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 Kurt3449 (talk | contribs) at 13:15, 23 January 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Sallie_Aprahamian). 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 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]
the draft article that i mentioned above plz make it live to main space Vamshikadiyam (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

January 23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1198218364"