Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


January 23

[edit]

01:08, 23 January 2025 review of submission by Helloyesgoodbye

[edit]

Have updated with better formatting and further reference on significant running race here in Australia. $60,000, the Stawell gift if Australia's richest footrace and Isaac Dunmall won this race. He also has an IAAF profile and personal best of 10.44 over 100m Helloyesgoodbye (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helloyesgoodbye: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. The notability criteria for athletics is WP:NATH, and I don't see anything in this draft which would satisfy that, do you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing.
Yes I would say there is. He won the richest footrace in Australia and has a PB of 10.44 which is a national level performance. Furthermore, there are other Stawell Gift winners with lower achievemnets who have profiles - Talia Martin is one of them.
What else would you like to see?
The man won the richest footrace in Australia also also the richest 70m in Australia at the Bay Sheffield carnival. Helloyesgoodbye (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 23 January 2025 review of submission by Naveen Zec

[edit]

Please Naveen Zec (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Naveen Zec, I've undone the rejection as it was a bit premature - but please do add some content before you submit for review.
FYI @Cinder painter, there's a decline (not reject) reason for blank submissions. qcne (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne They are writing a page about themselves, and their username is the same as the draft name. I’m not sure if I should notify anyone or if it will be visible anyway Cinder painter (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cinder painter. The Articles for Creation process specifically allows autobiographical drafts, so it's pretty normal to see usernames with the same name as the draft title. qcne (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
good! thank you Cinder painter (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 23 January 2025 review of submission by JFBB12345

[edit]

I am requesting help because your commendably alert system has suggested I have some connection with my subject. I am a retired academic who is a yoga enthusiast with considerable experience over decades. This recent type of yoga becoming popular in the UK has sparked my interest as an older student who appreciates this more general approach. However, I do not teach nor have any particular affiliation with a yoga school. I have not written on yoga specifically before. However two reviewers seem to think they have spotted self-promotion or a conflict of interest(!) This is probably quite amusing, although I was initially upset(!) The last reviewer quoted this comment: Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I have included ten references, from old to extremely recent, noe of them written by me. How can I convince future reviewers that I am in fact independent and there is a 'false positive' idenification here?

Thank you for any help. JFBB12345 (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is tell us- which you are now. I can see why someone might think you were associated with this topic- the draft is written in a promotional manner- more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JFBB12345. I agree with 331dot. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several independent reliable sources have published about the subject - nothing less, and very little more.
A very brief guide to rewriting an acceptable Wikipedia article:
  1. Find several sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42. Ignore anything written, published, or commissioned, by the subject or the subject's associates, or based substantially on their words; ignore anything not published by a reputable publisher; ignore anything with less than a few decent paragraphs about the subject.
  2. If you have not found at least three such sources, give up: the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's sense.
  3. If you have, forget every single thing you know about the subject, and then write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
  4. If you have the basis of a reasonable article, you can add some limited uncontroversial factual information from non-independent sources: see WP:SPS.
  5. Your opinions about the subject (or anything else) are not relevant. Your knowledge about the subject is not relevant except where it is verifiable from an independent reliable source, which should be cited.
ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikipedia, I also agree with 331.A on the need to ensure non-partiality in contributions. For this reason I have included links to three independent, reputable and unrelated recent articles on somatic yoga. The most recent is from Yoga Journal dated 20th January 2025: I selected this publication because it was specifically suggested by the first reviewer. None of these were written by myself nor by anyone I know or am connected with in any way. I read these articles before including them to check that they were suitable for reference. When the first reviewer asked for an expanded description of what somatic yoga is and how it is notably different from other types of yoga, I wrote this more detailed section using information from these sources (which coincided with what I already knew). I was probably influenced by their use of language which may explain why the second reviewer mistook the tone for promotional material - specifically, on re-reading I have noted the use of the second person ('you') in such explanatory articles. However, it is not - this was simply a response to the request for more detail. There are references to several books of earlier work: nowadays the tendency is for publication online so there are not (yet) any specific hardcopy books on somatic yoga.
I am a retired academic (I used to teach at the City Literary Institute in Central London, among other adult colleges, on subjects related to literature, classical myth and Access courses). I have been doing yoga as a leisure activity for decades. I came across the somatic approach to yoga which is more suitable for older students - the teachers themselves are getting older so more aware of the dangers of trying to be a gymnastic 'yoga bunny'. I regularly attend classes taught by Anji Gopal at Triyoga Ealing, who uses a somatic approach although she does not use that title for her classes as it is not yet generally understood, When I tried to find out more about somatic yoga, I turned to Wikipedia as one does and there was nothing. So, being an academic who has worked in further education and believing in the importance of disseminating knowledge, I decided to write an Wikipedia page to remedy that gap, especially since it links and combines several other topics which you already cover.
I will ask the British Wheel of Yoga if they can provide evidence of the certified teacher training which has been mentioned: I am not a member of this association and they are notoriously bad at answering telephone calls but if this would help the page have credibility, then I will try to get that link.
I hope that this now reassures Wikipedia of the importance, validity and authenticity of this topic. JFBB12345 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 23 January 2025 review of submission by Anagarcia2000

[edit]

Several questions in my mind, 1- I am being paid for the draft of Mike, I have analyzed and accepted the request to upload his draft but before uploading, I have searched source links and get my draft ready in neutral tone, May be i am not a pro while writing? Why my account is being considered as Sock puppet? 2- I was a content writer before in a firm, One of my friend suggested me that i can get projects for Wikipedia as well that's why i have created my account after getting these 2 drafts for upload. 3- Can Wikipedia team review it and provide me suggestion without any biasness that how can i improve it to get it approve on Wikipedia, Mike Sy is renown in China, He has background of Syria. 

Anagarcia2000 (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anagarcia2000: I meant to ask you already earlier if you're also being paid for this draft, but now that you've volunteered that information I don't have to. You still need to disclose it formally, though, in the same way as you disclosed for Diana Qeblawi. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well Noted, let me do that first :) Thank you Anagarcia2000 (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your account is being suspected of sock puppetry for the reasons detailed in the SPI case, which you seem to have successfully found. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah i have received notification that leads me to some other user page where i got information. Anyhow thanks for above information. Anagarcia2000 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 23 January 2025 review of submission by Piqro24

[edit]

Hello. I submited a new article, but was rejected. The reason, it is probably notable but looks like a promotion and poorly structured.

I really do not understand what to change. Could you help me please with the advice?

