Wikipedia:AFCHELP

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 14

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help
desk		Backlog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

April 15

06:40, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Mani G 36

why my article draft was declined Mani G 36 (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mani G 36 I have rejected the article as there is no indication this person meets our notability criteria for musicians at this time. Qcne (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

07:17, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Baluulab6

i tried to publish this page sever times but it is not yet done . Kindly help to publish this page as it is important to keep the Wiki of Karthika thirunal indira bhai as there is no any other source to mark her presence in the history and Travancore royal family Baluulab6 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Baluulab6 your draft will never be published because there are no references. Wikipedia articles must be references with independent, reliable references. Please very carefully read WP:VERIFY. Qcne (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
If there are no other sources, then this is necessarily original research, which is not permitted in any Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

07:31, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Mani G 36

pls help Mani G 36 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I've rejected the draft and there is nothing further you can do, @Mani G 36. Qcne (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

09:07, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Cfarant

why my article is rejected ? Cfarant (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Cfarant I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted if you can fix the issues identified by the reviewer. Please see the message left by the reviewer, and also read the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Cfarant and 331dot: My first thought was to look over at the French language Wikipedia and see whether there was an article there. (Caveat: my "Frenssh", is much like the the Prioress in The Canterbury Tales but "After the scole of the University of Woolloomooloo", rather than "After the scole of Stratford atte Bowe"). From what I can see, "the article was considered for deletion in 2017 and was deleted as an article that was on en.wp in 2024 but not on fr.wp. My guess is that that an article about this living person may not pass any number of tests for notability, including but not limited to WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACADEMIC. As always, please do prove me wrong about this. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

09:56, 15 April 2024 review of submission by TaraLemming

I included third-party resources about Herbert L Kloiber but it says these do not count as notable credits but they are third-party and mention the person in more than just passing. Why are these credits not credible? TaraLemming (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

They are independent, but just document routine activities. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@TaraLemming: please read WP:OVERCITE. We surely don't need 11 citations to support a fairly non-contentious statement like "After serving at TMG for almost seven years, he founded the Munich-based production company Night Time Media in 2020". The same problem is there throughout the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

10:37, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Ugo perritos

May we include a video in the bibliography as a source of information? Ugo perritos (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ugo perritos: if the video meets the WP:GNG standard, then you may cite it, yes. But your primary objective is to demonstrate notability, because that is what's preventing this draft from being accepted. Do not resubmit the draft before notability is clearly shown.
Who is "we" in your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I meant to say I, not we. Ugo perritos (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

10:46, 15 April 2024 review of submission by SouthPole5423

Article review time is taking too long, all the other submissions of mine took only 1 or 2 days, is there something wrong? SouthPole5423 (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@SouthPole5423: there is nothing wrong, your draft has only been waiting for a few days, and it may be reviewed at any time, in a matter of minutes, days, or weeks. As it says on top of the draft, "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,393 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I was just a bit worried since all of my previous ones took such a short time. SouthPole5423 (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

13:04, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Grantsharples

Hello! I've had my article rejected several times, and I've tried to address the reasons for rejection with each new submission. Where does this article fall short? One of my edits said it looked good aside from the "industry scope" section I've since deleted, but it has still been denied approval anyway. What can I do to remedy that? Thanks for your help! Grantsharples (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Grantsharples: your draft (not yet 'article') has been declined (not 'rejected') a few times, because at least two reviewers felt there wasn't sufficient evidence of notability. Based on a quick scan only (not a thorough source analysis), it seems you're citing almost entirely primary sources, with the exception of the Good Morning America piece. Per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see the comment that the latest reviewer made: We need independent, in depth coverage, which doesn't appear to e present.
Looking at the list of references, it strikes me that many of your citations are to directories, or lists of services. If so, then unless any of them contain in-depth coverage of the subject, all of them together contribute nothing at all towards establishing notability, and probably almost nothing at all towards the article.
The article should be almost entirely a summary of what commentators wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it. ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

14:07, 15 April 2024 review of submission by MorriconeEnnio

   Hello :)
   I'm wondering why the published sources referenced are not considered adequate. Is it because although published, they are not available online? Bc that is not the criteria for reliability as per the policy at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Were there particular sources that you found to be unreliable or were all considered unreliable? Is the issue that they were considered unreliable sources or that they were considered unreliable in terms of the statements in the text? Thanks so much for your assistance! I appreciate your feedback.  MorriconeEnnio (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @MorriconeEnnio. It might be that the reviewer declined it because the draft does not conform to our mandatory use of in-line citations for biographies of living people. You're close, but there should not be a Notes section and instead follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE in order to create properly formatted in-line references, which will automatically create a References section for you. @Ibjaja055
You're right though, offline sources can be used. Qcne (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure this isn't the reason for the decline, but I noticed that in the infobox at least the date of birth is unreferenced, which per WP:DOB must be backed up with a reliable published source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing, @MorriconeEnnio@Qcne So sorry for replying late. The article was declined because there are not enough secondary and independent sources that can prove that the subject is notable. If there are good sources with the problems of in-line citations, I will gladly work on the article and move on for another reviewer to approve or decline. Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
O ok. Thank you all so much for this feedback! I will review the tutorial at the link you provided. I will also do a bit more research into additional sources. @Ibjaja055 I would appreciate your help on editing and drafting. However, if you believe additional sources would support approval re: notability then let me do a bit more research first. Thanks again :) MorriconeEnnio (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

