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 Benmil (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 16 June 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Crédit_des_Alpes). 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


June 10

03:23, 10 June 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:A5F:480:D423:850C:F7C2:507

why was this page denied 2600:1700:A5F:480:D423:850C:F7C2:507 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the decline notice? As it says there, this is insufficiently referenced, with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:57, 10 June 2023 review of submission by Dashmeshfzp

Hello Dear, this article is related Indian movies and music video director, this person is very well known in his industry, so we want this article published in your honorable web page.

Regards Dashmeshfzp (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dashmeshfzp: there isn't, at present, even the slightest indication of any sort of notability. You need to find multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard.
Who is "we"? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for a single individual only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he is well known in his industry, you need to be able to clearly demonstrate how and why with reliable secondary sources. This is Wikipedia's notability guideline. Guninvalid (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 10 June 2023 review of submission by 103.81.77.103

Help us to get this published 103.81.77.103 (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no. the draft has been rejected. we will not consider it further. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:43, 10 June 2023 review of submission by Shadysbook

Can you suggest to get this publish. This company Indias biggest fertility clinic franchise Shadysbook (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadysbook: there's nothing to suggest; this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please try. There are many hospitals getting on wikipedia page. WHy not Oasis Fertility? Shadysbook (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Please try" what? As I said, rejection means this draft won't be considered further. I get that you've been hired to write this, but we've reached the end of the road, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm getting you correctly, you're asking us to ask our higher-ups, essentially. Well, you've reached the highest level of the hierarchy – all editors are mostly equal, some have advanced permissions to carry out certain acts but that doesn't make them any further up in the hierarchy, so there's no higher-ups we can ask. I don't know what you want us to do now. An AFC reviewer (a user with some advanced permissions trusted with making good decisions relating to accepting and declining ADC drafts) has determined Oasis was not notable enough for Wikipedia and certainly didn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, several others had previously determined probably wasn't notable and requested more sources showing it passed those two guidelines, which it never passed. There is no rank above editor, so we can't suggest this to get published by anybody else. Apologies. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 10 June 2023 review of submission by JabirAV

I want to know where on the spot and what citations used of this article that makes it unreliable. I am very engrossed of this article and what makes it not notable and I would very love to know why. Continuing, I do also need to know and see how a proper wikipedia article is written so that I really could get the gist of it. It would be very helpful to me so I can see what I need to learn JabirAV (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. The sources given seem to merely document this person's activities, and are not significant coverage of the person in independent reliable sources that shows how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person- sources that describe how they see him as significant/important/influential. 331dot (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For examples of Wikipedia pages, you can take a look at the Wikipedia pages for other streamers and youtubers. Pick your favorite or least favorite. Better yet, pick multiple. Just remember before you start writing to demonstrate how Moonmoon meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for people. Guninvalid (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 10 June 2023 review of submission by Adeyemo Taoheed

This is my first article that i will publish here . please help me out, please i don't want it to get delete . if i do any thing that is not good , let me know and i will correct ,myself Thanks Adeyemo Taoheed (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on Wikipedia must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Since Jonathan Ross is an athlete, he needs to meet the criteria for Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for people and Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for athletes. This is a high bar and your sources don't show how Jonathan Ross clears that. His team may warrant an article, but he himself may not. This could be merged with an article on his team with a subsection on him, but unless you can demonstrate with reliable secondary sources that this meets the notability guidelines, you might just have to wait. Guninvalid (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:29, 10 June 2023 review of submission by ElWeyMamon

My draft was declined, how do i make it better so they can accept it? ElWeyMamon (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ElWeyMamon As the reviewer told you, we already have Deaths in 2023. By definition, to be included there, the person must meet the definition of a notable person, so your draft is unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you guys have to delete the deaths section on the years articles (until 1980) (i just want to know) ElWeyMamon (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best place to ask that would probably be on an article talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:46, 10 June 2023 review of submission by AlexJWBrown

All I was trying to do is add this compilation of animated shorts for Superman to the page titled List of television series based on DC Comics publications. I literally pasted the exact wikipedia links in my entry. Why isnt the system simply able to recognize I'm referencing a source that has already been verified? Is it not possible for the system to recognize its own hyperlinks? AlexJWBrown (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJWBrown I may be mistaken but you seem to be asking about an existing article; this page is for seeking help with drafts. You may use the more general Help Desk to seek editing assistance. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:33, 10 June 2023 review of submission by Theheckwhy

I’m not really sure about the rejection reason. I’ve read the wikipedia guide page and what I understood it’s that he doesn’t have enough media coverage enough to have an wikipedia page himself? I’m sorry, I just want to make sure if I can do anything about it in terms of editing it, or he is just purely not yet qualified to have a wikipedia page. Thanks. 

Theheckwhy (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, I’ve tagged on the wrong Park Tae-joon. The one I’m doing is currently a South Korean taekwondo athlete and how can I refer it properly? Theheckwhy (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to Draft:Park Tae-joon. Yes, that is what WP:TOOSOON means. He may be notable in the future, but as of now, he does not warrant a full article. Unless you can demonstrate with reliable secondary sources that he already meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, Wikipedia's guidelines for real persons, and Wikipedia's guidelines for athletes, this article is a lost cause.

