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 ItsDaRetailGuy1025 (talk | contribs) at 04:19, 7 April 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:KSGG (FM)). 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


April 1

01:55, 1 April 2024 review of submission by 120.29.97.141

Can you help review this draft? Thank you 120.29.97.141 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been submitted and is awaiting review, please be patient. We don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. (And please log into your account whenever editing.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Editobd

What's the problem on this do you like to tell me? Editobd (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Editobd: the problem is, as the decline notice says, that the draft isn't supported by reliable sources, and there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are have a reference link of this knowledge panel .please check it Editobd (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia, as it is user-editable. Wikipedia has nothing to do with Google Knowledge Panels, which pull information from a variety of sources. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what sources are acceptable on wikipedia Editobd (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have rejected the draft "The melody resonated across borders, marking the dawn of his musical voyage" I know it's April Fools day but you are clearly not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Nazi Bases

  • Draft:Secret Nazi Bases

Hello, I am writing an article about this documentary, and I found lots of sources, such as Guernsey Press, and also one from Fox News. I know that unreliable sources are only used in certain cases. I put 2 Instagram posts as sources because I think it meets the criteria. However I am doing the best in this article. I am also adding press releases. Ange2444 (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases, Instagram and Fox News are not reliable sources and will need to be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok I thought Fox News was reliable Ange2444 (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FOXNEWS there is no consensus on whether it is reliable for non-political matters, though many think it isn't. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Connor World

Help me out 

Connor World (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been rejected, simply put, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms so do not warrant an article. Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Tt.aksoy

Hello, I am trying to publish this article as the intern of a marketing team. Our copywriters wrote this article in the most neutral point possible, but some info like graduation year, etc isn't really referencable as this info has been given by doctor Tiryaki himself. How can I edit and reference this article in the most neutral way possible? Thank you. Tt.aksoy (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tt.aksoy: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a channel for promoting anything. Wikipedia articles summarise what independent and reliable sources have said about a subject. Your draft, as I've already pointed out, is just your client telling the world whatever they want to tell the world about themselves. That is pure, unadulterated promotion. Tell your boss to read WP:BOSS, and to use his own website or eg. LinkedIn for his marketing needs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's a doctor, he has publications and things like that and we are stating this? There is nothing more to be said really Tt.aksoy (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tt.aksoy: if there's nothing more to be said, then I guess we can close this case?
Being a doctor, laudable as that may be, does not entitle anyone to an automatic pass into a global encyclopaedia; or even having "publications and things like that". You (or your PR team, rather) have presented no evidence that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards, not to mention that the draft is effectively entirely unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 1 April 2024 review of submission by MakkoBakkoJakko

Hi! My article was recently declined because my sources not being up to par. I understand why, as a lot of what I quote are interviews— so not secondary or independent of the subject. I understand that if no secondary or independent sources exist for a topic, it is not considered notable enough for inclusion with wikipedia.

K.S. Sze & Sons is an 101 year old jewellery store and a part of the already actively erased history of Hong Kong, and there isn’t much modern secondary press about it. They are mentioned in several shopping guides going back to the 80s, an independent shopping guide in the New York Times said they were her jeweller of choice in Hong Kong. They’re very well known in professional circles.

Within their niche, they’re largely known through word of mouth. They don’t get much press, and what they do get is largely interviews. With all of that, their history is being forgotten— even on their own website parts are getting lost.

I do believe I used the most proper sources I could. If still they are not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, it’s a shame but I do understand. MakkoBakkoJakko (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not every topic gets the coverage needed to merit an article, even if it seems like it should(for example, through being old). This store does not seem to merit an article at this time. That doesn't mean forever, just not now. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you could do, if you know a Chinese language, is to write about this on a Chinese language Wikipedia- it likely has different policies and those may permit these sources to be sufficient to sustain an article. Every language Wikipedia has different standards, and the English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply and suggestions! MakkoBakkoJakko (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Júlio Gralha

Hi there, could you please clarify why this submission is considered "not reliable", and what can I do to fix it. Thank you! Johannes Maximilian Júlio Gralha (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you must cite reliable, secondary sources, independent of the subject that discuss the subject in such detail that it appears that it's warranted to have an article on that subject. You have cited multiple "sources" in a way that appears to me like "zero effort". For example, footnotes 10, 17, 30, 31, 41 or 59 are just bare links to external sites which makes the reader guess what's to be cited. Multiple important sources for the text are 100 per cent dependent. None of the sources cited in the Prémio BIAL winners section indicate why that section would be noteworthy for inclusion in the article. All of this would be no problem if the article cited sources that tick all of the common criteria (Secondary, Independent, Reliable, Significant coverage). Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Nowhereman5691

hello

I'm Tomcsik Marcell, i'm verifying these informations myself. I just want to stay anonymous for the readers. Nowhereman5691 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and most of the infos cannot be cited as these are music theory analyses of the composition, and the description of the subject that is contained by the lyrics itself. Nowhereman5691 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand 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) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i cited enough sources. It's that hungarian article of me. The rest are the description of the content of the lyric and the music theoretical analysis of the work itself. It doesn't need to have sources because it is analysis. Nowhereman5691 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Yehabwiki

I need assistance with what to do as I have followed all the Wikipedia guidelines Yehabwiki (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, the draft was declined, rejected and now tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Left my usual deletion notice. Final warned for promo -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Jeanvaljeanjacket