15:31, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Rudharnagpal50

i dont know about wiki writing can u please help me to publish my film page on wiki Rudharnagpal50 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, there is no indication that your film is notable enough to merit an article, sorry. Qcne (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rudharnagpal50: your draft is completely unreferenced, you need to cite the sources that have provided that information, see WP:REFB for advice. And then the sources also need to satisfy a notability guideline, either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

15:55, 15 April 2024 review of submission by 2001:999:485:AF51:4485:89CF:DB92:79C6

The article was rejected because the subject soubded not notable enough. Yet I have tge impressiln that if one asks people who are the most important thinkers of these modern times. Kaisa Hannele Tervola comes to people's minds. So a Wikioedia article about her writing work would be notable enough subject for Wikipedia. 2001:999:485:AF51:4485:89CF:DB92:79C6 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't assess notability by "asking people", but by evaluating the sources used in referencing the draft. This draft lists (without citing, which is a hard requirement in articles on living people) some external links as well a number of works by Tervola, but none of it suggests notability in any obvious way. If you can find sources that satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, or alternatively demonstrate that this person meets one of the special guidelines such as WP:NAUTHOR, you may appeal the rejection directly to the reviewer who rejected this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

16:13, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Techrd2000cork

Kindly Advice Techrd2000cork (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Techrd2000cork: my advice is to steer well clear of this sock-fest of a subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

16:17, 15 April 2024 review of submission by 100.2.77.12

All

My attempt to get a Wikipedia entry for the American Society of Ophthalmic Trauma has been denied. Below is our soon to be published Trauma Roadmap outlining the problem. There is a pressing need for both the military (lack of trauma-proficient eye surgeons with a rising threat of hostilities) and civilian sectors (poor eye trauma training and unwillingness to care for trauma) to tune up eye trauma care. It's not "life and limb", it's "life limb and sight." The ASOT is leading a multiorganizational effort, including the orgsanizations listed n the roadmap, the Health and Human Services, and the United States Army.

What do I need to do to get the entry approved for Wikipedia?

More information Roadmap ...

100.2.77.12 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I've wrapped up your 'Roadmap', please don't post excessive content here on the Help Desk, thanks.
The main problem, and the reason why your draft has been declined, is lack of evident notability. Per WP:ORG, you need to cite multiple secondary sources that provide significant coverage, directly of your society, and that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject.
You also need to reference the content appropriately so that we can verify the information. Citations such as #6, which merely says "apots.org", doesn't really tell us anything. There are more such problems in this draft. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing.
Finally (and this wasn't a reason for declining the draft, but is nevertheless important), you need to disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
A "pressing need" is not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a means of getting a message out to the world - that is called promotion (irrespective of how worthy a cause it may be).
A Wikipedia article summarises what independent commentators have already published about a subject - including any detractors. That is all. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

16:59, 15 April 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:7D78:E900:1C1D:E7BA:74D1:A052

Hi, I have submitted this so many times with so many different references and none of them get through. I really don't know what else we can add. We are a multi billion dollar global organisation, how can that not be enough to verify us? 2A02:C7C:7D78:E900:1C1D:E7BA:74D1:A052 (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If you work for this business, the Terms of Use require you to make a paid editing disclosure. Please also see conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves amd what they do. Most of your sources are your company website, this does not establish notability. Any article about your company should 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 organization. The mere fact that you are a wealthy company does not make it notable. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

18:09, 15 April 2024 review of submission by Seraphine Arku

I submitted an article and someone reviewed it and said it sounded like an essay rather than an article. Also, the reviewer added that I should summarize information from different sources which I did so I need more clarification and possibly, others can review it and throw more light on it for me. Thanks Seraphine Arku (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Link to draft: Draft:The maternal Health Narrative in Africa. asilvering (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Seraphine Arku, looking at this draft, I don't really understand why you want to create a new article? We already have an article on Maternal health, and it would be best if you could edit that article to include information from your sources. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. It is part of the list of articles we can write that is why I did. Thanks for the clarification Seraphine Arku (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Seraphine Arku, what do you mean by "part of the list of articles we can write"? Is this part of an editathon or school project? -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The African Wiki Women ProjectAfrica Wiki Women IWD - Inspire Inclusion 2024/Items/Resources and Suggested articles and items - Meta (wikimedia.org) Seraphine Arku (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Aha, I see. If you want to make a much longer article, I agree that Maternal health in Africa is a good topic. If you only want to write a little bit, like what was in your submitted draft, it's probably better to just write on Maternal health, where your changes will be visible immediately. It looks like this editathon will still be going for the next couple of months, so you might alternatively want to hang onto this draft and see if anyone wants to add to it with you. I'll move it to the correct title for you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Alright sure. Thank you Seraphine Arku (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

22:11, 15 April 2024 review of submission by EagleDancerWiki

I am requesting assistance because I do not know how to deal with the IGNORANT and LAZY "editors" in your organization who AGAIN rejected my article despite it being almost identical to a similar article on a related sub-discipline of sport parachuting that was accepted back when Wikipedia apparently had knowledgeable, not-lazy real editors. That article is on Wikipedia right now, yet your "editors" are so effing lazy and ignorant they can't be bothered to do 10 SECONDS of research to find that similar article on a related subject.