Essentially, you have 3 options. You can:
  1. Demonstrate that he already is notable.
  2. Wait until he is notable, then demonstrate that he is.
  3. Bin this article entirely and add him to anything he has done that is already notable. This could mean you might include him on the Wikipedia article for some championships or events he has participated in as a contestant.
Of course, you're still welcome to try the article in your own sandbox. Mostly just make sure it doesn't get deleted while you wait for him to become notable lol Guninvalid (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

02:00, 11 June 2023 review of submission by 41.250.236.88

requête to soulve review article, add info supported by cited references fix in Draft:Tazi Habiba

I'm new user Morroco, you can help me to work by Asking to have références and added by other information, all the necessary sources and by formatting it correctly, and Proofreading my first articles? Draft:Tazi_Habiba write an article backwards. You should start by finding sufficient published WP:Reliable sources,and then adding more details from more sources I've traductions the page from i love your job to find the sources and put a good article thank you for your help Thanks again! I appreciate the feedback! 41.250.236.88 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:09:27, 11 June 2023 review of draft by PrincessPandaWiki


The draft is nearing completion and I feel the subject strongly needs an article in the mainspace. However, the soundtrack tables have empty cells as a result of a lack of concrete information about their respective songs. What should be done with them? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 04:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrincessPandaWiki: Easy answer? Simply remove them. You can always add them back if concrete sourcing is found, but it's better to err on the side of leaving out unconfirmable information, especially when it has potential to be wrong (e.g. with an upcoming game). If you have a source for a few songs in specific, you can probably work them into the prose somehow if they're significant. Good luck! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skarmory: So you're telling me to remove the soundtrack tables altogether or alter them so that they only contain confirmed information? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 04:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all unconfirmed information, then take a look at the table. If it still works as a table, keep it. If it doesn't work as a table, convert to prose what can be. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can definitely leave them in your own sandbox or in the talk page once the page is (hopefully) accepted. But for now, officially at least, unconformable info needs to go. Guninvalid (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no place on Wikipedia for information that is not verifable -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 11 June 2023 review of submission by TheNuggeteer

I wanted to know just how to make an article look god the he reviewers? TheNuggeteer (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: it's a pity you didn't think to ask for advice sooner. Did you read any of the earlier decline notices? They all flag up the same problem, namely that the draft needs multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard; yet, it cites none. Hence, this draft has now been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:03, 11 June 2023 review of submission by 103.175.169.177

Could you tell me what should I improve ? 103.175.169.177 (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing; this draft has been rejected and is awaiting deletion.
If this is/was you writing about yourself, please see WP:AUTOBIO for all the reasons why that's not a good idea, and also WP:PROMO which explains why promotional content is not allowed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 11 June 2023 review of submission by Dawoodibrahimhimself

I was told the references aren't good enough, however these are the best references anyone can find regarding this specific topic, I don't think anyone could find any better, however I am confident in how correct they are. Dawoodibrahimhimself (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that is all there is for sources, the topic does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 11 June 2023 review of submission by GonzoGuad

I have images that are being rejected, what is the process to give the images proper credit so they will be accepted? For example, one image is a portrait taken by the subject of the biography article I am trying to submit. He provided the image as part of the article, what do I need to do to get it cleared? Thanks. GonzoGuad (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted as an article and placed in the encyclopedia.
Second, you should declare your conflict of interest. If you have a paid relationship with the subject, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure.
Regarding your question, it is much easier if the photographer uploads the images themselves. It's much harder when a third party is involved, as the third party does not have the copyright. Please see WP:UPIMAGE for more information. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:16:36, 11 June 2023 review of draft by ChristophMinnameier


Hi, I'm asking for help because I don't want to do anything wrong. Especially in my case (because I'm connected to the game the article is about) I want to make sure that everything I do is legitimate, so I thought it would be a good idea to bring attention to this by asking for help.

ChristophMinnameier (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What help are you seeking? What is the nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly seems fine to me, though some of your sources are definitely better than others, and your formatting definitely needs a rework. But with your conflict of interest, depending on how deep it is, it may be more appropriate for you to hand this article to someone else to write. But idk im not a reviewer lol Guninvalid (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions:
  1. Wikipedia articles typically list awards in a table. You can look at wikipedia articles for other well known games for a format guide.
  2. You're almost definitely gonna need to add a Gameplay or Story section.
Guninvalid (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristophMinnameier none of the above by Guninvalid has anything to do with the acceptance criteria. What you need to meet is WP:GNG which for video games means in-depth reviews by reliable sources. See WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources for a guide. S0091 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in-depth reviews by reliable sources are absolutely available.
The game has 19 critics reviews on metacritic for Switch alone (including many major gaming sites):
https://www.metacritic.com/game/switch/dungeons-of-dreadrock.
I quoted the awards pages mainly because in German Wikipedia, video games face (as it seems to me) stricter criteria to be considered relevant. I abstained deliberatly from creating a longer article.
Would you suggest to quote some of the reviews before I submit the article draft? ChristophMinnameier (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristophMinnameier if you want a review, you need to submit it by clicking the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button. Before you do though, you need to fix the URLs to the Metacritic site as they are all coming up with a '504' error and being redirected to the main page. S0091 (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ChristophMinnameier (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