Thanks a lot in advance Piqro24 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered on my talk page already Cinder painter (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Piqro24. This is probably not the answer you want to hear, but: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your answer. Cinder painter helped me a lot recently.
I did not know that and have created something already. So it is great help for me to understand the principle of how wiki works in order to move forward with other articles.
Hope the first article will be a success story followed by other articles.
Thanks again. Piqro24 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:26, 23 January 2025 review of submission by Matteo99212

[edit]

Hello, regarding the latest comments on the draft, I have added primary, secondary, and tertiary sources in order to create a text that is neutral and can be linked to the existing pages of the museum of engines in Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, and Japanese. I kindly request an additional review, and if it doesn't meet the requirements, I will revise the text. Matteo99212 (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Matteo99212. You have resubmitted, and at some time a reviewer will get to it. You do not need to ask here.
But, since you have asked, I will say that, if I were a reviewer (which I am not) I would be reluctant to look at this draft, because I would obviously have to spend a load of time looking through dozens of useless citations to see if any of them were worthwhile. I haven't looked, for example, at the HMSO publication, but I would lay money that it does not contain significant coverage of the Museum - and if it does not, then it should not be cited. Similarly, all the citations to the Museum's publications are immediately suspicious: 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.
If you can find places where independent reliable sources have discussed items in the Museum's collection, then it may be appropriate to report what those sources say about the items. But in the absence of such specific discussions, listing items in the museum's collection looks like promotion to me. ColinFine (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 23 January 2025 review of submission by Shaymmm

[edit]

I have given all the references and more than Bilekahalli which got accepted but my article is declined due to not having enough refernces Shaymmm (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bilekahalli was never accepted: it was created in 2009, long before we had the AFC system of quality control, and it was tagged as needing more references a few months later. Ideally, it would either have had better sources added, or been deleted, years ago; but as this is a volunteer project, we have many thousands of wholly inadequate articles. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 23 January 2025 review of submission by Kksoni20068

[edit]

why Kksoni20068 (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't meet our criteria for inclusion, @Kksoni20068 qcne (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kksoni20068: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 23 January 2025 review of submission by 160.129.250.236

[edit]

When I checked PECASE award in 2025, I found this drafted article. The article has solid sources to support what described about You Chen. Also, You Chen is an internationally recognized Biomedical Informaticists. I would recommend reviewers to further assess this article and make it online which can be viewed by wiki users. 160.129.250.236 (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in. You need to appeal to the rejecting reviewer first. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 23 January 2025 review of submission by KING OF CATS 2012

[edit]

I dont know i said in heberew he is a cat KING OF CATS 2012 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the Hebrew Wikipedia, nor is your content an acceptable article. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 23 January 2025 review of submission by Sabrinawaite

[edit]

Hi I got this message on my declined draft: "Some of these reference urls are not actually pointing to anything. Reformat and then ping me when your ready. For example reference 4." but I'm not sure what this actually means. When I click on the links they go right to the pages I'm referring to in the text but I might be misinterpreting the message. I also do not know how to "ping" someone. Thank you! Sabrinawaite (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sabrinawaite. I agree that reference 4 resolves to a perfectly good website (though like many of them it is not an independent source, and so is of limited usefulness), so I don't know what Scope creep was referring to. As far as I can see, you have successfully pinged Scope creep on your User talk page. ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Sabrinawaite (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: you have not successfully pinged @Scope creep, because you added the {{reply-to}} in a separate edit from the one you signed - both must be done together. But I have pinged them here, so they should see this discussion. ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabrinawaite: Don't be afraid to leave a talk page message. Reference 4 seems to be ok now. I guess its been fixed. What about the others references. Ref 3 seems to be a dud. There was three in total. The last one is the [1] which doesn't point to anything. It need to point to specific award entry or better still a news articles about it, ideally. I think she is probably notable as she was a plenipotentiary diplomat. Heavy duty. I didn't look at the award. However, the references are a wee bit routine for a bio article that needs to pass WP:BIO. There should a mountain of stuff on her. That single obit is missing in ref 3. A couple more obits would be ideal and some more independent in-depth, secondary references from book sources, would be ideal. @ColinFine: Thanks for pinging me. The Afc review wasn't the clearest. I'll put more detail in the next time. I'm a bit rusty. Ping me when your finished. I only put that ping message in when I think the individual is notable but needs a bit of work to prove it. It needs to pass WP:V as well. scope_creepTalk 13:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabrinawaite: Great work on your articles. Kudos. Solid work. I'm well impressed.  :) scope_creepTalk 13:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Thank you very much! I switched out the bad references for better ones but some one already switched it from a draft to published. I'll definitely look for more book sources as I try to make the article better. I appreciate your patience!! Sabrinawaite (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabrinawaite: There is bound to be tons of stuff as she is a plenipotentiary. Ping me when your finished and I'll mainspace it. scope_creepTalk 22:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

[edit]

04:41, 24 January 2025 review of submission by Jayellb

[edit]

Hi - I'm attempting to load this page, and I have added the links from the locations set by the company that the player on the page works with, but the page is being rejected and I am unsure as to why. I am receiving the message below, but I do not know how to proceed, and hope you can advise.

Thank you.

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. Jayellb (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayellb: Merely giving us links to statistics websites and the club Boyle plays for doesn't do anything for notability as Wikipedia defines it. You need to find third-party sources with editorial oversight that discuss him at length. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 24 January 2025 review of submission by Praxxyma

[edit]

Help with Understanding Draft Status and Ensuring Readiness Hi, I’m a newcomer to Wikipedia and recently submitted a draft through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. Initially, the article was flagged for "notability," but I provided additional evidence and I was told the flagging was undone, but I’m now unsure if my draft is still paused or if it’s actively under review. Could someone kindly check its current status or let me know if there’s anything else I need to do?

Here’s the draft: Draft:Key_Account_Management

If anyone has time to take a quick look or a review, I’d be grateful for feedback to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards. I want to make sure it’s as polished as possible before it’s considered for approval.