This article, Tandem BASE Parachuting, is ~500 words, yet it took your "editors" 2.5 MONTHS to reject it again for totally bogus reasons that they would KNOW were totally bogus if they were not so effing LAZY and IGNORANT and bothered to do 10 SECONDS OF RESEARCH about the subject.

Please compare my entry with the tandem skydiving entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_skydiving

You will discover that my entry, Tandem BASE Parachuting, is almost identical because these two sub-disciplines of sport parachuting ARE almost identical, as the chief difference between them is that tandem skydiving starts from an aircraft, and tandem BASE parachuting starts from a Building, Antenna, Span, or Earth object.

So why oh why in God's name do your ignorant lazy "editors" REJECT the tandem BASE parachuting article despite there being essentially ZERO difference in them -- especially when the SOURCES your ignorant lazy "editors" keep claiming are inadequate for a host of equally bogus reasons are even closer than the text itself to being the exact same sources as the article which was accepted?

The only conclusion I can draw is that when the tandem skydiving article WAS accepted some years ago, you had actual, real editors, who were not lazy and ignorant. Seriously, what other possible reason can there be?

So that is why I am requesting assistance: These lazy, ignorant, incompetent "editors" need supervision -- and really, you guys need to ask yourselves:


IF these tools are so lazy and ignorant that they totally screw up THIS SIMPLE ARTICLE WITH SOURCES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED FOR ANOTHER WIKI ARTICLE,

THEN how badly are they screwing up bigger, more complex, more important submissions?


This is not rocket surgery.

Thanks in advance for solving this and getting the tandem BASE parachuting article up on Wikipedia despite the ignorant lazy "editors" who have made such a mess of this and wasted everybody's time, including yours.

Robin Heid, M.A.


EagleDancerWiki (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
You are correct the existing articles were crap and needed to be removed so I have taken care of that. Thank you for bringing it to our attention in such a constructive and understanding way. Now with that being dealt with your draft was declined because it does not meet the requirements of inclusion in that it does not show enough coverage in sources outside of official organizations. If you can show more coverage outside of these organizations then it is very likely this could be included as a notable topic on its own. Otherwise you may consider adding some of this content to BASE_jumping#Tandem_BASE_jumps. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
And for the record, Tandem skydiving long predates the drafting process, its first edit being made 2005/Dec/03. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
EagleDancerWiki Please remain calm and civil instead of making personal attacks on volunteer editors. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

April 16

04:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 180.150.113.7

Hi, I've just seen my draft has been declined. It is in fact the truth. Please see Timothy John Windsor (York) on Facebook and contact the royal family for further proof if necessary.

Thankyou 180.150.113.7 (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines. Deb (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

04:49, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Lucygirl03

I have checked his entire profile. He was selected as an IPS officer in the 2013 batch. He has served as an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) in Ramanathapuram district and acted as a Superintendent of Police (SP) in Ambatur city. He is currently serving as an Undersecretary in Delhi. He has successfully resolved numerous sensitive issues in Ramanathapuram district. Therefore, I believe he is eligible to have a Wikipedia page. Here is the reference

IPS Profile reference: https://cms.tn.gov.in/sites/default/files/go/home_e_17_2015_pn.pdf https://elcot.in/sites/default/file/List%20of%20eligible%20Officers%20under%20AIS%20Scheme_0.pdf https://ips.gov.in/Empanelment/Inter_seSeniority_20012023.pdf

Ambattur case: https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/140218/chennai-rowdy-binu-pleads-for-mercy.doc https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/how-chennai-police-captured-6-dozen-wanted-men-in-1-raid/articleshow/62829064.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/letter-solves-15-murder-for-cops/articleshow/63162837.cms

Ramanathapuram District caste issues: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/promote-communal-harmony/article8634708.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/Sub-Collector-ASP-honoured-for-commendable-services/article17098729.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/shifting-focus-treading-the-path-of-peace-and-growth/article18511170.ece https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=174723380&highlights=RAJ%20MUDHALVAN https://colombogazette.com/2016/08/22/brown-sugar-to-be-smuggled-to-sri-lanka-seized-in-tamil-nadu/ https://www.dtnext.in/city/2017/07/03/city-police-officers-shifted-out-within-a-month-in-reshuffle