Hello – since this was rejected on March 20, I have made substantial edits to prove this subject's notability. Is it possible to have this re-reviewed for submission? Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft, and convince them that there are sources sufficient to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 1 April 2024 review of submission by 64.118.223.196

This person has worked under the Carter Administration, as well as was notable during the COVID-19 Pandemic and featured in top tier including many TV interviews. He is the husband of the Health Commissioner for Westchester County. What other information is necessary for this to include? 64.118.223.196 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, as Wikipedia uses the term, is not about what a person has done, been, created, or published, or whether they are popular, famous, important, influential, innovative, or any other adjective you might apply. It is about whether there is sufficient independent material reliably published about them to base an article on - remembering 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.
Your draft has not one single reference that is independent of Amler, and therefore does nothing to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria.
I imagine that the last of the four reviewers who looked at it concluded that if you had failed to find a single independent reference by now, then there weren't any to be found, and therefore rejected it. It will not be considered further. ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:30, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Freshbox

Hi I just wanted to translate the page from the German version: curious what I did wrong and hope I can fix it as soon as possible as its my first translation :) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Vockenhuber (original page)

Thank you! hope I don t bother you, just want to be sure to do it right. Freshbox (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; please understand when doing translations that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on, say, the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on the English Wikipedia. It's up to the translator to figure that out first.
For an artist to merit an English Wikipedia article, you must summarize independent reliable sources that show how the artist meets the definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Chaseghuggins

I'm unsure how the article is unreliable? It's a newspaper clipping from 1918. Chaseghuggins (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself is not the issue. An article must summarize multiple independent reliable sources. One is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 1 April 2024 review of submission by 75.162.67.159

I received this response after submission for the VC-7 Squadron page: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at RVAH-7 instead." The problem is this is a DIFFERENT SQUADRON and the responder obviously doesn't understand the Naval History. How do I get someone to understand there's a difference and RVAH-7 has nothing to do with VC-7?! 75.162.67.159 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this with the reviewer? 331dot (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

02:49, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Patemagnan

Hi, I created an article about a synchronized skating team "Nova Sénior" using template used by other teams in Canada "Les Suprêmes (senior synchronized skating team)" :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Supr%C3%AAmes_(senior_synchronized_skating_team)", "NEXXICE":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXXICE" and "Black Ice":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ice_(synchronized_skating_team). This way all teams have the same pattern. I used exactly the same references. In fact, my references are up to date and do not lead to non-existent pages (without being mean to others). Note, the page is a starting point with basic information for now. One objective is for other Wikipedia pages on ice skating to reference the team page instead of just naming the team. Ex:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Synchronized_Skating_Championships By doing it this way, I thought it would make validation easier. If ISU.org and Skatecanada.ca (the two organizations being the main references in Canada and around the world) are not good references, then all team pages should be removed. So why are references good for some and not for others? (I may have missed something here) Patemagnan (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Patemagnan: per WP:NTEAM, sports teams must demonstrate notability according to the WP:GNG guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. Even if you consider this draft a "starting point" only, to be accepted for publication we still need to see evidence of notability. As for other articles that may exist on similar topics (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), we do not assess drafts by comparing them to existing articles, but rather by comparing them to the currently applicable guidelines. (If you have found other articles which similarly do not demonstrate notability and/or which have other problems, you're welcome to improve them or to flag up those issues by maintenance tags etc.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I will add more info and references to demonstrate notability. It's a lot of work to gather the information, especially when you have to go back in time and the sources of information move the documents around. On the team's site, I have given up tracking documents that move. Maybe I should use the Internet Archive more. Patemagnan (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:34, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Online Professionals

how would I know that my article was submitted successfully? Since my last edit on March 28 I didn't receive any message regarding the submission Online Professionals (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Online Professionals: the draft was declined on the 28th, after which you made one edit to it, but didn't resubmit it. Therefore it is not currently pending another review; you need to click on the blue 'resubmit' button to send it for another review. That said, this isn't a viable encyclopaedia article draft, so if you were to submit it as it currently stands, it would be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you have written appears to be the start of an essay, which is a completely different thing from a Wikipedia article: see NOTESSAY.
In order to write a Wikipedia article on the subject of online professionals, you need to
  1. Find several reliably published sources that talk at length about the subject "online professionals" specifically.
  2. Write a summary of what those sources say about the subject.
Not one of your current sources even mentions the phrase "online professional", and not one of them meets the criteria for a source to contribute towards establishing that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Editobd

What type Source i should on there? Do you like to tell me? 