Thank you Praxxyma (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxxyma: This reads like a research essay mixed with an investment brochure. Keep it simple. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks @Jéské Couriano, I will try to simplify the langauge. However, I would appreciate if you could advise which specific aspects of the article, in your opinion, need improvement in terms of language and readability. I appreciate that overall it might read a bit too academic, though. Praxxyma (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Praxxyma. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several reliable independent sources have said about a subject: nothing less, and very little more. ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi @ColinFine, thanks for the feedback! Could you please be a bit more specific? Which part of my article was not neutral or lacked reliable sources? I believe the tone is neutral, as I’ve presented both the benefits and the challenges/risks of using KAM for both selling and buying companies. Additionally, I used 15 different sources, including academic articles, books, and reputable magazines like the Harvard Business Review. Praxxyma (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Praxxyma I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft in the header as intended. The whole url is not needed as well. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you @331dot Praxxyma (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 24 January 2025 review of submission by 2603:800C:2FF0:8910:DCC5:D259:5074:F3E

[edit]

Requesting assistance with inline reference. Guide was used but still declined. 2603:800C:2FF0:8910:DCC5:D259:5074:F3E (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your references need to be in the text itself, not slapped on the end as an afterthought. They need to be cited at the claims they can explicitly support. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:04, 24 January 2025 review of submission by Usernameusename112

[edit]

this is annoying. why does it keep getting rejected... Usernameusename112 (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Usernameusename112. Your entirely unreferenced draft violates all three of Wikipedia's core content policies, which are Verifiability and No original research and the Neutral point of view. The writing style is overtly promotional from beginning to end, and the draft bears zero resemblance to a neutrally written, well-referenced encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:53, 24 January 2025 review of submission by Madeline Beatrice

[edit]

too many people are wanting to know who sarah yasmine is, so why ist his being rejected? Madeline Beatrice (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Madeline Beatrice: Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for promoting anyone or anything.
And please don't create multiple drafts on the same subject, you also have Draft:Sarah Yasmine (currently awaiting speedy deletion).
What is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to G11 this draft, should I just speedy delete it or let it G13? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 24 January 2025 review of submission by LauraShepherd88

[edit]

Hello, I am looking at creating this page and all information is accurate, what can I do to have it accepted? LauraShepherd88 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LauraShepherd88: the decline notice explains that there is not significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In fact, there are no sources at all.
If you know that the information is correct, you presumably have some coneection to Savas – is that right? --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 24 January 2025 review of submission by Amrita edvisor

[edit]

Please let me know why the submission of the content isn't been approved and where I can improve myself so that I can again be on the pages among the same. Amrita edvisor (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Amrita edvisor. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject: nothing less, and very little more. What the subejct says or wants to say is almost irrelevant. And if there are not adequate sources, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly promotional as its an advert, fails WP:NPOV and is unsourced failing WP:V, reads like an website dump and has tone issues, i.e. it is a completly unsuitable for Wikipedia. You will soon be blocked. scope_creepTalk 14:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 24 January 2025 review of submission by Newschecker82

[edit]

I would like to know why this was rejected. I included a source showing that it is one of the largest financial news sites in the US and it is one of the largest crypto news sites in the world.

Wikipedia has many pages about news sites even small trade publications so why was this deemed not suitable? Newschecker82 (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you forgot to include the prefix in your link.
 Courtesy link: Draft:Cointelegraph ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Newschecker82> Your draft Draft:Cointelegraph does not have adequate independent sources to show that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what such sources say about the topic, and very little else. If few or no such sources have said anything substantial about a subject - if they haven't indicated what is notable about it - then there cannot be an article. Even the one possibly noteworthy thing you have included is sourced only from its own webiste.
We have thousands and thousands of substandard articles, that in an ideal world would all have been improved or deleted - most of them created long ago, before we were as careful as we are now about accepting articles. Please see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 24 January 2025 review of submission by Absolutiva

[edit]

I attempted to submit a draft about a notable Wikimedian, most notably as creator of Maithili Wikipedia. This article of a living person has cited non-English sources as secondary sources. The submission has declined for two times, but does not have significant coverage. Absolutiva (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Absolutiva. Are the sources indepedent|? I've only looked at the first one, but it is clear that the information about Bhagat in that article comes from him; while the last one is clearly not independent, coming from the Wikimedia Foundation, and moreover contains little information about Bhagat. 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.
So you need to base an article on sources which meet all three of the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:35, 24 January 2025 review of submission by LindsayCTC

[edit]

I am in the process of editing my page for podcast Canadian True Crime, and I'm stuck on how to add a sidebar with image (I previously added our logo image incorrectly and was flagged for copywrite). The sidebar I am trying to add looks exactly like how Casefile podcast (here on Wikipedia) has theirs. Thanks! LindsayCTC (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the sourcing. As far as I can see, not one of your sources meets the triple criteria of being reliable, independent, and having significant coverage of the podcast (most of them are just listings, which are completely useless), and so your draft does not come anywhere near establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That will not help with getting the draft accepted, please address the issues of the "See also" section

and external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the See Also section and all External links within the body text. I just have not resubmitted yet. Thanks. 2607:FEA8:3B5F:D500:D866:B9E8:12FF:DC2B (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LindsayCTC there have been no edits since my comment. You need to save your changes otherwise they won't show. Theroadislong (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'Publish Changes' the same as save? That's the only option I see. Sorry, new to Wikipedia creating/editing here. 2607:FEA8:3B5F:D500:D866:B9E8:12FF:DC2B (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 'publish' means save. It's just making the point that when you save anything on the server, it's publicly available to everyone on the internet, so it's 'published' in that sense. Doesn't mean actually published in the encyclopaedia yet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please remember to log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 24 January 2025 review of submission by PhatSlyce

[edit]

I apparently mistakenly made two drafts... how do I remove the first draft? PhatSlyce (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhatSlyce: Tag it with {{g7}}. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 98.35.211.240 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 24 January 2025 review of submission by HafidaLatta

[edit]

Hi - So I wrote this article a few months ago. It was declined with insufficient references given as the reason. I rewrote it, bulking it up with a lot more references. I now want to resubmit for review and publication. How do I do this?

Help appreciated.

Best HafidaLatta (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HafidaLatta: you click on that blue 'resubmit' button. Only, you haven't made any edits to this draft since I declined it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing HafidaLatta rewrote the draft on their user page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, thanks @Helpful Raccoon; I didn't spot that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...it took a LOONG time to find the blue "Resubmit" button. So yes...I did do the changes in my user page. If that is not correct, where should I have done them? If I do press the blue 'resubmit button' will it just send through the old draft or can I get it to take my current 'userpage' article? Thank you for your patience. Best HafidaLatta (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HafidaLatta: no, you should not be using your user page for this purpose, it is intended as your 'home page' and typically tells others about your Wikipedia editing career, preferences, objectives, etc.; see WP:UP for what may, and may not, go on your user page.
I was going to do a page history merge, but seeing as the version on your user page is very new, was developed virtually in one go, and is all your own work, I think the easiest thing to do here is simply to cut the content from there and paste it into the draft, that way the edit history of the original draft is retained and nothing of material importance is lost. Which is what I've just done. (I also added back to your user page the COI disclosure you had put there earlier, but which somehow got removed when you were drafting.)
Please only develop Draft:Salih al-Souissi al-Qayrawani going forward. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - Thank you for doing that. Very appreciated. Submitted. Best HafidaLatta (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 24 January 2025 review of submission by EmilyMarion

[edit]