Lucygirl03 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There are two reasons this has been rejected. First, it's one tiny paragraph that doesn't explain how he meets notability. Second, it's written in a promotional manner. Please address these problems in your draft. Deb (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Lucygirl03: I would be incredibly cautious if you decide to continue with this. See WP:Contentious topics for more details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

05:10, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Millat Ahmad

I am a maiden user in wiki. My very first article is Aanthai. Please give your suggestions to help to edit my draft for suitable in wiki. Thanks Millat Ahmad (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

As a new user, you would be well advised to learn the ropes before trying to create a draft. Have you read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia? Deb (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

05:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Jazakhallah123

Hey, I'm writing an article about a very influential political dynasty family and am wondering why it has been rejected. Jazakhallah123 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jazakhallah123: the draft was declined (not 'rejected') for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comment – did you read any of that? Anyway, you've since edited the draft and resubmitted it, so you will sooner or later be getting further feedback from the next reviewer. In the meantime, if you have specific questions, feel free to ask them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

06:15, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 1.158.49.44

Is it still possible to make articles about the UTTP? They’re significantly more relevant now. I’d like to make an article about them. 1.158.49.44 (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to make an article about various other UTTP subjects such as “thy greatest battle of the internet” and “UTTP emperor anime sucks”. 1.158.49.44 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No, please don't do that. Qcne (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Neither of your sources are usable (unknown provenance). YouTube is unusable as a source in most circumstances; the only time we could use it is if (1) the video is produced by an outlet that we'd consider reliable and (2) said video is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. For obvious reasons we wouldn't be able to cite anything the UTTP or its members put out. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

07:58, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Funn With The Finn

Sorry, pretty much a first-timer here. I would be happy to rewrite the article to be just about the book (as mentioned in the comments) and I made the edits already but I can't seem to be able to change the actual name of the article. Can it be changed from "Beatrice Salvioni" to "The Cursed Friend (a novel)"? or do I need to create a new article altogether? I added some more quotes/references. Funn With The Finn (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The specific title is not particularly relevant; when accepted, the draft will be placed at the proper title by whomever accepts it. You may leave a note on the draft talk page as to what the title should be. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Funn With The Finn: if it were me, I'd leave this draft as it is, even if it means abandoning it, and creating a new draft on the book. That's probably easier than reworking this, and it means that should sources come to light which make Salvioni notable, you might be able to get this accepted also, plus it could save some potential confusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both! I made a new draft now just about the book and left a short subchapter on the author with added refrences (removed the HarperCollins too as the details were available elsewhere). Funn With The Finn (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

08:56, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Catchphurba

it would be nice if you help me to publish this articles Catchphurba (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Catchphurba the draft has been rejected now, and so will not be published at this time. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

09:24, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 176.37.54.3

I understood that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" but if there is nothing else, but this person I'm sure is notable How to proceed with this? 176.37.54.3 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Eg. the 'Early Life and Education' section is entirely unreferenced. Where did that information come from? Cite those sources.
And saying you're "sure" the subject is notable is one thing; providing evidence thereof is another. It's the latter we're after. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The draft is written with much promotional language("entreprenurial journey"); this leads me to think that you may be associated with this person- are you? The draft should be written very matter-of-factly, in a dry manner that does not talk up the subject, but just summarizes what independent reliable sources choose to say about them. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
"Notable", in Wikipedia parlance, doesn't mean famous, or popular, or influential, or significant, or any of those things. It means that people have already taken note of the subject, in published material. It basically means "There is enough independent, reliably published material about the subject to base an encyclopaedia article on" - remembering also that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

12:04, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Joel V Alex

Hi can you help to reframe the sentences so that it complies the rules and regulations of WIKIPEDIA? Joel V Alex (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joel V Alex: this draft was deleted as promotional. So no.
You also shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

13:01, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Mohd Ibraheem 9718

i am trying to write an article but it is being rejected every time Mohd Ibraheem 9718 (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It was declined(not rejected) twice, and then finally rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for publishing how to manuals. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

14:13, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Pilotnance

Help me, I want to write an article

Pilotnance (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Pilotnance: you'll need to be a bit more specific – what would you like help with? Or if you're after general article-creation guidance, then you should find pretty much everything you need at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
ok, thanks Pilotnance (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

14:20, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Rockparker

What mistake am I making in Kaushik Das's Wikipedia article, can you please assist and help to me Rockparker (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rockparker: the draft is promotional, poorly referenced with no inline citations (which are required), and I don't think there is any real evidence of notability either. Please see the decline notices, including all the advice linked to from there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
What should I do can I able to do Kaushik Das article in future or not , please help me , what should I do now Rockparker (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rockparker: You need to show he is notable per Wikipedia's definition. None of your sources do that - Two are Transfermarkt (which we don't accept as a source), one is statlines from one of the leagues he played in, one is a match summary, and the last is a match report that doesn't even mention him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There 2 more articles about him , but I thought that firstly I mistake a lot that's why I remove that linke if you agree then I will put again , and he is a Football player and many his friends have there Wikipedia article, why for kaushik das is complicated Rockparker (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of Article X to argue for Article Y. It's likely his friends have articles due to being made before WP:NATHLETE was ripped to shreds in 2022 and nobody's bothered to go in and clean house yet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Please review my last submission for last time sir please , this is my first time sorry for that , but tried my best sir Rockparker (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
We don't use Medium (no editorial oversight) and we can't use vocal.media (unknown provenance). Vocal.media especially appears to be a very badly disguised press release. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rockparker: okay, I've reviewed it one last time. Not one of the sources contribute towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

