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Bilalhasm

How can i Improve this article Bilalhasm (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilalhasm: you can't, it has been rejected. And please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to your previous thread. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:48, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Afek91

This article is created to document a national monument in Tunisia under a project. We need help publishing the english article to be translated as soon as possible to other languages. Afek91 (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Afek91, there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Your draft is in the review pile and will be reviewed in due course, this could take over a month. Qcne (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Sadiquepatel

my article is getting declined Sadiquepatel (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and as you have been told "most sections are unreferenced. The tone is very promotional" Which part of this are you not understanding? Theroadislong (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 17 January 2024 review of submission by TaprootTomas

Hello why it was denied? What should i add/edit TaprootTomas (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TaprootTomas the draft has been rejected and won't be considered further, there is nothing you can do. Qcne (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 17 January 2024 review of submission by TaprootTomas

Whats wrong with the article? TaprootTomas (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TaprootTomas Please stop submitting this, it will never be accepted. Mach61 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the reason for that? it only explain a disabled function and why it was disabled TaprootTomas (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTADVERT, WP:N Mach61 (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand how my article is an advert, it is not TaprootTomas (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's written in a completely inappropriate way. It's written like a Blog post, not an encyclopaedic article. Qcne (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 17 January 2024 review of submission by BekimMusic

There is coverage on different blogs. Am I supposed to quote each one of them? BekimMusic (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BekimMusic, most blogs are not considered reliable sources. Adding them in would not contribute to a draft. Justiyaya 15:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 17 January 2024 review of submission by LeeEmbers

I submitted Ms. Donovan's page for publication during the Women in Red project last September. Ms. Donovan's name was already redlined. The rejection stated that my article wasn't well-sourced although it did contain references to full articles about Ms. Donovan or her works. These articles were in the NY Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic and Publishers Weekly. The rejection also mentions that my article relies too heavily on mentions of Ms. Donovan's uncle. However, there are only two references to him, the first of which shows how Ms. Donovan followed in her uncle's footsteps as an author of early LGBTQ literature.

I'm happy to make revisions but it didn't seem like the reasons for the rejection were in the spirit of the redline project, which is to ensure traditionally under-represented groups are featured on Wikipedia.

Thank you for any guidance you can provide. LeeEmbers (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 17 January 2024 review of submission by SanskarTiwari

I HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN ASSIGNMENT IN WHICH I HAVE TO CREATE AND PUBLISH A WIKIPEDIA PAGE , I KINDLY REQUEST YOU TO HELP ME WITH IT . SanskarTiwari (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SanskarTiwari PLEASE DO NOT SHOUT, it is considered rude. In any case, it is rather unfair for your teacher to have given you this assignment- it is incredibly difficult to create an article for new editors. Your draft was rejected as not suitable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanskar Tiwari, there are recommended ways to use Wikipedia editing in educational projects - it does not sound as if your assignment is within those recommendatiions. Please look at WP:Education program, and show it to your teacher. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 17 January 2024 review of submission by AGBetrGuy

Why was my submission rejected? AGBetrGuy (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the messages left on your user talk page by Mcmatter, your draft was a hoax, and so vandalism, and they have deleted it. If you think this is not appropriate, you need to take it up with them. ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Rizos01

I would like to know the status of of my resent re-submission. Thank you Rizos01 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to the draft for ease of answers: Draft:Harry J. Psomiades
@Rizos01, according to the notes left by the reviewer, you do not have enough reliable sources. There is also a note that your subject is likely to be notable - that is, it is likely a Wikipedia article about him would be approved - if you can add some good sources to the article. That's a good sign! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Classical Tadpole