01:42, 12 June 2023 review of submission by MNelson81`

Hi Wiki, I'm working this article on behalf of Mr. Tseng from here in Taiwan. This has been quite a process. May I understand what kind of information or sources are required to have this page approved? This is not a promotional page or an advertisement. Mr. Tseng deserves to be recognized for his philanthropy and inspiration. Thanks for your support MNelson81` (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@mnelson81`: you must declare your conflict of interest first. see here for how. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a form of recognition of someone's work or a way to honor them- our only interest here is in summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MNelson81`. Your draft includes the following sentence His nickname depicts his bountiful creativity synergized with the ease of enjoying life throughout his career. Leaving aside the issue that bountiful creativity synergized is complete baloney that has no place in an encyclopedia, the reference that follows that bold assertion discusses nothing about any nickname. References need to verify the assertions that proceed them. Random references linked to random assertions are of no value, and only irritate the reviewers. Please do a complete rewrite of your draft to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. We will edit and stick to non-biased shows and exhibitions. Most of this was translated from Mandarin and that version has also recently been revised. Appreciate the feedback MNelson81` (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 12 June 2023 review of submission by 81.100.246.58

Which of the references on the article do not meet Wikipedia's standards?

Thank you. 81.100.246.58 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of them. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. We don't want mere documentation that the company exists, or a summary of its routine business activities/interviews/brief mentions. We want sources that, on their own, write about what makes this company important/significant/influential as they see it, not as the company itself sees it. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 12 June 2023 review of submission by Johnmatt1

My Submission got declined because the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

I would need someone's assistance to learn better. Johnmatt1 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnmatt1 What is it that you would like assistance with? We can't find sources for you. If there are no more sources available, this person would not merit an article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources available, but i just linked 5 references on the article.
Will share the sources below:
https://www.zeebiz.com/economy-infra/news-urbanisation-giving-rise-to-next-generation-infrastructure-development-225181
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/how-urbanization-has-changed-the-face-of-real-estate/
https://www.financialexpress.com/money/real-estate-will-be-an-appealing-investment-opportunity-in-fy23-atul-goel/2922084/
https://firstindia.co.in/news/bollywood/goel-ganga-groups-founder-chairman-mr-jaiprakash-goel-receives-lifetime-achievement-award-at-construction-times-6th-bam-awards
https://www.zeebiz.com/personal-finance/news-planning-to-buy-your-dream-home-four-key-things-to-consider-before-investing-in-a-luxury-property-202249
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/would-you-like-to-know-real-estate-beyond-concrete-and-sq-inch-atul-goel-launched-his-first-book-the-real-rich20220720122139
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/punes-leading-real-estate-company-goel-ganga-group-pledges-support-to-sadhgurus-save-soil-movement20220618205025
https://www.thehansindia.com/business/4-reasons-why-2022-23-will-be-the-best-for-first-time-homebuyers-733531
https://www.constructionweekonline.in/people/year-2022-will-bring-great-opportunities-for-indian-real-estate
https://theprint.in/ani-press-releases/punes-goel-ganga-group-md-wins-prestigious-awards/769230/
https://www.thehitavada.com/Encyc/2021/11/12/Goel-Ganga-Group-wins-two-awards-in-Business-Leadership-Awards.html
https://www.thehitavada.com/Encyc/2021/9/14/Glocal-Mall-s-WTC-status-paves-way-for-top-brands.html
331dot Could you please help me to sort the Draft article. Johnmatt1 (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please narrow the list down to the top three. Generally only three are needed to pass this process. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the top three sources are:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/how-urbanization-has-changed-the-face-of-real-estate/
https://www.punekarnews.in/pune-man-attempts-to-extort-rs-20-lakh-from-builder-atul-goel-using-deputy-cm-ajit-pawars-name-six-persons-arrested/
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/would-you-like-to-know-real-estate-beyond-concrete-and-sq-inch-atul-goel-launched-his-first-book-the-real-rich20220720122139 Johnmatt1 (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Could me please help me to align the content so that i can put it for review again. Johnmatt1 (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It will be a bit before I can review the sources(please remove those other than the top three) but we are not here to be co authors. If you want to submit the draft, you need to do the work. I'm not sure what "align the content means". 331dot (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A blog post by the article's subject clearly isn't a reliable independent source! Theroadislong (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/how-urbanization-has-changed-the-face-of-real-estate/
This is the biggest news portal in India. Johnmatt1 (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that doesn't change the fact that it's written by the subject! lettherebedarklight晚安 10:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh understood.
Thank you. Johnmatt1 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnmatt1: the Punekar News article doesn't provide significant coverage of Goel, only says he was the target of an attempted crime. The ANI/PNN one is just a promo piece related to his book launch. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 12 June 2023 review of submission by Mcbit3972

What can I do to make this better to get through submission? I want to make an English version to link to the Italian (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Network_of_Medical_Excellence). particularly with the articles in Conde Nast, Telegraph, and Guardian - what more is needed to prove sufficient coverage? Mcbit3972 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcbit3972: it isn't enough to cite reliable secondary sources like The Guardian, those sources must also provide significant coverage of the subject. I've just checked a few of the sources, and they either don't mention the African Network of Medical Excellence at all, or only very briefly in passing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 12 June 2023 review of submission by Hedi sheikani

i wanted to make it more clear about my names Hedi sheikani (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@hedi sheikani: this is against the purpose of wikipedia. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 12 June 2023 review of submission by 97.126.42.131

Can we get specific information about what issues need independent verification? It seemed to us we were just stating facts about the press's existence and list of publications. 