Editobd (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Editobd: you need to stop this. It has already been pointed out repeatedly that the subject is not notable, and if you keep recreating this promo piece you will sooner or later get yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 2 April 2024 review of submission by 176.37.54.3

Hello, my article was previously declined, but I've made some changes and added more citation Does it look correct? Any recommendations highly appreciated 176.37.54.3 (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer, please resubmit the draft- we don't do pre-review reviews here. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly better referenced than when I reviewed it, but there is still quite a lot of unsupported content. For example, the entire 'Early Life and Education' section is unreferenced – where is that information coming from? What source provides this person's DOB (because it's not either of the two sources cited in the 1st para)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 2 April 2024 review of submission by SComfy

My article was rejected and I'd need help with making it suitable for submission. SComfy (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SComfy: your draft was only declined, not rejected (which is a terminal option). Before resubmitting, you need to address the decline reasons, namely: you need to show that this person is notable (none of the sources currently cited even contribute towards notability), and you need to support the content with reliable sources throughout (now some of the sources are less than reliable, and quite a lot of the content is entirely unsupported). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with this individual? 331dot (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Chparveshtaak

i do not have much reliable sources regarding this topic, So please help me to add this page to wikipedia articles. Chparveshtaak (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chparveshtaak, I don't see any improvement since the last decline, and there's already sufficient guidance available on how to improve it for it to be moved to the article space. However, if you can't find sources to establish notability and back up the statements, it can't be moved to the article space as your subject needs to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG for inclusion on Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Roblox678956568

Please fix the error the submission date will be changed to 9999 Years please can u do that? Roblox678956568 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean about 9999 years, but I have reverted your edit and restored the AFC comments and resubmission.
If you think that it is not ready to resubmit, you are welcome to remove the resubmission, but you should not remove the messages from the previous submission. ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Gauravdelhi.wiki

What should we do now with this draft? Should we edit the article or leave it? Gauravdelhi.wiki (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gauravdelhi.wiki, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Also, it seems like multiple people are using this account since you referred to yourself with 'we.' Is this the case? – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time. where i am living, representing yourself as a "we" is vogue. Gauravdelhi.wiki (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response; that makes sense. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Montagneverte

Hello, my draft has been rejected on the basis of a lack of inline citations. I am puzzled because I have given a long list of footnotes in the article. Help please! Montagneverte (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 2 April 2024 review of submission by 108.41.0.192

Hello - may we know the reason that this article was deemed contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? 108.41.0.192 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "we" do you mean that you work for DLC.link? If so the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. The draft talks very little about DLC.link. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Jfashl

Review for Approval of Draft Jfashl (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Call2action

We would like people to be informed about the background and history of our new unique media company for the Real Estate industry. It seems standard practice for companies to be documented and registered on Wikipedia so I do not understand the comment "contrary to Wikipedia's charter". Please advise if we did not structure this correctly, thank you. Call2action (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Promotion is that the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gave them my standard deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - with all due respect, we are not documenting our company for promotion here as our audience does not reside here. We are merely documenting our progress as a startup as do many other companies see: HubSpot
What is the effective difference in these companies history vs ours? Is there a clear policy guideline here as again our intent is not promotion. Call2action (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Call2action You don't need the whole url when linking, just the title. Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles that themselves may be problematic(which you would be unaware of) is not justification for other articles to exist. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits.
The effective difference is that most articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. If you have evidence that HubSpot employees wrote that article without disclosing that fact, please see WP:PAID for how you can provide that evidence.
"Startup" companies almost never merit articles. A company must typically become established and recognized as an authority or player in a field by independent sources to merit an article. Wikipedia has no interest in what your company considers to be important about itself and what it considers to be its history- that's what your own website and social media are for. Wikipedia is interested in what others consider to be important about and the history of, your company and how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an employee, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure. Please also see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. Call2action (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Seeking absolute truth

Hi, Thanks for your review. This article was declined primarily because "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". But I have pointed to secondary sources like National Academy of Education, National Academy of Arts and Sciences, and New Meridian that do not just make passing mention, but has Henry Braun's full bio. I also included independent sources (like "American Statistical Association Fellows list" and "Complete list of fellows of American Educational Research Association") to prove Henry's fellow statuses and awards. So, pretty much everything I wrote about him can be verified from other sources some of whom seem to give significant coverage. Would you please point to any flaw in my argument? Or would you please let me know if you consider sources like National Academy of Education and National Academy of Arts and Sciences to be unimportant? Thanks. Seeking absolute truth (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seeking absolute truth, the reference are fine. The criteria for having an article about an academic are listed at WP:NPROF and only one of these needs to be met. Braun meets two, as holding a named professorship and as a fellow. Many reviewers are unfamiliar with reviewing articles about academics. But the article as written reads like the sort of profile posted at places like this rather than an encyclopedia article. Forget about the keynote speaker and committee stuff. Write about his work and research. He is known and influential for his work on education inequality, and needs to be covered here. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much StarryGrandma--that is very helpful. You seem to be so much better than the reviewers whose main goal in life seems to be rejecting Wikipedia articles rather than helping people write articles that would help Wikipedia readers :-) Seeking absolute truth (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seeking absolute truth, we are flooded with drafts about non-notable people and companies who want "profiles" for publicity purposes and reviewers get tired. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking absolute truth No reviewer's goal is to reject articles; our goal is to make sure sourcing, style, and notability are demonstrated.A draft being "helpful" does not play into it; spammers and marketers think that what they do is "helpful"- we are flooded with efforts at "profiles" and as StarryGrandma notes, it can be tiring to go through them. Please try to see our side, thanks. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Hkc345

Hello, I was wondering if there is a way to hide/remove the "paid contributions" box at the top of the page? I'd appreciated it a lot. Thank you. Hkc345 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This board is for asking questions about drafts in the submission process, not articles in the encyclopedia. In the future please use the regular help desk. To answer you, the tag will eventually be reviewed by an independent editor. There is no way to speed this up. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