Hello reviewers, I worked to fix anything and everything that was not reliably supported to the same standards as the other related entries that I have contributed to, in talking of secretive defense companies, yet this new entry was declined for the references not being enough to support the entry, apparently for the second time, without any specifics about what is unsupported, with the same exact error, levied by the same exact user, who devotes about a third of their page to grumbling about company entries, which I do concede have some inherent promotional aspects to them, but when documenting and describing what any company is and does, what would be the other option? In closing, I think that I have said everything that needs to be said, except that this was the first new entry that I worked on, and to the highest degree, because I personally experienced many of their services through my previous job/employer, and I noticed that it should have an (hopefully my/this) entry. Classical Tadpole (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, scanning the citations in your draft, only one of the 26 looks as if it even might meet the requirements of the golden rule. That is no 13, the NYT article - I can't see it behind the paywall, but it doesn't mention Afrisk in the title, which does not bode well.
Multiple citations on a single short sentence almost always indicate a writer who does not understand what Wikipedia requires in a citation, and thinks that adding more low quality sources will somehow add up to a high-quality one.
And note that official publications may be high quality in a general sense, but a rarely so for an organisation in Wikipedia's sense, because they are almost always either non-independent, or do not contain significant coverage of the subject.
Which are your three best sources - sources that are wholly independent of Afrisk, and contain significant coverage (not just routine corporate information) of it? ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would like to say that I did not intend for that message to come across as hostile in any way. To answer your last statement, I can see when and why exhaustive third-party coverage would be preferred or even required in some cases, but as aforementioned, while I will take the blame for any apparent improper citation formatting — not exactly the spirit of Wikipedia that I was told — all of the facts are supported by frequently used and accepted sources (Gov, archives, investor disclosures, agencies, groupings, reports, reviews); and even as far as the products and motives section, it is backed to the same degree as every other similar entry that I have seen, as what could describe the functions of a company more comprehensively than an archive of abstracts written about each, albeit after bias- and fact-checking. Classical Tadpole (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked at the draft but I can see a potential disconnect based on your rebuttal. The issue is not that things are not supported or believed to be true or not. The issue is, is it notable by Wikipedia standards. In a nutshell this means have others taken note of the company and written about them in depth in a published sources. The others in question must have done this on their own without any sort of payment or conflict of interest with the company they are writing on. This means any sort of press release, government documentation, standard business reporting or the like are generally not considered towards that notability requirement. It's not to say the sources are bad for validating information in the article it's just that they don't demonstrate they are notable to the standards we are looking for. I hope this helps. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is far more helpful, so the issue is not related to the article but rather to the secrecy of the subject itself; this does make sense in broad strokes, however, at least in my view, but when the subject is almost actively being covert and is objectively important — shown perfectly in their employee fulfillment social account, with 143k followers and following 2 (dept of defense and dept of justice) — it seems akin to not including a large amount of known accurate information about a secret government agency because they do not hire or respond to public relations firms, and that really seems to be not that far off in this case... (or I may be thinking too academically) Classical Tadpole (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Classical Tadpole. I'm sorry if my reply was not clear, and grateful to Mcmatter for explaining to you. Since Wikipedia insists that articles are mostly based on independent sources, not on what the subject or their associates say, it does mean that some kinds of subjects are less likely to be covered: examples that have come up before are music producers, and female artists. You may have found another class.
Having said that, the question of whether or not "they ... hire or respond to public relations firms" is not really relevant: it's more whether independent commentators have chosen to write about the company irrespective of whether the company cooperates. We have a long article about Howard Hughes, who was famously uncooperative with the media. ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, from which I can understand the angle from which you are looking, but again, in my possibly wrong opinion, there does seem to be, or need to be, some distinction from, using your example, a music producer or female artist, who also both likely work, in some form, for a music label and publisher, respectively, making the person and company inherently commercial and attention-based, i.e., presublably why the guideline you referenced would be written to be very particular and cautious (quickly-found example of my point: Northbridge); and just to push back a little against your response, whether you regcognize it or not, my comment about them not hiring a public relations firm to 'encourage' or 'inspire' articles is not exactly an out-of-bounds conspiracy theory; and not to even go into Howard Hughes, who was the Hollywood director, casino magnet, media tycoon of his time — I am really not sure if there exists a less apt comparison, maybe Donald Trump, although he practically was the Donald Trump of his time if you really look at it — and truthfully, I gleamed from your response a quiet agreement, but either way, I did find new informational coverage — by Bloomberg — for their teased public listing on NASDAQ, of which I will be adding, and then resubmitting the entry, with this discussion, for someone who has read this. (Finally, in parting, I would like to specifically thank McMatter, ColinFine, Baeu7, GoingBatty, and I'm tla for either starting or contributing to the entry, which for the aforementioned reasons I am glad to have led.) Classical Tadpole (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Submitted-- Classical Tadpole (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: I added an archive-url for the NYT reference, and it doesn't seem to mention Atrisk at all. I think the sentence fragment "the dominant structure in the Fortune 500 because of its corporate secrecy and being considered a domestic 'corporate haven.'" could be remove from the lead, along with references 12 & 13. GoingBatty (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I fixed it, I agree that it was not included/worded very well but it does seem important for context. I also fixed the note, I kept it because the differences between what a "corporate haven" can mean or imply are important to note. For example, it should not imply that Atrisk or most of the largest public companies in the world are in Delaware because they can walk all over the government and not have to follow any regulations. Baeu7 03:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 19

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

Hello,

I recently had an article rejected for reasons:

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

And comment: Please read WP:FRINGE

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

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

211.26.109.79 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:COVERSE. --ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that what the reviewer means is that the article is written from the point of view of the subject. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sczajic: firstly, your draft was not rejected, which would mean the end of the road for it; only declined, which means you can resubmit it, once you've addressed the decline reason. For that reason, also, there is no need to 'appeal' anything, only to improve the draft further.
We would typically need to see 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. Note that this excludes interviews, as well as articles that are clearly based on interviews even if they aren't necessarily formatted as such. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is helpful! I will expand and revise my draft by adding several additional references from national media outlets, of which there are no shortage. Sczajic (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to remember, Sczajic, is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


January 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Team,

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

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

May you be help with that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 21

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

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

@Vamshikadiyam: okay.. that's not a question, though.
You'll need to demonstrate that the person is notable either per WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1197724971"