97.126.42.131 (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, you must disclose your relationship with this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you decline to create an account, you must disclose.
Wikipedia article are not merely for stating facts. A Wikipedia article about a company must do more, it 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. This cannot be routine coverage of business activities, brief mentions, interviews, press releases and the like. Please see Your First Article. You have chosen to undertake the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft lacks references to significant coverage of the press in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the press and its affiliated organizations. "Existence" is not enough. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 12 June 2023 review of submission by Fitness forward

My draft was rejected with the reason that is not objective enough. Do you have any recommendations on the copy on making it more objective and getting it approved? Fitness forward (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitness forward: it wasn't rejected (which would mean you cannot resubmit), only declined (which means you can, once you've addressed the reason(s) for decline). You need to write in a neutral, factual language, as it currently reads like something out of the company's marketing department: eg. phrases like "provide more customers with the perfect mortgage to make their homeownership dreams possible and affordable" are completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 12 June 2023 review of submission by Engineertareq

Added the references and update authentic information Engineertareq (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:27, 12 June 2023 review of submission by Hector Asetelle

This submission is about an international award for mathematicians awarded by a university.

Q1: The submission has been declined due to lack of references: arguably, it only had one, namely the webpage of the award on the university's website. I can only find those kind of additional references:

Would that be enough referencing? Arguably this doesn't look like a lot of qualitative references, but on the other hand it seems to me that an international award, with most recipients already with a Wikipedia page, should also have a Wikipedia page.

Q2: In case Q1 is answered negatively, would it be acceptable to merge this page with the page on Charles_Jean_de_la_Vallée_Poussin, after whom the award is named?

Thank you in advance for your time. Hector Asetelle (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Asetelle the sources you have named are all non-independent, or in the case of the Wikipedia article, unreliable. So there is no chance of notability with these sources. For your second question, maybe a one-liner would be appropriate. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I will try to find better sources, and else go for the one-liner. Hector Asetelle (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:36, 12 June 2023 review of submission by 정미숙1

I added the source of an interview with a famous magazine in Korea for the person on this page. Help me to re-discuss, edit, review, and register. 정미숙1 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@정미숙1: this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. In any case, an interview would not contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

03:18, 13 June 2023 review of submission by 2601:601:9180:F940:C4D9:4A8:3F9E:E479

Hi,

My article has been declined without giving a reason. How am I supposed to know what is wrong to correct it? 2601:601:9180:F940:C4D9:4A8:3F9E:E479 (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your article? You provide no link to it, and under this IP your edit history only shows asking this question.
In any case, I'm not aware of a way of declining a draft without providing a reason. Have you read the decline notice properly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:51, 13 June 2023 review of submission by TruePennsylvanian

Hey, how could someone create a userbox template? I am confused because the article on creating a template doesn't really specify on how one would do that. TruePennsylvanian (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TruePennsylvanian: this help desk is for drafts undergoing AfC review. You may ask your question at the TEAHOUSE instead. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:34, 13 June 2023 review of submission by Alan347

Hi. I updated my draft according to your suggestion. When it will be reviewed again please ? I left everything you said about it there. Alan347 (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan347: I would normally say it gets reviewed when a reviewer happens to come across it. However, it was such an obvious decline that I've just gone ahead and done that. There is nothing there to indicate this person is notable in any sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 13 June 2023 review of submission by Tanyadesai98

Not sure if I should just edit the draft, or if I should resubmit. Tanyadesai98 (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may edit the draft and then resubmit it once you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 13 June 2023 review of submission by Anonymous Boa

Hi, my draft got a speedy deletion and i don't know why.. please help. Anonymous Boa (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous Boa: the reasons are given on your talk page. It was considered promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do you know how i could make it less promotional? Anonymous Boa (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonymous Boa: sure – don't use promotional language, don't try to 'sell' the subject, avoid peacock terms, make sure that all claims are fully supported by independent and reliable published sources, and make sure to give us something of encyclopaedic value, a reason why this subject should be included in a global encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 13 June 2023 review of submission by Khalijfars900200

Hi Please Tell Me Where I Wrong And Correct IT This Is My Personal Article I,m DJ Amir AZ 

Khalijfars900200 (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Khalijfars900200 Your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be further considered. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself, you may want to try alternative outlets. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I,m Not Want To Promote MySelf
Amir Tataloo I Want To Have A Page Like This
If You Have IG Give Ur ID I Need Help About it Khalijfars900200 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you do not meet our criteria for an article. Please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left 'em my usual deletion notice, chock full of help links. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want to write about yourself, you can edit your personal page. There is no approval process for your own page. Guninvalid (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Guninvalid: That is not correct. We do not have personal pages. WP:user pages are not to be used as personal pages or as webhosts. There are many things that may not be on Wikipedia user pages -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 13 June 2023 review of submission by Bastandas

Hi! I'm writing materials about digital rights and the resistance towards censorship in Russia. The draft of the article about Amnezia VPN was declined for the following reason:

"This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: 

   in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
   reliable
   secondary
   strictly independent of the subject"


But there are references to TechRadar and Wired in the material, which are written specifically about the software in the draft - Amnezia VPN. And Wired and TechRadar seem to be reliable sources. Could you pleas assist me if the problem is that these sources aren't enough? Or that they aren't reliable enough? Or is it anything else? Please assist. Bastandas (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastandas: we usually require three solid sources to satisfy WP:GNG, especially when it comes to organisations or products, so you need at least one more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you!
I added links to russian-language independent media (Meduza and DW.com). Is it enough or need to wait big english articles about this software in reliable sources? Bastandas (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastandas: I haven't checked these sources, but a) AFAIK Meduza is considered RS, and DW certainly is; and b) sources don't have to be in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:45, 13 June 2023 review of submission by Pixature