14:33, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Dishakabra12

Could you please advise on why is she not notable enough? There are so many other whale researchers, who have made even smaller contributions to whale research and they have been included on Wikipedia? Is there a criteria? Dishakabra12 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dishakabra12: the draft is entirely unreferenced, which means it fails on verifiability and notability, both core requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. You would need to produce reliable sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACADEMIC notability standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

14:45, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Delpolocovy

Please help me to modify my article so that it is accepted before publishing it.

Delpolocovy (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Delpolocovy. Have you read WP:NOTESSAY? Your draft is not an encyclopaedic article, but an essay, so needs a total re-write.
You could try improving the existing microplastics article instead? Qcne (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

15:01, 16 April 2024 review of submission by GabrielBarkin

I would like help looking at the draft I wrote for The Croner Company and making it acceptable for submission. I suspect I need to pare it down considerably (too much of the material is unsubstantiated by independent sources, I suppose), but perhaps there is someone who can help me make it acceptable? GabrielBarkin (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielBarkin: yes, paring it down is probably a good idea. However, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, therefore your main task is to provide sources that satisfy the WP:NCORP notability guideline.
You should also change the disclosure on your user page from the generic COI one to the more specific paid-editing one, see {{Paid}}. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

16:11, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Rustymirror

I've added justification for notability to the Talk page. Can you please advise if anything else is needed to resubmit this article for creation? Rustymirror (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Your draft was rejected, typically meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft since the last review, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. Note that notability shouldn't be indicated on the talk page- the draft should be written to summarize the sources that show notability. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Apart from appealing to the last reviewer (no reply from them yet) - is it possible to submit a new draft that is fundamentally different? Rustymirror (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rustymirror: Google Scholar gives this person an h-index of 7. Without being in any way an expert in this domain, that doesn't sound to me like evidence of meeting NACADEMIC #1. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Could you please advise what h-index score would be likely to meet NACADEMIC#1? The criteria notes state that "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account."
If you look at Dimensions research data on this person's book, "Compared to other publications in the same field, this publication is extremely highly cited and has received approximately 12 times more citations than average." - please see talk page for sources Rustymirror (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

16:45, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 207.242.53.34

Hello Team,

  i want to contribute or publish an article about NeilMed Pharmaceuticals Inc which is the manufacturer of the nasal saline irrigation devices and is the world leader in it's category. I want to create an article/post similar to how other companies have i.e. Apple, Amazon, BD, one trust llc, etc. Please help me out and guide through the process.

Thanks Sapan

207.242.53.34 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Well this is certainly not the way to go about it. Your draft is pure advertising, with zero evidence of notability, and is consequently awaiting speedy deletion.
Please read and understand:
If you think you can comply with all that, then you will find everything you need to get you started at WP:YFA.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC):I assume that you are writing about your company; if so, this must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you choose not to create an account, you must disclose.
I am ready to disclose and yes, i am writing about my company. Please help me out how and where to disclose.
Thanks
sapan 207.242.53.34 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
(ec) Your text was a blatant advertisement and has been deleted. You have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. Companies like Apple and Amazon do not own and maintain articles here. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. My advice is that you forget that Wikipedia exists, and go on about the activities of your business; if it truly meets the notability guidelines, someone will eventually write about it. Be advised that an article about your business is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Request you to guide on how to publish an article on NeilMed as a company.
Thanks 207.242.53.34 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
My advice to you as an employee is to not do so, see my previous comment above. If you've been asked to do so by your superiors, please read WP:BOSS and have them read it too.
If you nevertheless wish to proceed, disregarding my advice, you will need to carefully review the definition of a notable company. If you truly feel that your company meets that definition(most companies do not), then gather at least three independent reliable sources that chose on their own to write about your company. These cannot be interviews, press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, or primary sources. Then you may use the Article Wizard to summarize those and only those sources in a draft. This will not be easy. You should also disclose your paid status on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the details and guidance.
By the way, would you like to be the one who can start this. This is a request and solicitation 207.242.53.34 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
We're not writers for hire, and assuming we are is genuinely offensive to the vast majority of us volunteers. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

17:47, 16 April 2024 review of submission by 51.77.137.219

‎ 51.77.137.219 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
  • We can't use Reference 1 (unknown provenance). YouTube as a source is usable only if (1) the video is created by an outlet we consider to be reliable and (2) is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel.
  • We can't use Reference 2 (no editorial oversight). Forum board.
  • We can't use Reference 3 (no editorial oversight).
  • We can't use Reference 4 (too sparse). Content-free profile.
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