I edited my original version to comply with the guidelines but it was immediately rejected. I don't know what other changes to make. EmilyMarion (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EmilyMarion I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell about themselves and what they do. A Wikipedia 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 "mission" should be removed as we're not interested in what an organization considers to be its own mission. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you're working for the organization, I'd suggest that you read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors read it too. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 24 January 2025 review of submission by Bookworm5155

[edit]

Each reviewer who has declined to publish has cited notability, which I understand is hard for a local elected official to achieve. What I struggle to understand is why two other members of the Montgomery County Council (Sidney Katz and Will Jawando) have published Wikipedia pages when the same issue of notability would ostensibly apply to them too. This is especially confusing because while being a local elected official is not necessarily notable in its own right, I would think that being the first openly LGBTQ+ person elected to the legislative body of Maryland's largest jurisdiction is notable -- or at least more notable than being the mayor of Gaithersburg or a short-lived candidate in a U.S. Senate primary. I would like more clarity on why there seems to be a discrepancy -- is it inconsistency among reviewers? Are the sources for one of the other articles better? Is there something I'm missing that makes the other Councilmembers more noteworthy? None of the feedback by reviewers thus far has addressed these questions specifically. Bookworm5155 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bookworm5155 Please see other stuff exists. Perhaps those other articles shouldn't exist either and we just haven't dealt with them yet(I haven't examined them). As this is a volunteer project, there are many ways for inappropriate content to get past us, we can only address what we know about.
That said, it is possible that they meet the broader definition of a notable person(as opposed to the narrow definition of a notable politician). This would mean that for this draft you would need to show he is notable for something other than his work on the Council. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

[edit]

06:48, 25 January 2025 review of submission by Bluelily777

[edit]

Hi, I have been trying to update the list of ufologists page, particularly the Australian ones as there are several people who are quite vocal in this field in Australia and yet only Ross Coulthart is listed in the Australian section. I tried to add some in there but was told that each entry requires the person to have their own page as well so the entry was removed. I tried creating a page but the draft has been declined as I haven't used a formal encyclopedia tone. I'm wondering if I can get some assistance with this. I am new to wikipedia and editing but do have a fair knowledge of the Australian scene when it comes to ufology. The people I am trying to add here are Mary Rodwell, Peter Maxwell Slattery, and Eesha Patel. Bluelily777 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluelily777: there are two separate issues here. The list article you're referring to isn't intended to include every ufologist in the world, but every ufologist in Wikipedia; in other words, only those with an existing article can be added to it.
The second issue is that you're trying to create an article at  Courtesy link: Draft:Eesha Patel, and that's what your question is really about. Could you be more specific, please, than just say "get some assistance"? In any case, you've resubmitted the draft now, so you will receive feedback on it when a reviewer comes along to assess it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingthank you for your help and clarification. Yes, I am now writing individual articles on each person I listed as then they can be included in the list. The draft feedback says it requires more sources. I only used one source per statement because I assumed that would be enough to get the point across. Would the issue be solved by having say more than one source linked to each particular bit that has been stated on the page? There are at least 100 items that could be listed as sources which are easily found with a google and a YouTube search, but what's the general criteria here? By way of comparison Ross Coulthart has 29 references. Can I assume that's about the right ballpark to include? Bluelily777 (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluelily777: the second decline was not because the draft needs "more sources", per se; it was because the draft does not show that the subject is notable enough to justify an article. Notability in most cases (including this) requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in secondary sources that are reliable and independent, and we usually require at least three such sources (each of which must satisfy each criteria I've mentioned there). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:57, 25 January 2025 review of submission by GodsPreciousGoomba

[edit]

Plz help I want to submit my article but it got declined Draft:No.137 Helicoper Squadron, IAF. Lz help me fix it GodsPreciousGoomba (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GodsPreciousGoomba I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Are you editing about your own military unit, or do you otherwise work for the Indian military? 331dot (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is my own unit GodsPreciousGoomba (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GodsPreciousGoomba: in that case you must make a conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosure, and quite likely a paid-editing one more specifically. I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GodsPreciousGoomba: Were you ordered to create this draft by officers in the Indian Army? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no I No I am doing it on mybown GodsPreciousGoomba (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GodsPreciousGoomba We ask this because we have been dealing with what seems to be a major effort by Indian military units to create articles about themselves, and the editors doing so seem to say they've been ordered to do this- which puts the editors in a difficult position between their orders and Wikipedia guidelines. Please read WP:BOSS, and have your superior read it too- and ask them to move this up the chain so we can talk with whomever is issuing these orders to the Indian military(or someone they designate) instead of one editor in each unit of the Indian military. Feel free to show your superior this message, too. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing it on my own GodsPreciousGoomba (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; you will still need to declare a conflict of interest on your user page(User:GodsPreciousGoomba). Not every military unit of any military merits a Wikipedia article, it depends on the coverage it receives in independent reliable sources, showing how it is a notable organization. Routine activities- like receiving its equipment, as your article describes- do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 25 January 2025 review of submission by CharlesBlow129

[edit]

I just wanted to write about an nft that is interesting and was sold for a lot of money and you rejected it when it's a reel CharlesBlow129 (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes it is real, but Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist(either virtually or in reality). 331dot (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why it is Neon York accepted CharlesBlow129 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not good for article why it’s going to be deleted? CharlesBlow129 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesBlow129: because the draft is promotional, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the subject is notable, and also it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the whole thing could involve some sort of hoax and/or something else unsavoury. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such not a platform for promulgating any of those things. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How could I make it better,to not be hoax? CharlesBlow129 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make something "not a hoax" if it's a hoax. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, @DoubleGrazing, please refer to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Neon York. Whereas this might have been speedy deleted as a hoax, the nominator expresses sound reasons for taking it to discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:59, 25 January 2025 review of submission by Boeing737 arm

[edit]

I wonder if anything can be done to qualify this as a Wikipedia article or if it is doomed by lacking enough non-announcement/brief article sources. Thank you. Boeing737 arm (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Boeing737 arm. You are the one interested in this subject, so you have probably looked for sources more than anybody else. If you can't find several sources that meet the golden rule, then probably they don't exist. ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:45, 25 January 2025 review of submission by Biplab Nar6

[edit]

I want to a article of my Biplab Nar6 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

[edit]

01:08, 26 January 2025 review of submission by FusilierGeo

[edit]

I got told to add sources to my recently drafted to my wikipedia page but most if not all sources have little to no online presence, if you could please help that would be much appreciated FusilierGeo (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your only sources are classified documents, then you don't have an article. Anything the cadets themselves write would be useless for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be online, but they do have to be reliably published and wholly independent of the subject. See golden rule.
It is extremely unlikely that a detachment of a cadet force is going to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability unless something has happened (good or bad) that caused the detachment to be the focus of articles in several major news sources. ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 26 January 2025 review of submission by Adampaad