06:21, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Andrewa

I can't understand why this was declined. Happy to work on it but I need to know what to fix. Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: I'm not sure either, probably need to ask the reviewer Tutwakhamoe directly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will. But I wanted to see first whether there's some blatant flaw in the draft that I'm missing but was obvious to others. That has happened before!
He seems clearly notable by the references given. So it would be better to have a stub article even if not perfect... well no article is perfect. Andrewa (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfection is not expected, but to pass this process minimum standards must be met.
I'm fairly sure that the issue is that at least two of the sources you provided are interviews with Mr. Martin; interviews do not contribute to notability as by definition they are not an independent source(though interviews can be used for other purposes)
This process is usually voluntary(unless you are a new account/IP user, have a COI, or one is subject to a topic ban requiring its use). If you want to just create a stub, you can do so, but you would be rolling the dice. It's usually better to work out any issues while in draft. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that threw me is that it wasn't declined for notability but for POV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He might meet WP:BIO; less sure about NACTOR as only one notable role isn't "multiple", though his contribution to his field could be "unique"(#2 criterion). Perhaps the reviewer could clarify? The POV issue could be related to the interviews. Another source just seems to document his association with something. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I didn't write the draft, in fact I have not as of yet even edited it.
I was thinking of writing an article after seeing him mentioned in a blog. I did a web search on him and lo and behold, multiple RSSs and also this draft article! So looked at the draft, and it looked in every way a good stub, yet the request to move to mainspace had been declined. So I came here.
I'd obviously like to improve the daft, but it seems a waste of time for me to try if as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with it.
So my question was really, what am I missing? And it seems that I'm missing nothing. It's a good draft and would make a good stub as is. So, where to from here? Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the review I thought the tone of writing in "awards and recognition" section wasn't too fitting for an encyclopedic entry about a person. Upon reexamination I guess I was too harsh then. Sorry about that. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, where to from here? Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:10, 3 April 2024 review of submission by AdvanceWriterKilly

What should I add? More references, I would say more childhood life story like when he was born and so on. descriptive details about his workplace and references. What else? Thank you kindly AdvanceWriterKilly (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AdvanceWriterKilly: given that this draft is entirely unreferenced, and has no evidence that the person is notable (which is demonstrated through the sources), your primary objective is to add referencing which both verifies the content and shows that the subject meets the WP:GNG notability standard. Everything else at this point is secondary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm a good student AdvanceWriterKilly (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be a good student, but like many new editors, you have attempted to write a draft before you have acquired the basic skills to do so. If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles..
If you insist on working on this draft now, you would be well advised to translate it from vapid PR-speak into plain English; for example, the plain English for He pursued his education at Camosun College, where he gained valuable knowledge and skills that would later aid him in his entrepreneurial journey is "He was educated at Camosun College". See also WP:PEACOCK and WP:SOLUTION, and remember 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) 15:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a legend! On it. I didn't want to write over 2000 thousand words and regret. I will get more verified source, engineer the paragraph and add more professional language. Truly, I appreciate you guys AdvanceWriterKilly (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:12, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Lyncher24

I need to find out why my article is considered advertising. I may work at the company, but I tried to make the article as neutral as possible. I am missing relevant sources in the article or what all I need to add to make the article verified on wikipedia. Lyncher24 (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyncher24 First, if you work for the company, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see the paid editing policy.
Second, you uploaded the logo of your company to Commons, which can only host images that are in the public domain or with a copyright compatible with Wikipedia(which allows for reuse for any purpose with attribution). You uploaded the logo without providing information on who created it. Putting the company logo on Commons means that you want to make it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. This would mean, for example, someone could take the logo, print it on shirts, sell them, and your company would not be entitled to any money from the sale of its own logo. If your company wants to do that(and you have the authority to make that decision), fine- I wouldn't if it were my company, but that's up to you. If you didn't intend to do this, you must remove the logo and request its deletion from Commons immediately.
Logos are typically uploaded under "fair use" rules to this Wikipedia locally. That does carry some restrictions, like not permitting use in drafts. Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Don't worry about images until your draft is accepted.
The entire draft is promotional. Many parts are unsourced and the sources you did provide don't seem to have significant coverage of the company. Any article about your company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling basic information or the activities of the company, and goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself(as every company thinks what it does is important). It is usually very difficult for a company employee to set aside what they know about the company and summarize what others choose to say about it. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:51, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Lily Arami

Alexander Chikunov is currently being confused with a namesake. In this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chikunov), the person has links only to themselves and similar press releases. Our facts and publications are independent - for example: receiving CF29 certification from the Financial Conduct Authority in December 2019 (this is the regulatory body of the UK). What evidence do you need? We can provide the necessary documents. Lily Arami (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "our"? Are you associated with this person?
Government documents or certifications are considered primary sources, not indepedent reliable sources. External links should not be in the body of the article; you need to format these as references if that's what you intend them as, see Referencing for Beginners. Whole sections of the draft don't appear to mention him at all, or very little. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 3 April 2024 review of submission by JacobseanMatthews

Hello, my draft has been declined because of insufficient reliable sources. I'm trying to write an article about my favourite fishing app, and unfortunately turns out not many people have written about it till this day.

I tried to back my writings with all the relevant sources I could find, I even translated text from different languages, as well as transcripted text from foreign language videos. I'm a bit disappointed, because the whole writing and referencing process has taken quite a bit of time from me, whilst trying to contribute to my beloved fishing community.