18:41, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Jvaldry

I'm confused about the notability requirements. One reviewer said the person meets the standard, and another disagreed. I thought I had provided enough documentation of her work and cleaned up the language to be more encyclopedic. Jvaldry (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jvaldry: no, per WP:NACADEMIC #6.c, deanship does not normally make one inherently notable. (Doesn't mean an exception couldn't be made, and also doesn't mean that this person couldn't be otherwise notable, of course.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

19:02, 16 April 2024 review of submission by Mandiace

my page got declined because the sources were not reliable but I am not sure what is wrong with the sources. Mandiace (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mandiace: it's not necessarily that the sources are not reliable, but that the draft isn't sufficiently supported; most of the content is unreferenced, which is not acceptable in an article on a living person (see WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

20:36, 16 April 2024 review of submission by TruthIsLikeGravity

The issue of the last paragraph being "inscrutable" is a fair point that I can address. Thank you.

It was, however, claimed that there were "no secondary sources at all", which is patently untrue. There are multiple secondary sources. It is hard to satisfy reviewers that make such mischaracterizations in declining drafts.

The suggestion of making this draft a subsection of another article is odd. Numerous sport teams have Wikipedia articles distinct from the Leagues that they play in. TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

See other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits, not based on other articles that themselves may be problematic.
Leaving aside the last paragraph, the article says nothing other than that the team exists and that its members might play for other teams. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Although the point about "other stuff exists" may seem valid on the surface, consistency should be considered critical. Without consistency, it's just the Wild West. TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Consistency for consistency's sake is not a policy here. If you are aware of other articles about women's rugby teams that exist that you believe are similar to yours, please point those out so action can be taken. The best articles to use as a model or example are those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Divide the number of articles (6.8 million) by the number of administrators we have (686) and you'll realise you're asking us to do the impossible. We try to be consistent as much as possible, but when you've got such a deficit of manpower there's only so much you can do. Thus we have to rely on more proactive means like this to try and cut the firehose of new articles that would otherwise overwhelm us. To that end, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of the sources you provide that I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 21:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, have a look at the following examples and tell us what you think. I'm not going after articles out of spite, and these are only examples at the same institution, but I don't see any reliable secondary references in those articles by the standards you described:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Vikes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Vikes_women%27s_basketball
If we start applying those standards universally, almost all University Varsity sport program articles would come crashing down. TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
And neither were drafted. Victoria Vikes predates the drafting process altogether (first edit 2005/Jan/23); the article on the woman's basketball team was made directly in mainspace by an auto-confirmed editor who should in all honesty know better. I'm more than happy to send both articles to WP:Articles for Deletion for you, since you seem more interested in using them as camel's noses in tents rather than improving them so that they meet Wikipedia policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 00:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
You made an unfounded assertion about my interests (re: camel's noses).
Nevertheless, would you say then that there is likely a large number of varsity sport articles that would not be in compliance with current standards if they were reviewed? TruthIsLikeGravity (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
If you're only interested in using these articles to argue for your own, then by all means WP:Village pump (policy) and WT:Notability are that way. But this page is not the place to try to sneak in an argument to change our policies in that regard by using articles that are tangential to your draft, and every argument you make on that front is time that could be better spent looking for better sources for your articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 02:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

April 17

00:41, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Sycco Mehara

Recovery Gmail password Sycco Mehara (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sycco Mehara: We don't accept blank submissions. (We also cannot help with any sort of password recovery.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 00:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

02:12, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Cdsweezy

I'm writing up a page for a World War 1 army officer who served in France and later was a member of the city council in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Problem is there is very little online about the person of interest since he died in 1980. The wiki submission was denied for lack of sources.

He was my great grandfather so I have quite a bit of material about him. Lots of newspaper clippings from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, whom he wrote letters to during the War to keep the locals informed. I tried searching their archives for the clippings circa 1918, but no luck.

Any suggestions for how/where to find the original source, or how to properly cite the newspaper clippings? Cdsweezy (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cdsweezy: use {{cite news}} (you will need to use the source editor; Visual Editor screws templates up) and fill in the last1, first1, date, work, title, and page (or pages) parameters. This will provide the credited author, date the story was run, the paper it was run in, the article title/headline, and the pages it was on - the bare minimum required for an offline newspaper citation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 02:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

03:38, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Mani G 36

how to resubmit

Mani G 36 (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mani G 36: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I will also take the liberty of assessing your sources:
Hope this helps. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 03:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mani G 36 Do not remove the rejection notices. I have re-added them. Qcne (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

05:11, 17 April 2024 review of submission by أزهري١٢٣

Not notable enough أزهري١٢٣ (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@أزهري١٢٣: that's correct; hence why it has been rejected. Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

07:36, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Aigbefoh justice

Guide me on how my Wikipedia creation for article can be accepted Aigbefoh justice (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Aigbefoh justice I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Your draft is poorly sourced. Three of the sources you provided are to Wikipedia; Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles, see WP:CIRCULAR. The only other source you provide is a school website which just documents this person went to school there. Any article about this person needs to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and what is being looked for in article content. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