[edit]

Hello, I have created an article about **Nkonya Senior High School** in my sandbox (User:Adampaad/sandbox), and I would like to move it to the main article space. I’ve made over 50 edits so far and am hoping someone can assist me with this. Thank you! Adampaad (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Adampaad/sandbox
Hi @Adampaad: you should not move this draft into the main space, as it would only be sent right back, or worse, deleted. The draft only cites a single source, and a primary one at that, which is nowhere near enough to establish notability. Please see the relevant notability guideline WP:ORG for advice on the sort of sources we would need to see. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've added the AfC submission template to your draft, that way once you've incorporated more sources into it, you can submit your draft for pre-publication review where an experienced reviewer will check that it complies with our core policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 26 January 2025 review of submission by XNiNE46

[edit]

"Al Samiul Himel is a Bangladeshi gamer. Moon Since adulthood, he loves to game different Game with some meaningful story. He was born in 3th February 2006 at ishwarganj, Bangladesh. Avays dream to make something artistic that will retain him in the heart of millions. He used to see the nature with different point of view. He was passed "SSC" at Now he is studying in Mymensingh Govt. City College." XNiNE46 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. YouTube is not generally an acceptable reference as YouTube videos are user generated. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@XNiNE46: if you have a question, please ask, but don't spam the help desk. Your draft, such as it is, has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 26 January 2025 review of submission by Warwickabrown

[edit]

It was rejected due to vague contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Having read the purpose - and that wikipedia has NO firm rules - I'm not sure what I didn't comply with. I tried to write in a neutral tone, the person is someone of note - an author and podcast host. I'd like some more specific feedback to understand why it was rejected please. Happy to make changes, or provide further insights/sources etc. Warwickabrown (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warwickabrown: you would need to ask the reviewer why they chose to reject rather than merely decline this, but what I can say is that it is virtually unreferenced, with no evidence of notability, and pretty promotional to boot. In other words, would need to be comprehensively rewritten to comply with our policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a self-published author and hosting a podcast are not criteria for notability. I was not the reviewer, but I have to say I agree with their assessment – the first pillar of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia, and to me, there is nothing in the draft that shows that it could become an encyclopedia article. What is your connection to the person? --bonadea contributions talk 16:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 26 January 2025 review of submission by RI Biography History 4

[edit]

My article was declined on the grounds that it reads too much like an advertorial. I've tried to write it in a neutral and factual style. I'm therefore unsure how to address the feedback. Help would be appreciated! RI Biography History 4 (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you try reading this essay. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

[edit]

01:22, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Boxing4life856321

[edit]

This is a genuine person Boxing4life856321 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really verify that because the subject probably has zero coverage. There really isn't much to say. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:35, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Njames05

[edit]

I think we are good enough to move to review of submission. The goal is to get this out there to get others who were on the teams after 1990 to enter their submissions. Can someone review and provide input if this is ready to submit? Nigel D James (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:University of Texas Rugby Club
@Njames05: This is written in first-person and is woefully undersourced. This is something more suitable for a private website or blog rather than Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the feedback. I have an English major working on the first person. We considered a private page but are wanting the collaboration of people across the 40 years. Here were other wiki pages that gave us the inspiration to do it here.
Austin Huns / England national rugby union team / Leinster Rugby / Bath Rugby
For the under sourced, is it the quantity of the references (we have 35, how many more do we need) or the type of references. Need help on that item please. Nigel D James (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Njames05: For every claim that is about a living or recently-departed person you need a source that explicitly corroborates it, and it needs to be cited at the spot of the claim. (I'll also leave links to Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once, {{cite news}} and {{cite book}} here.) I'll also take the time to go over your sources (refer to my /Decode subpage, linked in my signature as "critiques"):
You have enough sources to prove the team is notable; the problem is the disconnect between what we expect from an article and what you think we are. I will say it again: If your goal is to get others who were on the teams after 1990 to enter their submissions then this would be better on a private website or a blog, where the standards of proof are much lower. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Njames05. For what you want to do, a wiki may be a good tool, but not the particular wiki called Wikipedia, for the reasons Jeske explains. There are thousands of other wikis on the web, and some of them (for example Fandom (website)) are sites that host many wikis for different groups. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:04, 27 January 2025 review of submission by DJYUSIF13

[edit]

first it's about me and my job second i am writing this to people third i have my YouTube channel facebook channel and instagram channel also my own website djyusif.com please read this message so i can reply you DJYUSIF13 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DJYUSIF13: okay, I've read your message. Now what?
The draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. It presents no evidence of notability, and is entirely promotional. Please also be aware that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DJYUSIF13: We have zero tolerance for promotion. I have tagged your user subpage for deletion accordingly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Slvlogsofficial

[edit]

Help me to add this person's details to Wikipedia. he is an important person in my country, Slvlogsofficial (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slvlogsofficial: there is nothing in this draft to indicate that the person is notable. Also, the content is promotional, and poorly referenced. As such, it is very far from acceptable. You may want to try LinkedIn etc. instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insights 112.135.189.20 (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the person is a really important one 112.135.189.20 (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being important is not a part of the criteria at WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:49, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Glitch0011

[edit]

I'm writing my first article and cannot work out how to lay out the ordering of the headers correctly. I have "Early Life and Military Service", but then he's most known for an event in his 90s. But his Later Life section is too short, should "Attendance at the 70th D-Day Anniversary" be a sub-heading of later life along with his work in politics? Many thanks. Glitch0011 (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of copy editing per WP:MOS but it's not clear that they are actually notable in Wikipedia's terms. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Dh39786

[edit]

Hi! I have updated this page and added more information, an image, and more citations. Please reconsider this page for publication on the main page. And please let me know what I can do to aid in anything you think could change. Thank you! Dh39786 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the draft was rejected, you will need to first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly, on their talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CFA rejected the draft so they are the first port of call, but before anything else you need to address your potential conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hoffman simply isn't notable. I looked and found no examples of significant coverage at all. C F A 20:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Richard F Gagliardi

[edit]

I'm new to this process and selected the wrong input or editing option. Can I switch to the WYSIWG version? I think it would be easier for me to navigate further into this submission. Thanks. Richard F Gagliardi (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard F Gagliardi: you should be able to switch to the visual editor (assuming that's what you mean by WYSIWYG) at any time, here's how to do it: Help:VisualEditor#Opening_VisualEditor. The exactly look and functionality of your interface may depend on the 'skin' and/or the device you're using. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard F Gagliardi: Note that the WYSIWYG option tends to screw templates up, particularly citation templates such as {{cite book}}. See Help:Referencing for beginners. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Saltecsolutionstz

[edit]