Im happy for all the answers/help I can get. Thank you! JacobseanMatthews (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobseanMatthews You might think this is an odd suggestion, but you could consider writing an article for a fishing magazine or similar publication. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take that as a compliment :)
But in all seriousness, I'm no journalist/specialist or anything similar. Just wanted to spread the word about an app I started using a few years back, contributing to the crowdsourcing platform that is Wikipedia, where ordinary people (like me) can also share their knowledge...at least that's what I thought. Seems to be trickier than I expected. JacobseanMatthews (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that "spread[ing] the word" about something is pretty well the definition of promotion, and not permitted in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarise what has already been published about a subject by indepedent commentators, that's all. ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I'm going to try and redo/fix my references, do you maybe know some appropriate sources (article spaces of some sorts, knowledge hubs?), or give me at least a few examples of them, so I can try and do my best by finding a close approximation.
Thank you for your time and consideration! JacobseanMatthews (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JacobseanMatthews: it seems you're going about this WP:BACKWARD, first writing what you know about a subject, and then trying to find sources to corroborate what you've written. What you should do instead is, first find a few sources that meet the WP:GNG standard and which have provided significant coverage about the subject. Summarise (in your own words, and without adding any 'spin' or commentary) what they've said, citing each source against the information it has provided. That gives you the appropriate content and necessary referencing, as well as proof of notability, all in one go. And remember, your job is only to describe the subject, not to promote or praise it in any way - keep it dry and factual. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Will do. JacobseanMatthews (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Franktu1807

I'd just like to clarify what the reviewer found missing with the sources, since these are official sources issued by governments and/or highly regarded peer-reviewed articles...? I'd really appreciate having your feedback so that I can update the sources again. 

Franktu1807 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Official sources issued by governments" are almost always primary sources, and do not contribute to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
Which three sources best meet all the criteria in golden rule? ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Mara Lafontan

Please help to create article befor closing of draft. I cannot to create IT pages so perfectly to needed standarts. please Mara Lafontan (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

help to create pages. please. we use tour visa with a program and must be faster and truth. Mara Lafontan (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the autobiography policy; people writing about themselves is highly discouraged.
Wikipedia articles cannot be used to reference other Wikipedia articles per WP:CIRCULAR; social media is not acceptable as a reference. You will need to essentially start over; first gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you that describe how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person; these should not be interviews with you or mere descriptions of your activities, but in depth coverage as to what sources say makes you important/significant/influential- not what you say is important about yourself. You should then summarize those sources. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 3 April 2024 review of submission by TRoseUB

I started drafting a new article on April 2, 2024 titled: Cyrenius Chapin but today I cannot find it. What did I do wrong? TRoseUB (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to your edit history, the only thing you did to your draft was create it without any content(other than the technical stuff). If you thought you wrote content, it wasn't saved. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Nandiniwriteswiki

Can you tell me why my draft was declined? I can change the specifics. Thank you! Nandiniwriteswiki (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nandiniwriteswiki: there are quite a few peacock expressions and hyperbole like "pivotal moment", as well as several verbatim quotes from Venditti and other primary sources. All of this gives the draft very much the feel of a magazine, rather than encyclopaedia, article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 3 April 2024 review of submission by Aluminium6063

Hello! I just got my first submission for a new article declined based on tone. This seems fair to me, I was trying to walk what feels to me like a fine line between "justifying that this person has notoriety" and "neutral tone" and I think I went too far in one direction.

I wonder if a quote from Adam Ondra or Alex Honnold stating that they consider her one of the best female climbers would be appropriate, or if I should keep it simple and leave superlatives out entirely. 

Aluminium6063 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aluminium6063: I assume you mean 'notability', or possibly 'noteworthiness' etc., rather than 'notoriety'? Anyway, neutral tone is always what is called for; we do not want to see anything promotional or peacocky.
Your job is merely to summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have said. If such a source has used superlatives, eg. stated that this person is the best climber in their category, then you can include that, as you're merely summarising a source. If you no source can be found saying that, then you also cannot include it in the article, as it is then just puffery.
Anyway, you have resubmitted this draft and it is awaiting another review now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

00:31, 4 April 2024 review of submission by SiulRotceh

This article's subject is a renowned Puerto Rican paintor. How can i ensure that it gets published? What should I add? SiulRotceh (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SiulRotceh: this draft was declined for lack of notability, and the way to rectify that is to demonstrate through referencing that the subject is notable, either by the WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST guidelines.
You also need to write this in a neutral, non-promotional manner.
And finally, you must cite your sources inline (see WP:ILC), not pile them at the bottom like you have done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! SiulRotceh (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 4 April 2024 review of submission by Peizy

its important to know that other thinking to that girl. So, please let me published it Peizy (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peizy: it's a blank, we obviously don't publish blank pages. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its not blank page Peizy (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't post on your talk page, or anywhere for that matter, content that isn't related to the objectives of Wikipedia. And especially don't post negative content about living people. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its not negative. Peizy (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:52, 4 April 2024 review of submission by Abhash Bhattarai

Why is it not getting submitted? #WikiHelp Abhash Bhattarai (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhash Bhattarai: it has been successfully submitted, and is now awaiting review.
I can tell you already now that it will fail that review, for multiple reasons, but it has been submitted alright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like most people who attempt to write an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS.
First find the sources - and make sure that they are reliable and independent. Ignore anything written, published or commissioned by the subject or their associates, or based on an interview or press release from them.
Then, if you have found several such sources, forget everything that you personally know about the subject, and write a summary (in your own words) of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 4 April 2024 review of submission by AmmarYahya96

Welcome

I hope that you are well.