11:25, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Protoj

Hello wikipedians I am hoping to get some help on what I may be able to do better or add to my submission. I recently sent it now for review and was denied. protoj (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Protoj: we need to see evidence that the subject is notable. This requires multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, books, etc.) that provide significant coverage (not just passing mentions) of it, and that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
PS: I should probably add that the vast majority of schools are not notable, so don't be too disappointed if you can't find the necessary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

14:38, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Amiridiwan.qa

I'm trying to create this article for the son of Sheikh Abdullah bin Khalifa Al Thani please help me in this manner Amiridiwan.qa (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Amiridiwan.qa there is no indication a child of an ex-Prime Minister merits a Wikipedia article at this time. Qcne (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
You also added unsourced text to Abdullah_bin_Khalifa_Al_Thani, which I have now removed. Qcne (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

15:09, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Myzamorra

May I know why my page is rejected ?? Myzamorra (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. Qcne (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

15:15, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Jebondz

Need an assistnace on this "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." issue. Jebondz (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jebondz if a person does not meet our notability threshold there can be no article. There is no indication that Muhammad Faizal Zainol meets this standard, therefore I have rejected the draft (twice) and it can not be an article at this time. Qcne (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
To expand on that, I will assess the sources you cite. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of your sources are in any way usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

17:33, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Stephen.akachain.io

We are Utop company. We got reject many times and my article be marked can not resubmit. Could you please help give a chance to allow us resolve the issues Stephen.akachain.io (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You are obligated to disclose your employment. None of your sources are any good - we don't cite online storefronts, your first source has no byline (and reads like a press release regardless), and your second source has nothing to cite. The rejection seems proper; Wikipedia is not your billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

23:19, 17 April 2024 review of submission by Keppard123

I do not understand why my article was rejected (although I appreciate the fast response). I included footnotes for 5 reviews of the recording, and in the article I gave short excerpts of each one. 5 reviews is pretty good for a recording, and there are actually more that could be included. Keppard123 (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Keppard123 I fixed your link for proper display. Please see referencing for beginners to learn more about how to format references. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Does that mean that the article is being accepted or do I have to come up with more references/reviews? Keppard123 (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
You will need to resubmit it for it to be considered again, but the referencing style needs to be fixed first. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

April 18

08:26, 18 April 2024 review of submission by 2A01:36D:1200:94F:1124:669:E55F:EAC8

Can anyone move this to the AFDs? 2A01:36D:1200:94F:1124:669:E55F:EAC8 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an AfC matter, as that 'draft' was never meant to be a draft in the first place. Besides, you've already asked for help at the Teahouse; please don't ask in several places, as that's redundant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

08:36, 18 April 2024 review of submission by 194.75.93.220

How can I evidence that this subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article? Equivalent Special Interest Groups and other local government sector bodies, such as the National Association of Local Councils, District Councils' Network, County Councils Network and Core Cities Group, have an equivalent range of sources to what I have provided, but still have a Wikipedia page. 194.75.93.220 (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ORG, you need to provide multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

09:33, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Md. Muqtadir Fuad

Actually I have created this page named BADHAN from this reference https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%A8 And recently I am working as a volunteer of this organization. This is an one of the biggest humanitarian organizations in Bangladesh. I think you should reconsider this draft to publish in English Wikipedia. Regards Md. Muqtadir Fuad Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Md. Muqtadir Fuad: I've already answered on my talk page, please don't post the same request in several places. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Understood Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

10:04, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Deepaknarwal003

Why it deleted? Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Deepaknarwal003: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for self-promotion or 'telling the world about yourself'. Try LinkedIn etc. instead. And please read the notices posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I am a public figure, social media influencer with more than 200k followers, acting done in Sons kf the soil, and indian kabaddi player, so for real and authentic info this page is important for social media verification of real accounts Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
That's as may be, but nothing in what you say negates anything I said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Tell me a international kabaddi player deserves a wikipedia page or not??? You can search on google for real proofs:- Deepak Narwal is a professional kabaddi player, social media influencer and well known person on internet who has more than 200k pkus followers, please don't delete page its important for social media verification. Deepak narwal have a imdb page also who worked in Sons of the soil & Pro Kabaddi league. Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Deepaknarwal003: you seem to be misunderstanding what is required for an article to be accepted. Your content is first of all completely unreferenced (and no, a Twitter link doesn't count), which is totally unacceptable in articles on living people. Secondly, there is zero evidence of notability, which is demonstrated through sources, not by being "a [sic] international kabaddi player" or having X number of social media followers. And finally, as I've already explained, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, no matter what; see WP:AUTOBIO for explanation of why this is. And to make matters worse, you keep spamming us with this content incessantly. My advice is to stop now, before you find yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