Please guide me through to publish this page in the right way Pixature (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pixature: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting deletion, hence it will not be published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been edited to based on the guidelines, all Url's has been removed and the Adv section has been marked is there's a way to republish it? Pixature (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has now been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I rewrite it again? Pixature (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we aren't interested in helping you promote this business. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a business and what it does. An article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. You dived right in to creating articles, the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, without learning how Wikipedia operates and without first spending time editing existing articles in areas that interest you. I would highly recommend that you use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and what exactly it is we are looking for. If you are able to write a draft that summarizes what independent sources choose to state about Get In Canada and what makes it signficant/important/influential- and not what it says about itself- you may try, but beware another promotional draft will just be deleted.
If you are associated with this business, you must read conflict of interest and paid editing]. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:10:56, 13 June 2023 review of draft by Congopro


Congopro (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I come to you for your help Check my page if everything is perfect I would like to know what is missing from my article so that it is not thrown away please check for me

Congopro You have submitted it for review and it is pending; the reviewer will give you feedback. If you are associated with the subject of your article, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:43:51, 13 June 2023 review of draft by 103.55.213.162


I do not know how to add the references (links/URLs) - What is the proper format?

103.55.213.162 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

09:05, 14 June 2023 review of submission by Imcalledhey

Why was it not declined? Imcalledhey (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Imcalledhey: it was declined. I think the question should be, why was it not rejected? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 14 June 2023 review of submission by 116.68.111.15

Please tell why decling this request. Shaju Sreedhar is a malayalam actor from 1995 to present. Reference is available in page. 116.68.111.15 (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single source, once cited, is nowhere near enough to either establish notability or to support the draft contents.
And if you keep resubmitting without making any attempt to address the decline reasons, this will sooner or later be rejected outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 14 June 2023 review of submission by Adeyemo Taoheed

Please i request for assistance because of my wikipedia that is declined , please i need it not to be decline because i am here to follow this site rules and regulation and not to violate this site

Please help me out Adeyemo Taoheed (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Jonathan Daniel Ross was rejected, the topic is not notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

04:49, 15 June 2023 review of submission by Wigitiwigidiwak

Rejected on the basis of: "Wikipedia and wordpress are not reliable sources" and suggests that it "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources"

The submission has >12 pubmed.gov published medical references, a copy of published PDF references, websites for national organizations which are all used to support the individual's membership status of said organizations...

The majority of the data included was collected from a published "Memorium" published in a medical journal, and presented at a meeting of the Mexican Academy of Surgery (reference included, as well as the cover of the PDF).

While some of the references indeed are from webpages created on "wordpress", they are official pages of the societies, schools or hospitals which support the items cited (where he went to school, he was a member of a society or there is a school named after his father).

There are no "social" websites included for supporting this biographical submission.

Additional images of newspaper clippings and such will be added, but this submission is not based on "unreliable" sources for any of the statements reported.

I believe that the editor did not see the vast range of supporting documents/cites for this submission, ony what program some of the websites were made with. Wigitiwigidiwak (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wigitiwigidiwak Hello, I was the editor that declined your submission. Do you have any evidence that ancestrocastenera is a reliable source? It doesn't seem to be related to any academic or reliable organizations.
Secondly, most of the sources are affiliated with Guillermo Escobar Aldasoro. The submission having >12 pubmed.gov citations doesn't matter if they are written by the subject himself. Sources need to be independent and have significant coverage to establish notability. Carpimaps talk to me! 13:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:04, 15 June 2023 review of submission by Traptibook

Need help in improving my edit with professional/experienced help. Traptibook (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What specific help are you looking for? I would ask how you obtained what appears to be a professionally taken image of Chauhan. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:08, 15 June 2023 review of submission by Nareshkv77

I have provided enough content and citations, why the draft is declined? Nareshkv77 (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nareshkv77: this draft was rejected (not merely declined) for the reasons given in the rejection notice and the accompanying comments; please read them, and come back if you still have questions. Although even then, please note that this draft will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you give me an example , how should i write below paragraph?
Rajinikanth Vellalacheruvu is an Telugu Journalist who works in Tv9 Telugu as Managing Editor . He hosts Prime time debates in the channel which are Prime Time show", "Big News Big Debate" , "Cross Fire". Nareshkv77 (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:42, 15 June 2023 review of submission by Nbulgin