I shared the data of Dr. Muhammad Khreis in the article and added the certificates and courses that he obtained. I really mean that everything mentioned in the article is the biography of Dr. Muhammad Khreis and that he became the founder of a large institution operating worldwide.

This institution (Al-Kindi Hospital - Amman, Jordan) is considered the first destination in the Middle East for treating obesity problems (note that I did not mention this point in the article so as not to be propaganda).

What do you suggest I do so that this article is not propaganda?

All respect Thank you for your help AmmarYahya96 (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AmmarYahya96 Please disclose your connection with him, as you took his picture in a professional manner and he posed for you.
You have essentially posted his resume; instead, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AmmarYahya96: purely by coincidence I happened to look at the section 'Recommendations' first. It is riddled with peacock words and hyperbole, with "exemplary", "excellent", "safe pair hands" (sic), "most outstanding", etc. Even if these are actual quotes from genuinely reliable and independent sources, which I doubt, they have no place in an encyclopaedia article. I would have probably sent this for a speedy deletion just based on that alone. 'Propaganda' it may not be, but hagiography it certainly sounds like. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:03, 4 April 2024 review of submission by 154.198.97.254

Hi dear sir please creating this Page Thank you so so much. 154.198.97.254 (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 4 April 2024 review of submission by 155.201.46.79

I need assistance submitting IOS 18 Wikipedia Page. 155.201.46.79 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected as non-notable and WP:TOOSOON. You should wait until closer to the release time, and try again, when more and better sources are bound to be available. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 4 April 2024 review of submission by Nowhereman5691

hello,

i try to write an article about my song. It is a description of the content of the lyrics and music theory analysis of the harmony structure. And some additional info that are written in the music video as well and in a hungarian article cited as source. But the article is getting rejected. Why? Nowhereman5691 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowhereman5691: this draft has been rejected because there is no evidence that the subject is notable, by either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NSONG guideline. Also, the referencing is inadequate.
You say this is about your ("my") song, and that may be the underlying reason. Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your music. We mainly want to hear what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about it.
You also seem to have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. I will post a message on your talk page with more information on this. Please read and action as appropriate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 4 April 2024 review of submission by Jeanvaljeanjacket

Hello, last week I tried to ask for advice on how to get a new version of this article reviewed – it has been updated with different reputable sources and deleted extraneous information. I can't find where that comment went so I don't know if someone already replied to it, so I am asking it again. Thank you! Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the previous reply – sorry for the second question, please disregard! Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

00:53, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Trish Lynch

Hello, Please can I request help in finding out why the article was rejected for copyright reasons? Some of the text used is from the website Rofe Park Turramurra, I do own the copyright to the website Rofe Park Turramurra and did write the text on that site. I have applied to Wikipedia using the consent form that was indicated. Permission from Wikipedia (I thought?) was granted and is printed in a box on the Talk page "Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2024022910003331". I am fully prepared to rewrite the article, or place a notice on the Rofe Park website saying it gives permission for the text to be used, or anything else you require. What is the best thing to do? Kind regards Trish Lynch (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trish Lynch: the reviewer didn't notice the comment on the talk page. The decline has been reverted, and the draft is back in the pool awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Trish Lynch (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:28, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Karagil

Good morning, It is April 5, 2024. I have just modified Alexandre Raymond's Wikipedia. When will it be accepted? It exists in French Wikipedia. Why not in English. Alexandre Raymond drew Hagia Sophia in Constantinople - which recently became a mosque again - as it was before. His designs have been sold all over the world. Please look and answer me. 

Karagil (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Karagil: this draft was reviewed and declined last July (!), and hasn't been resubmitted since, so the simple answer to "when" is – never. If you resubmit it, it will be reviewed again at some point, and could then be accepted (or not, as the case may be).
Whether an article on this subject exists in another language version of Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version is an entirely separate project with their own requirements and policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, on a quick look, it does not look to me as if even one of the sources in the draft meets the triple requirement explained in the golden rule. Without that, the draft cannot establish notability.
Citations of works by or edited by Raymond, are beside the point. What we require is secondary sources about Raymond, written and published by people wholly unconnected with him. It seems likely that such sources exist, but they need to be found and cited, and almost anything not supported by an independent source needs to be removed from the article. ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:22, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Anjan Sivakumar

Despite our efforts to refine the article by incorporating numerous revisions and adding substantial references to support the information provided, we are encountering persistent rejections in our attempts to publish it on Wikipedia. Your expertise and guidance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please let us know a convenient time for you, and we will ensure our availability to discuss this issue further. Anjan Sivakumar (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anjan Sivakumar: after multiple declines, this draft was eventually rejected, as you have failed to demonstrate (despite the WP:REFBOMBING) that the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards.
Who is "we" in your question? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single individual only.
And what is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to make an appointment to discuss this with us, you may post your comments here and they will be replied to in due course. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like many inexperienced editors, especially those who have come here with the purpose of promoting somebody or something, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. A Wikipedia article summarise what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, that is all. You can have a thousand links to the subject's work - and they will be worth zero as citations. You can have a thousand interviews with them - and they will be worth almost zero. You can have a thousand links to where organisations who have managed them, booked them, given them awards, write about them - and these will be worth zero.
One source where people with no connection with the subject, who have not been commissioned or fed material on behalf of the subject, have chosen to write at some length about them in a reliable publication, is worth more than all the above put together. With three or more such sources, you can write an article. ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 5 April 2024 review of submission by 2.24.214.101