Hello, how do I make my article look more professional with the looks of artists like Drake etc? Salmin Swaggz is a tremendous artist in Tanzania it's sad he doesn't have a professional Wikipedia page. Saltecsolutionstz (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saltecsolutionstz: There is no such thing as a "professional Wikipedia page". On a related note, you're going to want to change your username and DISCLOSE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jéske, can you help me edit my article? I believe you can make it better since you are more experienced, there are lots of articles in here which are less informative than mine, I wonder how did they get approved, your help will be truly appreciated. Thanks Saltecsolutionstz (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saltecsolutionstz Not every article that exists was "approved" by anyone. Please read other stuff exists. The existence of other poor articles cannot justify adding more poor articles. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Saltecsolutionstz: You still have yet to disclose. The drafting process is both much younger than Wikipedia and was only relatively recently made mandatory; Drake (musician) in particular well predates the drafting process (first edit 2005/Apr/01). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Daddy2013

[edit]

why the h**l did you say no it is true and I am trying to tell everybody cause nobody knows what really happened so I'm just trying to tell the people the truth since people on YouTube lie about his disappearance. Daddy2013 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to find another medium for that, I'm afraid. It is not what Wikipedia is for. --bonadea contributions talk 19:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daddy2013: We are not the first place to post news; we merely summarise what existing published sources already say. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 27 January 2025 review of submission by 188.190.88.244

[edit]

Why your article submission was declined? 188.190.88.244 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:When a Parrot Knocked on the Window was declined because it does not have a single reliable independent source. IMDB is not reliable (it is user generated) and the producer's (or whoever's it is) YouTube channel is not independent.
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.
To write a successful article, you need to start by finding several reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject (see golden rule). If you cannot find three such sources, then give up, as the film almost certainly does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If you have three sources, then you should forget everything you know about the film, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 27 January 2025 review of submission by PawWiki

[edit]

I don't know why my submission is not accepted. I used independent and high quality sources, which are regulary used in Wikipedia when it comes to Kurdish/Syrian/MENA issues. PawWiki (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was summarize the routine activities of this military unit. No indication of notability. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 27 January 2025 review of submission by 43.225.165.54

[edit]

Is that Eligible or Notable? [ www.labelradar.com/artists/thisisysd/profile ] 

43.225.165.54 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A profile published by the label is not independent, and so does not count at all towards establishing WP:notability. 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) 22:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Agbenenornu

[edit]

i want to the draft 

Agbenenornu (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Your first article for how to go about this. Also note that, writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged: few people are able to write sufficiently neutrally about themselves to succeed. ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

[edit]

01:18, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Helloyesgoodbye

[edit]

Updated with Bay sheffield win Helloyesgoodbye (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rejection seems to be a result of persistent resubmissions without any improvements. Your best option is convincing @Qcne to overturn the rejection. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Creativesingh123

[edit]

I have published an overview article of the Organization, and I have mentioned the Intro, growth of the company, Awards, Services, and other details to help viewers. Also, I have mentioned source links, but I don't know why they're getting declined. So, I would like to request that you please let me know how I can fix it. Creativesingh123 (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is blank. Try seeing it for yourself. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Creativesingh123: Your initial draft was deleted by 331dot for unambiguous advertising. Your resubmission was of a blank page. Judging by your talk page, there has been question about you editing and possible undeclared WP:COI. If you do have a conflict of interest, or are paid to create this page, you must disclose it. cyberdog958Talk 06:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 28 January 2025 review of submission by 202.61.42.8

[edit]

similar article like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_Masstransit_Authority 202.61.42.8 (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not helping with the draft passing. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:08, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Trishanbal

[edit]

Why My Draft is getting Rejected 

Trishanbal (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trishanbal: yes, it is; and pending speedy deletion as well (which I will go and execute in a moment). Wikipedia does not host self-promotional content like this. There is also nothing to suggest that you are notable in any way. (Which is an observation, not a criticism; I'm also not notable, and neither is the vast majority of people on this planet).) If you wish to tell the world about yourself, you need to find some other channel for it, such as a social media or blogging platform of some sort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:26, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Guptashreyaaaa8

[edit]

Why my Submission declined? Guptashreyaaaa8 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guptashreyaaaa8: this draft has been rejected, not merely declined, because even after multiple earlier reviews it still fails to demonstrate notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:29, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Moulyags

[edit]

Now i understand Wikipedia Page Creation is like a Going for Make Driving License, if we go without Broker the License will reject many times.. same Situation we facing here, many pages accepted there is no value at all, but when we follow guidance and rules of wikipedia our page will Decline all the time, along with me one of my friend paid some of third party and its page was live... he challenged me saying that, without paying and our own cont get approval... is it true.. some of reviewer put same repeated message without saying what was the wrong, can really help me to create this page? Moulyags (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moulyags Please read other stuff exists. Eacn draft or article is considered on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer. We can only address what we know about. There are many ways for inappropriate content to get past us, and the fact that another article exists does not mean that it was accepted or approved by anyone. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help.
Please read WP:SCAM and be very careful about who you give money to. If you pay someone, they must disclose that you are paying them, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Yzverrr

[edit]

Hello dears. I didn't understand. What's wrong with my article? Yzverrr (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yzverrr: what's wrong is that there is no evidence that this subject is notable, as stated in the decline notice. None of the sources even mention Cryptocurrency Recognition Day (apart from the first one, which is primary and quite possibly not reliable and/or independent). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 28 January 2025 review of submission by TheSwagger13

[edit]

I can't find any good references for this article, but I feel like this is a MUST for Roblox Wikipedia articles. TheSwagger13 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TheSwagger13. If you can't find good sources, then it is a MUSTN'T for Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 28 January 2025 review of submission by AlfredCampenaerts

[edit]

Hi could you provide more information about what exactly I would need to change to 'read less like an advertisement'. I've applied all feedback from previous submissions and followed guidlines and examples from other similar articles. AlfredCampenaerts (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlfredCampenaerts: this draft is you telling the world about your app, that is what makes it inherently promotional. We're not interested in any of that; we want to see what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about this app and what makes it worthy of note. You should almost exclusively be summarising their coverage, not extolling this apps features and benefits; that you can do on your website and whatever other marketing channels you employ. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:36, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Ackyducc

[edit]