Good Morning, I completely understand the importance of maintaining your editorial standards to ensure the credibility of the offering. I'm more though at a loss to understand how a charity fund raiser who has been awarded an OBE for services to a major cancer charity is not 'notable' and would be grateful for any guidance please. My aim in writing this entry is to create an ability for other charities and so forth to find him and potentially engage his time as a fund raiser. After all, receiving an OBE seems notable to me. Thank you. Nbulgin (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nbulgin: you appear to be mistaken about the concept of notability in the Wikipedia context. This does not mean 'fame' or 'recognition' or 'achievements' or anything of that ilk. It simply means whether enough secondary sources, which are reliable and independent of the subject, have on their own volition decided to publish significant coverage about it. If so, you then draft an article by summarising what those sources have said. (And if no such sources exist, then it isn't possible to have an article included.) This is very much the essence of Wikipedia. And as this draft cites no such sources, there is no evidence of notability, hence why I declined it. (And since you bring it up, something like an OBE does not make anyone inherently notable.)
On a separate but related matter, I have posted a message on your talk page about conflicts of interest; please read and action it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Being awarded an OBE does likely make him notable. However, the draft has very little coverage of this or why he was awarded it, beyond mentioning that he was. There needs to be sources provided with significant coverage of his being awarded the title or the work that led to it. The personal life section is uncited. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nbulgin When you say "My aim in writing this entry is to create an ability for other charities and so forth to find him and potentially engage his time as a fund raiser", this is a promotional purpose- promotion is not permitted on Wikipedia. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: an OBE makes one notable? They hand out hundreds of those every year, there must be tens of thousands in circulation! And does this also apply to comparable mid/lower chivalry honours in other countries? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I poorly phrased that(apologies!); an OBE may be an indicator of notability, but there needs to be significant coverage in independent sources about why they are notable enough to receive an OBE. This draft merely says that they got one, and doesn't really get into why. Almost all people who have been given a US Presidential Medal of Freedom have articles, not merely for receiving the award, but for what they did to be given one. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying @331dot. Yes, I see what you're saying, getting an OBE (etc.) is a signal suggesting they've probably done something which makes them notable, but that the OBE in and of itself doesn't negate the need for meeting WP:GNG or another notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:28, 15 June 2023 review of submission by Cawcampro

I'm trying to get this draft published and I can not seem to find my error after multiple changes and submissions. Cawcampro (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cawcampro, you seem to have ignored the advice given in the decline notices posted on your draft, and simply resubmitted your draft without addressing the issues. The issues are:
"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." Qcne (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 15 June 2023 review of submission by Dairb

How can I make my article notable more than it is already? Dairb (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dairb. You may not understand what "Notability" means in the Wikipedia context. Creating a Wikipedia article that meets notability standards requires careful attention to the sourcing and structuring of the content. Here are some recommendations based on Wikipedia's notability policy:
- Reliable Sources: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources. These sources should be independent of the subject (not self-published or from the subject's own website) and published by reputable institutions. This could be books published by university presses, articles in peer-reviewed academic journals, or news from well-known news organizations. Primary sources can be used, but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Significant Coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. A brief mention is not usually enough to establish notability. The sources should provide in-depth information about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- Multiple Sources:You should find at least three strong, reliable sources that discuss your subject. If all of your information comes from a single source, it may not be enough to demonstrate that the subject is notable.
- No Original Research: Wikipedia articles should summarize existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone. Qcne (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm sorry to say your article has been Rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 15 June 2023 review of submission by The haul

Subject: Reason for Not Contesting Speedy Deletion

Dear WikiProject,

Thank you for bringing the speedy deletion notice to my attention regarding the page in question. After carefully considering the matter, I would like to provide the following reasons for not contesting the speedy deletion:

1. Notability: I understand that notability is a key criterion for preserving a Wikipedia page. In the case of the subject of this page, Ankit Kumar Pandey, it is important to highlight that he meets the notability guidelines outlined by Wikipedia. His achievements as an Indian sports personality, founder of the Self Defense Association of India, and his role as a State Secretary in Silambam sports, have garnered significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. These sources include newspapers, magazines, and online publications that have recognized his contributions and impact in the respective fields.

2. Sufficient Sourcing: The page in question includes appropriate citations from reliable sources that support the claims made in the content. These citations have been carefully selected from reputable publications known for their accuracy and integrity. By incorporating these reliable sources, the page aims to provide readers with verifiable information and maintain the standards of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines.

3. Expansion Potential: Although the current content of the page may appear concise, it has the potential for expansion. As Ankit Kumar Pandey continues to make significant contributions in various domains, there is ample room to include additional noteworthy achievements and relevant details. With further expansion, the page can provide a comprehensive and informative overview of his accomplishments, thus meeting the expectations of Wikipedia's content standards.

4. Compliance with Policies: The content on the page strictly adheres to Wikipedia's policies, including verifiability, neutral point of view, and avoiding original research. Every effort has been made to present information in an objective manner, supported by reliable sources, ensuring the content meets the highest standards of accuracy and fairness.

5. As i see DreamRimmer mentioned Fit India Movement ambassador is not noteworthy i agreed we didn't target whole biography on it i agreed Fit India Ambassador consider as only notable work that he promotes fitnes to encourage individuals as i mentioned lots of notable work like founder of Self Defense Association of India, and State Secretary of Silambam Sports which is recognized by Sports ministry of india also he did movement like Balika Samman Abhiyan and you mentioned that provided sources are sponsored i don't think so this seems professional you think that news platforms like - times of india, Hindustan times, News Nation india, patrika etc. Platforms are published there article without verification so you're worng don't blame like that i don't think my article contest for deletion i knew already these article deleted which is wrote by someone else but I'll preformed very sincerely for it.

In light of the above reasons, I kindly request a reconsideration of the speedy deletion notice. I believe that the page meets the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and provides valuable information about a notable individual. If there are any specific concerns or suggestions for improvement, I am more than willing to collaborate and make the necessary adjustments to ensure the page's compliance and accuracy.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and further guidance.