I'm not sure what more I need to do to make this a valid submission - I've included independent sources (local newspapers, and websites of separate organisations) which verify the facts stated in the article, and I don't understand why this isn't acceptable. Apologies if I'm missing something, but I'd love to make this page exist if we can - his is an organisation which does definitely verifiably exist, and people may be seeking information about it, so it's strange for it not to have an entry on Wikipedia. Any suggestions would be welcome - so far the comments have mainly been too vague and general for me to understand how to fix this. 2.24.214.101 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Do you have a connection with this organization? You uploaded its logo to Commons, meaning that you have the authority to decide to make it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution.
If people are seeking information about an organization, they should go to its website or social media. Wikipedia is not merely for documenting the existence of something; an article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The only sources you have offered just tell of the routine activities of the organization, not what independent sources see as important/significant/influential about it. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 5 April 2024 review of submission by WikiEdits2003

Article seems like well constructed and with citations from reliable sources I want to know the reason for rejection so I can make the page more constructive and information Hopefully you will consider my points WikiEdits2003 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEdits2003: the rejection reason is lack of evidence of notability, as stated in the rejection notice. Note also that this subject requires clearance from WP:DRV before publication is possible.
Unless you have a particular reason to pursue this matter, such as an external relationship with the subject (in which case, please provide details?), you may wish to drop it, due to the history behind this draft and countless others on the same subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 5 April 2024 review of submission by WikiEditorBharat

Hi Wiki, I am new to the world of Wikipedia. I have just submitted my first article.But unfortunately, it was rejected. What is the reason for article's rejection? I have entered all details correctly and also cited reference links from reliable source? Please Guide me. WikiEditorBharat (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined not rejected, it is full of unsourced puffery and praise, it needs to be re-written in a neutral tone referring only to what reliable independent sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Cuba's Mom

I would like to change the article title from "GF draft" to "George Michelsen Foy" and can't figure out how. Thank you! Cuba's Mom (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuba's Mom: you can't change page titles, this is achieved by moving the page to a new title. But you don't need to worry about that for now, as the page will be moved into a different namespace anyway, if/when the draft is accepted for publication. I will make a note of your proposed new title. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you rule the wasteland :) Cuba's Mom (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm afraid that, like most inexperienced editors who try to create articles before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft WP:BACKWARDS. First find places where people wholly unconnected with Foy have written about him at some length, and been published in reliable sources; then write a summary of what those sources say about him.
A selected bibliography (ideally, concentrating on those works for which you have found secondary sources, such as reviews) is something you can add when you have a solid, well-sourced article. ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:24, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Dawelker1861

Why does the "Talk" view show up when this entry appears in serach lists? This is a new article and my first, but when I run a search for "Loudoun Resolves" the "talk" view, rather than the actual article itself, is what appears. I can click on the "article" tab to see it, but I'd prefer folks just see the main article when clicking on the search result. How can I change this or have it changed? Dawelker1861 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dawelker1861 This page is for asking for assistance with the draft submission process. You are asking about an article already in the encyclopedia; please use the main Help Desk in the future. To answer you, articles are not automatically indexed by search engines; they must be reviewed by a new page patroller, or as a fallback I believe 60 days must pass. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 5 April 2024 review of submission by Awalt22

What can i do to make it acceptable Awalt22 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, the draft reads nothing like an encyclopaedia article and there is zero evidence of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 5 April 2024 review of submission by 4.39.220.106

citation broken. help page it links doesn't work. Help! what does it mean when it says its "error: malformed":c 4.39.220.106 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 5 April 2024 review of submission by 204.110.47.133

Because There Will Be More Info As Time Goes On That Is Just The Start 204.110.47.133 (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is insufficient for an article. It is completely unsourced. Any article about what I assume is your studio must summarize what independent reliable sources say about it, showing how it meets the definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

00:53, 6 April 2024 review of submission by Parastoo7

Hi there, I'm writing regarding the recent rejection of the article on "The Black Fish" album. It was cited for "non-reliable sources," despite including reputable sources like CBC News and the Junos official website, alongside links to other Wikipedia pages. Could you kindly clarify this decision? Any guidance on ensuring reliability would be appreciated. Thanks Parastoo7 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Parastoo7: firstly, this draft wasn't rejected (which would mean it cannot be resubmitted), only declined (which means it can, once the decline reasons have been addressed). Secondly, it wasn't declined for "non-reliable sources", but for lack of notability, which the sources do not establish. You need to demonstrate that the subject is notable either per the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NALBUM notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:43, 6 April 2024 review of submission by Man in Yellow Profitt