The draft was declined with the comment "Pre-release publicity does not establish notability." I'm not trying to argue or fight the comment, I just want to be able to improve the draft in the future. What would be some examples of pre-release sources or press that would establish notability? Thanks. Ackyducc (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there was something unusual about the production of the album, that might help. For example, the film Rust (2024 film) merited an article before its release due to a gun discharging and killing someone on set. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ackyducc: film studios, record labels, book publishers, and the like obviously want to generate maximum publicity for their upcoming products, so in the run-up to the launch they issue a stream of 'announcements' and 'sneak previews' and 'teasers' and whatnot, which some media happily lap up because it helps to provide clickbait'y content for next to no effort. If we were to accept that as evidence of notability, we would only be playing along to their publicity campaign. As 331dot says, there needs to be something extraordinary or at least genuinely noteworthy about a production which makes it notable before it is even released; otherwise we need to wait for the thing to come out and appear in at least a couple of reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll see if I can find sources that pop up that discuss something notable, otherwise I'll just wait until reviews start being published. Thank you for letting me know. Ackyducc (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:11, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Harkinns

[edit]

Can you please clarify what is missing from the draft? There is already a live wikipedia entry in Hungarian for Csaba Gombar here https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomb%C3%A1r_Csaba, this page is an English version. Harkinns (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harkinns Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another; it's up to the translator to make sure the subject meets the requirements of the target Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. As stated by the reviewer, you have not shown that this person meets at least one of the criteria listed at WP:NPROF. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:03, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Rennis970

[edit]

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified."

I have this sources: https://x.com/juanmarinotpr?lang=es ; 

https://www.instagram.com/juanmarinotpr1/?hl=es ;
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Marino ;

https://elpiqueteroorg.wordpress.com/ ; https://www.facebook.com/Pagina12ok/posts/nosotros-como-partido-piquetero-ya-desde-abril-publicamos-un-libro-proponiendo-u/928004066214726/ ; https://www.pagina12.com.ar/440793-la-historia-de-juan-marino-el-dirigente-social-que-reemplaza; https://www.facebook.com/JuanMarino.PartidoPiquetero/videos/no-soy-del-pj-porque-no-discute-una-soluci%C3%B3n-a-los-problemas-no-s%C3%B3lo-de-argentin/8609586452441329/

There is more. But even then, I would need some help in putting it into the text Rennis970 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rennis970: We don't cite social media (no editorial oversight) or Wikipedia (circular reference). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Wordpress isn't usable either. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but its the Party´s official web page. Rennis970 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

[edit]

03:37, 29 January 2025 review of submission by 62.182.9.66

[edit]

Добрый день, скажите пожалуйста, когда опублекутся статься об этом человеке? 62.182.9.66 (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content that is not in English will not be accepted on the English-language Wikipedia. Try submitting this on ru.wp? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(automated translation) Контент, который не на английском языке, не будет принят в англоязычной Википедии. Попробуйте отправить это в русскоязычной Википедии? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:33, 29 January 2025 review of submission by STE BANGALORE

[edit]

Hi, My submission was rejected for showing references that cannot be considered can you please help me draft a page. STE BANGALORE (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@STE BANGALORE: The original page at Draft:STE BANGALORE/sandbox was deleted as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion. What is your connexion to what you're writing about? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing about a person, I understand the mistake and I would like to rewrite STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sheetal Shetty is a public figure and I am writing this article for her STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@STE BANGALORE: "for her", as in she has requested or instructed you to write it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no, but being her well wisher i think have article written about her will add value to her presence in the digital space.
https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/kannada/sheetal-shetty-returns-in-niveditha-shivarajkumar-s-debut-production-fire-fly-article-110970184 STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But she is aware that I am writing this article STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also I am not able to find the old article after it was rejected. I would like to publish the same with a few edits STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@STE BANGALORE: if "she is aware", then some contact must have been made between you, which implies an external relationship of some sort. Please disclose this, per the instructions posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@STE BANGALORE: We aren't interested in "adding value" to her online presence. The page is still very much promotional from a quick read of it, and is utterly unsourced to boot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay can I still upload general information about her and publish ? STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@STE BANGALORE: No, because you don't cite any sources to corroborate anything in the article. This is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for any promotional reasons. Kindly guide me to write in a way that its not promotional. STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources, wholly unconnected to the subject have written about the subject - nothing less, and very little more. Wikipedia has essentially no interests in what the subject says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. If you cannot find such independent sources, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@STE BANGALORE: you must disclose your conflict of interest first. I have posted another message on your talk page, specifically about paid editing. Time to come clean. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:18, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Prince md.ruhaanazam

[edit]

I need advice for creating the Wikipedia page Prince md.ruhaanazam (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince md.ruhaanazam: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:40, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Misterpriadko

[edit]

a short action film Misterpriadko (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpriadko: that's not a question; do you have one in mind you'd like to ask? This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't post the same thing over and over, you've now done this three times in the space of a few minutes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:22, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Bella Nevis

[edit]

Hi! I recently submitted an article about **Bala Ramajayam**, the owner of **G Square Realtors**, but it was declined because it did not meet the notability requirements. The reason cited was that the references were not independent or did not show significant coverage of the subject. Could you please guide me on how to improve the article and which sources I should look for to demonstrate Bala Ramajayam’s notability? Any advice on improving the tone or structure would also be appreciated. Thank you! Bella Nevis (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bella Nevis: first, can I ask about your conflict of interest (COI). I can see that you've disclosed a general COI, but if you've been employed or contracted to write this article, you need to disclose instead the more specific COI of paid-editing. (Also, you need to make a separate disclosure for each draft/article you edit where you have a COI.)
This draft was declined because it doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. The decline notice provides links to the different aspects of notability; follow them, so you can read about what sort of sources we need to establish notability. Otherwise, please ask more specific questions than merely "how to improve" the draft; that is quite an open-ended question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:11, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Cheesypoof513

[edit]

I dont know why my sources are not being accepted. The people whos work is being cited are the leading professionals in corneal stem cell transplants. what can I change so that my article gets published? Cheesypoof513 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheesypoof513: I note that the draft had fewer sources when it was reviewed, so it could be that the only thing you need to do to get it accepted is to resubmit it for another review. Other than that, I'm pinging the reviewer @AlphaBetaGamma: anything you can share with the author? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may indeed now pass. My concern would be that it is written as a how-to guide, not as an encyclopaedia article. ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 29 January 2025 review of submission by ESto2024PPO

[edit]

I have been trying to publish this page for months - it is basic background about Adrian Usher. It is not biased, it includes many independent references and all information is available publicly. Can you tell me why this keeps getting declined please. Adrian is a public servant. ESto2024PPO (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ESto2024PPO: you have resubmitted the draft, so in that sense your question is somewhat redundant since you will receive feedback when a reviewer has assessed it. But so far all the declines have been for lack of evidence of notability. The general notability guideline WP:GNG requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent.
You also need to support the information better, there are currently several paragraphs entirely without citations, which is not acceptable in an article on a living person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Play2025

[edit]

Hi! I recently just submitted a draft for Stories From My Gay Grandparents and I was wondering how do I get approved? It was recently decline because it doesn't meet the requirements of an article. It's a digital series where I was trying to just write the series overview, production and its release information. Can you advise when you can! 