Sincerely, The haul The haul (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The haul: I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly ("Not Contesting Speedy Deletion"?), but this is not the place to contest (or not...) a speedy deletion request; you do that on the talk page of the article/draft in question. As indeed you have done.
It's also not quite clear what "response and further guidance" you want, but if you do have a question regarding the AfC process, feel free to ask. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Hello dear thanks for your attention can you please help me out on my article Draft:Ankit Kumar Pandey which a have created i clearly mentioned all the reliable sources and notability according to wikipedia guidelines. The haul (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The haul: in short, no. This draft has been rejected. Previous repeated attempts, going back three years (!), have been deleted. Time to drop this, and find something else to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I knew this drap has been already deleted that's why I'll tried for it, meanwhile after rejected article won't republish or rewrite? -- The haul (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't magic notability out of thin air. If this person isn't notable, no matter how many times you rewrite the draft, he still won't be notable.
Besides, why are you so insistent? Do you have a connection with this person? (No need to answer here; I'll post a message on your talk page, where you can respond. Please do.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If any article deleted before show we can't write on it again? The haul (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to correct it for accept The haul (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The haul You can't. Rejection means it will not be considered again, please find another topic to edit about. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't create a new section for every post you make. Please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:35, 15 June 2023 review of submission by Njlr2020

I have submitted a draft about a living person and it has come back saying there are two unreferenced sections and other claims without any footnotes. I would like to correct this but in some places I don't understand what it is I need to reference, or how I can. For example, this is one of the unreferenced sections. Can you give me an example of what it is that needs to be referenced within here as it is just talking about his family and education. Many thanks indeed, N

Early life and education

Born in Essex on 15 November 1938, Roberts was the only child of parents who divorced five years later. After the war, and after being cured of tuberculosis, he went to Woodford Green Primary School aged almost eight. From there he won a scholarship to Bancroft's School and, with further scholarships, went from there to the University of Leeds and University of Cambridge to study chemical engineering.

Following this he went on to read medicine at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, qualifying in 1972. Njlr2020 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Njlr2020 Basically you need a source for every claim in the article. Taking only the first sentence of your example paragraph, you need to provide proof that he:
  • was born in Essex
  • was born on 15 November 1938
  • was an only child
  • and that his parents divorced when he was (about) 5 years old.
If the entire paragraph is from a single source you need to cite it only once at the end of the paragraph. If multiple sources are involved you need to place the references accordingly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Njlr2020 I also note much of the content is unsourced. You need to cite sources for most claims. If no such sources exist, then you need to remove the content. See WP:V and WP:BLPSOURCES. S0091 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:18:29, 15 June 2023 review of draft by 47.40.238.193


47.40.238.193 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC) How do I change the title of my draft?[reply]

The title is not the issue so do not concern about yourself about that. The issue is an article already exists about the topic as noted in the decline. S0091 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the IP submitted a duplicate draft under the title Draft:Cultural impact of Depp v. Heard, which I redirected to Draft:Ken Loach8 given it had already been declined as an existing article and unlikely to ever be accepted. S0091 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


June 16

01:53, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Sindrella409

I submitted an article for consideration and it was immediately declined. I don't understand why. The reviewer said the inline citations were insufficient. Jimmy Doom is a Detroit celebrity with over 70 IMDB credits. The sources I cited were our major metropolitan papers and magazines. Can someone please offer additional guidance as to what I'm missing? Sindrella409 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sindrella409: in articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported with inline citations (to reliable published sources), whereas in your draft there are several paragraphs without any referencing, and the DOB is also unsupported.
Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. This excludes things said or written by the subject themselves (incl. interviews), as well as any user-generated sources such as IMDb, Discogs, or Goodreads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I appreciate the guidance and will use different sources. I appreciate the input. <3 Sindrella409 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:41, 16 June 2023 review of submission by JimmyT1967

I reached the point a few months ago where I felt I was fulfilling all the requirements cited as the reason this article was rejected. The only result was that people started offering to get the article accepted if I paid them to edit it for me. So I let it lie. Here are the facts - the subject of the article has had about 30 books published by mainstream publishers. She has had numerous reviews of her books and articles about them published in mainstream newspapers. She has been interviewed on radio about her books many, many times and has been a speaker at several writers' conferences. And yet, she is not considered a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article by your editors. I would like to know precisely what's missing from my submission rather than vague references to requirements that I haven't met, so that I can fix it without having to pay a self-styled "Wiki expert" for the privilege. JimmyT1967 (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JimmyT1967: the first thing to say is, anyone asking for money to help your draft get accepted is likely to be scamming, therefore my advice is to steer well clear of such offers. Needless to say, they have nothing to do with us.
This draft was previously declined (not rejected) on two grounds: lack of notability, and inadequate referencing.
Notability doesn't arise from having written many books or articles, or having spoken at many events. It arises, in the case of authors, in one of two ways:
  1. They meet one or more of the four criteria listed at WP:AUTHOR. --or--
  2. They have been covered in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. By 'covered', I mean significant coverage, not just passing mentions. Note that interviews, which you mention, do not count, as they are the subject talking about themselves. Note also that while book reviews might make the books in question notable, they do not necessarily do that for the author, unless they also provide significant coverage directly of them.
As for referencing, per WP:BLP, in articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. In your draft, the entire 'Life' section is unreferenced, which is wholly unacceptable.
These things are, precisely, what is missing from your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a previous submission, the "life" section was laced with references to places she was born, educated, and worked and that was deemed either insufficient or irrelevant so I took it out. I guess she just isn't famous enough to merit a Wikipedia entry, although I note that books by some of her peers are (although the authors are not), so perhaps I will pursue that avenue. Having said that, it seems to be slightly illogical to feature an author's work without carrying a reference or link to the author. 2001:8003:2830:8A01:55DC:955A:9BCA:984A (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Laced with references" yes, in the sense that there were several citations in that section. However, they mostly pointed to the home pages (domain roots) of websites, which is useless in terms of supporting article contents: you must point precisely to the URL that actually corroborates a statement in the article. There were also two apparent citations to other Wikipedia articles, but it is pointless 'citing' Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia as this creates a circular reference (if you wish to link to an existing article, you do that through wikilinks). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:26, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Katrina masbin