We wanted to make this page as a tribute to Jeff Profitt. He makes movies that arent really watched by anyone and our discord seems to be the only fans of his. We wanted to promote him in this and try to get people to watch the movies more. I did not make this to try to ridicule the purpose of Wikipedia. I only wanted to do this for a podcast about the director. Man in Yellow Profitt (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Man in Yellow Profitt: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion.
For future reference, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We don't publish 'tributes'. And we certainly are not a platform to 'promote' anything or anyone; in fact, promotion is forbidden here.
Moreover, we only summarise what other, reliable sources have previously said. If a subject is not well known, then that probably means there aren't such sources to summarise, and therefore it isn't possibly to publish a Wikipedia article on the subject. We are never the right channel to build someone's reputation, we only reflect a reputation already built elsewhere. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:55, 6 April 2024 review of submission by 47.72.141.32

How do i edit the title - need to change the word Football to Rugby 47.72.141.32 (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot edit page titles, this is effected by moving the page to a different title. If/when the draft is accepted, it will be moved anyway, so you can just ignore this matter for now. (There is already a comment on the draft saying this should be rugby, not football.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:16, 6 April 2024 review of submission by Rudynotfound

hey there this is rudynotfound a guy who wrote an article about ReduxOS and it has been declined i am new to wikipedia and its my first time writting an article , can i know why was it declined? would be appreciated Rudynotfound (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:ReduxOS. The reason is given in the grey box of the decline, namely that “This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified” Theroadislong (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 6 April 2024 review of submission by Senabhati

I want to publish about Senabhati I want to know why Wikipedia decline my draft Senabhati (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is poorly written and has no sources. Theroadislong (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not helped by the fact that there are at least three versions of this floating around. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 6 April 2024 review of submission by Ekoturystyka

Good morning, my post was declined and I would like to ask for advice. I am working professionally in ecotourism science in Poland and Central Europe. I am not representing the organization I am writing about (I am not a board member, nor a founder nor a person or entity having a business relation). I took part in several international events organized by the Global Ecotourism Network and I know some of the experts of the organization. I can confirm that this is a professional, reliable organization and from my professional point of view - this is a key source of knowledge, know how and information exchange on ecotourism worldwide. I would be grateful for some tips on how to improve the description so as it would comply all the Wikipedia principles. Thank you and best greetings from Poland! Dominika Ekoturystyka (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekoturystyka: you need to read and understand the decline reasons and my accompanying comments; those are the issues you need to rectify.
Whilst you may not be "representing" the organisation, it does sound like you have a conflict of interest, because of your involvement in their events and your acquaintance with people associated with the organisation. I also note that you have uploaded their logo as your own work, as well as uploading a number of photos suggesting some level of personal involvement. My advice would be to make the COI disclosure as instructed in the message I posted on your talk page. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 6 April 2024 review of submission by Artiomis Romanovoja

please tell me what the problem is and what should I fix? Artiomis Romanovoja (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artiomis Romanovoja: the draft is entirely unreferenced, which also means there is no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B
this is some information in Russian. this family was very influential and in the middle of the 17th century was part of the government committee of the Russian Empire Artiomis Romanovoja (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artiomis Romanovoja: you can't cite a ru.wiki article as a source, and you can't expect readers to go looking for sources on external sites like that. If the ru.wiki article references appropriate sources, you should import them into this draft and cite them here directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected something and would like to know your opinion about my article Artiomis Romanovoja (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artiomis Romanovoja: I still don't see any referencing there. That being the case, would you like me to decline your draft, or wait for another reviewer to do that?
BTW, where is all this information coming from? Do you have some sort of relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This information is obtained from books, from some websites, I have read a lot and watched films about this era... I am sure that many people are really interested in the history of the Russian Empire, because if such a format of my page is adopted and people begin to study history more extensively, I would like to continue writing stories of other noble families, such as the Yusupovs, Kutuzovs, Pugachevs, Saltykovs and others.
Please let me continue to share information, because history brings people together. Artiomis Romanovoja (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artiomis Romanovoja: you may have misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about. We summarise what reliable published sources have said about a subject. We don't publish original research, your own reflections and recollections of what you may have read and watched, and certainly not "stories of noble families". Either support your draft with appropriate sources, or expect to have it declined again, and eventually rejected.
Please review Wikipedia's core requirements of notability and verifiability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to the evidence, I hope everything is correct :) Artiomis Romanovoja (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:06, 6 April 2024 review of submission by Atlantis7807


I understand your intention, and it's important to clarify that my role is to provide assistance and ensure that the content meets certain guidelines and standards. While your article provides information about Arushi Nishank and her accomplishments, it's important to ensure that it adheres to the guidelines and does not appear to be promotional in nature.

To improve the article's presentation, you may want to focus on presenting the information in a more neutral and objective manner. This could involve avoiding language that appears overly promotional or biased, and instead, presenting the facts in a straightforward and factual manner.

Once you've made any necessary revisions, feel free to share the article again for further feedback or approval. Thank you for your understanding. Atlantis7807 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 6 April 2024 review of submission by Shesoceo

Trizzy is a distinguished producer and rapper hailing from New York. His collaborations with numerous prominent musicians and his achievements as a musician are noteworthy. Assistance in crafting his article would be greatly valued. Shesoceo (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:17, 6 April 2024 review of submission by Village of South Zanesville

can you tell me why this article was not approved? Village of South Zanesville (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 6 April 2024 review of submission by Artiomis Romanovoja

Please tell me, is everything written correctly? Artiomis Romanovoja (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

04:19, 7 April 2024 review of submission by ItsDaRetailGuy1025

Fixed References & External Links with FM Station data Template & <ref> ItsDaRetailGuy1025 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1217662940"