Play2025 (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Play2025: your draft cites two sources, at least one of which is primary, plus lists two more sources without actually citing them anywhere. This does not yet show that the subject is notable. The general notability guideline WP:GNG requires multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent, and which provide significant coverage directly of the subject.
The draft also needs to be better supported by referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok! How can I delete the references and re-cite everything? And everything has to be cited in the actual paragraph, correct? Play2025 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Play2025: there's no other way to delete the references (that I know of, at least) than doing it manually.
And yes, every citation should go next to the statement it verifies. If the source supports an entire paragraph, it may be enough to cite it once at the end. If it's a longer paragraph, then you may need to cite more than once. If you make a direct quotation, or an extraordinary statement, or say something potentially contentious or sensitive, then you need to cite the source right after the statement. The basic principle is that the reader should never wonder "where does that information come from and how do I know it's true" – the evidence should be right there to answer that wondering. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok! How do I do it manually? I've tried but it's not working! Play2025 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Play2025: if you're using the source editor, you just remove the entire string between the ref open and ref close tags, ie.
<ref>{{cite ...whatever is here...}}</ref>
If you're using the visual editor, I don't know how that works; someone will hopefully come along soon who can tell you that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VisualEditor tends to mangle citation templates, so this would need done in source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Haroldwonder

[edit]

I submitted an article for review,. It was stated that the writing style was that of an advertisement. Can someone be so kind as to help edit so it is suitable? Haroldwonder (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haroldwonder: you need to cut out all the marketing blurb, things like "mission to deliver cutting-edge digital products that are not only aesthetically pleasing but also highly functional", this is completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Your job is to describe, not sell the subject.
Secondly, you should be almost exclusively summarising what independent and reliable third parties (mainly secondary sources) have said about the subject, whereas this is written entirely from the company's point of view.
Speaking of which, what is your relationship with this business? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 29 January 2025 review of submission by GMcDonagh

[edit]

Hi! I am wondering if I can get help with getting this page passed please? The person in question is a world champion and world leading expert in their subject – so I wondered how I can source it to show that? GMcDonagh (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GMcDonagh You have used as sources his own works and interviews with him. These are not independent sources. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they are a notable person as Wikipedia defines one.
The draft was rejected, which typically means that it will not be considered further; if you are able to fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. I'm guessing the reviewer rejected it because they saw improvement as unlikely, but we are not infallible. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 29 January 2025 review of submission by RobbieIanMorrison

[edit]

People .. this is really daft. I have spent a good two days reading, logging, and referencing background material for this article. And, as an experienced editor, I would rank my draft as sufficiently notable and also well referenced and suitably well written to be considered for live use. And then I get some mumbo jumbo from AlphaBetaGamma. Can I ask that a human look at my draft and make an assessment. Many thanks in advance, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison: I'll summarise WP:BLP1E for you: If a person is known for a single event (in this case, the events after her arrest for a climate protest) and is unlikely to draw any sort of coverage (news or scholarly) outside of that one event, we err towards not having an article for them for the sake of their privacy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Thanks. The subject has quite some involvement in the protest movement stretching back to Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp in 1981. Also with Just Stop Oil. How much of that will be on the public record is another matter. I also don't think personal privacy is a real issue in this case. Let me look around and see what I can add. Perhaps ongoing court procedures will cross the notability threshold on their own merit? And I appreciate for your quick response. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RobbieIanMorrison. I suggest you strike out the personal attack on @AlphaBetaGamma above. ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: I though that was a chatbot, it was up in seconds, did anyone read what I wrote in that short interval? But I will edit my response as suggested. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: @Jéské Couriano: I note that the dialog box on my submission says "Declined by AlphaBetaGamma 2 days ago." So that is nothing to do with me. Did I overwrite some other editor's substandard submission? My draft was referenced to a high standard, for example. In which case can I have my particular draft reviewed as it stands. That would be really helpful. Thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RobbieIanMorrison: yes, AlphaBetaGamma declined this draft on the 27th, and it seems that two days later you edited/rewrote the contents of that draft but left the decline template intact. So what was declined was the earlier version, not yours. That's my reading of the revision history, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Many thanks for looking. That is my understanding too and my mistake as well. On reflection, I think the best thing to do is wait. The appeal court sitting should be completed tomorrow although the judgment will doubtless take weeks. Something of significance might arise, who knows? And I will continue to look for other background. At some point I may resubmit. In passing, I thought the earlier content I overwrote was AI prompting from Wikipedia. I was surprised that Wikipedia would do this, but I do encounter that feature quite often these days. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

18:40, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Katarina Dragasevic

[edit]

Unsure as to why my draft is being declined. I added sufficient citations where needed (keep in mind there is very limited resources). Katarina Dragasevic (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katarina Dragasevic: your draft has been declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely:
  1. Two primary sources isn't enough to establish notability per WP:ORG; and
  2. One citation of each source isn't enough to verify the information.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something- an article about this organization would need to summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about this organization. If there are "very limited resources", this organization does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Rcboyer

[edit]

My page about Thomas D. Kuczmarski was rejected for not meeting notability standards. I have no problem with this decision. But I have a question. Where does Crain's Chicago Business stand as a publication that meets Wikipedia's notablity standards? It is the foremost business publication in the Chicago region and I'd be using it in other submissions, so it would be useful to know. Thank you. Rcboyer (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is declined, not rejected. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rcboyer. The place to ask about the reliability of sources is WP:RSN. Looking through the archives, it doesn't seem to have been discussed. Crain's New York Business has been mentioned once in passing, in a context where the person mentioning it clearly thinks it's reliable, but that wasn't the topic of discussion. ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Naturaldiamondexpert

[edit]

I submitted 15 reputable sources for House of Diamonds but got denied for having low verified sources. I am confused as to why. Naturaldiamondexpert (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naturaldiamondexpert I fixed your link for proper display. You have provided your sources incorrectly, see Referencing for beginners. You also seem to be citing the routine activities of the company, and not summarizing what independent reliable sources say makes the company a notable company. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:HouseofDiamonds
I declined your draft because statements were missing sources, and I forgot to mention the article reads like an advertisement. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:29, 29 January 2025 review of submission by 76.22.160.7

[edit]

Hi, I received a comment asking for me to change my inline citations, but I'm not sure what the exact problem is or how I can fix it. All guidance would be very much appreciated! 76.22.160.7 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

[edit]

01:40, 30 January 2025 review of submission by Auda159

[edit]

Here's my first draft for Wikipedia, revision was declined. Anyone here can help me improve it? Much thanks.. Auda159 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1272741375"