Hi . I want to know that which part of my article had problems? It was about my sources that my article submission was declined? Thank? Katrina masbin (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Katrina masbin: the sources do not show that the subject is notable per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Tamtrible

I have put a lot of work into this article. It is somewhat similar to, but not the same as, the page of culinary herbs and spices. It has been in limbo because of that similarity, because it was removed when it was in a much earlier stage and I can't move it out of draft space because of this, but people keep telling me to "improve the existing page", but basically the only way I could do that would be by replacing the entire page with my page, and the people who have already edited that page in the past don't want that.

I just want it to be a thing, in some fashion.

Plz help? Tamtrible (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamtrible: I think we've discussed this quite enough already, don't you? And this draft has been rejected, meaning it's the end of the road for it. I appreciate you've put effort into it, and seeing it stall is frustrating, but that's how it is, I'm afraid. We don't publish articles based on how much effort has gone into them, or how much the creator may wish to publish them, but how suitable they are for inclusion. (And no, you should emphatically not replace the existing article with yours, unless and until you get clear and strong consensus on the said article's talk page first.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the discussions always just go off into limbo. Waiting for input from people who don't give any input, and so forth. This is arguably a better page than the one it is "too similar to" (it's a sortable table instead of just a list), and also arguably a *different* page (focusing more on the plants than on the actual herbs).
It's not just that I've put a lot of work into this (though that is, indeed, frustrating), it's that I think this is *a better page*, with more information presented in a more useful format.
If you look at the prior discussions, you'll see a lot of things like "Yeah, I think this is a good page, but what does <person> think?", with no response from said person. Tamtrible (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Valereee will look at this when she has an opportunity as she is one of our best editors regarding food and drink. Smirkybec is another editor interested in food and drink who may be able to do something with this. In the meantime, I have boldly replaced the article with the content from the draft, as I can see some support for this on the talk page, plus the opposition appears weak and vague. If somebody reverts this, we'll discuss what to do then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Maxclayman

I have added new references and have changed the tone, is this enough for this page to be accepted? Maxclayman (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxclayman You have submitted the draft for review and it is pending, the reviewer will make a determination, and leave you a message either way. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! Maxclayman (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maxclayman, some of your sources do not seem to show that Nate has Significant Coverage. A brief mention is not usually enough to establish notability. Your sources should provide in-depth information about Nate, going beyond basic facts or promotional material. From a brief glance it looks like only the first and third source is directly covering Nate- the rest only mention him in passing and are therefore probably not going to count.
Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (people). It might simply be Wikipedia:Too soon for Nate to have an article, despite his laudable activism. Qcne (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 16 June 2023 review of submission by RajeshTrip

Why my article is declined RajeshTrip (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not just declined, it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The reason for the rejection is at the top of the draft. You offer some Wikipedia articles as sources(I think you meant to simply link them, which is done by placing the target article in double brackets like this: [[India]]). Social media accounts are not reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here, some knowledge will help you. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 16 June 2023 review of submission by 2.50.24.49

dear sir, This is official username we are not spam or duplicate, This is official organization, we are just helping the people of determination. so please reinstate it. Thanks 2.50.24.49 (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is absolutely spam. you draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so please give me advice what I do now? 2.50.24.49 (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do something else. don't try to have an article on this company. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that once you've been blocked (I'm assuming you were editing under User:Gilaniengineering), you should not continue to edit under an IP address, as this could be regarded as block evasion. You must instead appeal your block, as instructed on your user talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:57, 16 June 2023 review of draft by 119.73.121.76


Hello, I want help from experienced editors regarding my article on Raimond Magomedaliev. I want to be published. I want two things. 1) I want real help from an experienced editor to make it as perfect as possible. 2) I need review and feedback from that editor 119.73.121.76 (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 16 June 2023 review of submission by OlifanofmrTennant

So my initial submission was declined saying the article lacked notability. I understand this and was wondering that if the overall article is okay as is such as the formating (headers, subhead). OLI 11:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides notability, the article contains too much trivia. For instance, the appearance section. Carpimaps talk to me! 13:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:02, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Drumstick21

I created an AfC request for Draft:Icelandic_identity_card without realising that the article already exists in the namespace, but with a redirect. Should I edit (paste the draft into) the existing article and remove the redirect or should I wait for the AfC request? If so, how do I cancel the AfC request. Drumstick21 (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait. If your draft is accepted, the reviewer will handle moving it to the encyclopedia over the redirect. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Altaf05

please sir hlep me Altaf05 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 16 June 2023 review of submission by 78.63.218.169

plz 78.63.218.169 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:59:30, 16 June 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by BedStuyResident


I recently had an article rejected. I've since made edits based on the feedback and now the article is completed in draft mode. How do I go about resubmitting it? Should I rebuild it in sandbox and go from there?

BedStuyResident (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 16 June 2023 review of submission by Benmil

Good morning, I need more information about the refuse of this draft. Thank you Best Regards Benmil Benmil (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1160458274"