11:14:41, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Hannah Zacharias

}}


Hannah Zacharias (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hannah Zacharias: I assume you're here regarding  Courtesy link: Draft:Clara Biermasz – what would you like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I am sorry but since I am a pianist, this is hard for me. I created this account under an alias. My name is Clara, my website is https://www.clarabiermasz.com/. I am a pianist and i am trying to create my own wikipedia page. I used the information i created for my website. As you can imagine, i am not a copywriter therefore i only created once a text that i plan on using everywhere. Please let me know how to proceed with the draft publishing as it is now rejected due to copyright. Thank you! Hannah Zacharias (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Hannah Zacharias Wikipedia is not perosnal web space. It is an encyclopaedia of notable topics. One does not have "one's own Wikipedia page", articles are written on notable entities. Do you pass WP:NMUSICIAN? If you do it is acceptable to draft an article in Draft: space, submitting it for review. It needs to be neutral prose.
Further, For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Hannah Zacharias Now, if, and only if, you qualify under WP:NMUSICIAN it is possible to re-use your copyright text if it is freely licenced for onward use. You can handle that on your web page by using a licence like the one Wikipedia uses. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

13:14, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Ad1959

-DoubleGrazing has been deliberately rejecting the drafts can someone help me get this article published as i have been in contact with some people linked with the personality and has been asked to publish this article, thank you in advance. Ad1959 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

For info: this matter is now at ANI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
User is now blocked, as is their alternate account, User:Abhirup2441139. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Drmies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

13:40, 18 April 2024 review of submission by FlorinCornianu

Hello! What other resources should I include in my draft? What it is missing particularly? FlorinCornianu (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@FlorinCornianu: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have only one usable source ( https://www.websiteplanet.com/form-builders/123formbuilder/#overview ) and even then I'm not fully convinced this is usable, but it is your best source by a mile. One source by itself cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

16:07, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid

This is the first time that I'm creating a Wikipedia page for something and I need some tips to make sure that it would get declined again. Rincemermaid (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rincemermaid: You have only one source, and it's the awards' own website. Even if it were a in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-Fido-Awards news/scholarly source that discusses the awards at length, is written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous editorial and fact-checking processes, one source by itself is not enough to support any Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I added some more references. Is there any else that I need to do? Rincemermaid (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see where they've been added. Even purging my cache doesn't show new sources. Stand by while I assess them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Ridiculous promotional marketing... "These prestigious awards recognize standout canine talents from all UK cinema releases throughout the year."? Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rincemermaid: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode. I will skip over your first source.
One thing I will note is that the lot of these are about the '24 awards. If the award has been around since 2007 as the article claims it shouldn't be too difficult to find news reports for earlier awards cycles, and doing that would help with notability. With that said, as TRiL notes, the article would need to be heavily rewritten based on the good sources you have (the KISS principle applies to Wikipedia writing). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I've removed https://thedogsbusiness.pro/fido-awards-2024-celebrating-canine-stars/ , https://missdarcy.org/and-the-award-goes-to/, https://thedogsbusiness.pro/fido-awards-2024-celebrating-canine-stars/ , and https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/messi-anatomy-of-a-fall-dog-oscars-academy-awards-1235845408/. I did find two The Guardians about the Fido Awards from 2009, here are the links: https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/nov/23/fido-awards-dogs-cinema , https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/nov/16/fido-award-canine-oscarsRincemermaid (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Both of those Grauniad sources look good. I'd say you might have enough to show notability with those; the question now turns to rewriting the article based off of the information in the three Grauniad and one Deadline Hollywood source you have at present. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

19:00, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Kswuid

I dont understand why my submission was rejected as i feel like it perfectly aligned with the purpose of wikipedia and was sufficiently informative Kswuid (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It was completely unsourced, you have much to learn about Wikipedia; please use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

19:47, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Nelsenbrockfan

Hello, what can I do to get my article allowed? Nelsenbrockfan (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

20:21, 18 April 2024 review of submission by Nyjja

We added a new section and a new source to the article. Would it be possible to submit it again, please? Nyjja (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nyjja. Rejection usually means the end of the road for a draft, but you can reach out to the last reviewer @MaxnaCarta if you believe the draft has fundamentally changed since the rejection. Qcne (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

20:36, 18 April 2024 review of submission by DeclanMiner2005

I tried to write this draft better, and I will try again to write it better so it can be accepted. I am sorry, Wikipedia. I wish you a great day! :) DeclanMiner2005 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @DeclanMiner2005, the draft has been rejected so cannot be re-submitted. It is not a viable encyclopaedic article in it's current state. Maybe try writing a Blog? Qcne (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

April 19

00:22, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Keppard123

Why was my entry rejected again? The reviewer did not leave an explanation. The previous reviewers wanted more references. I included quite a few. Please tell me what I am doing wrong so this can be accepted. The guitarist in question is a world class player and this is an important release. Thanks! Keppard123 (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And why would you call this a test edit? This is a serious entry. Please respond when you can. Keppard123 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Keppard123: The issue is that the draft is almost entirely critical reception, a tracklist, and credits; it should be a summary of what the album is, how it was produced, and the critical reception of it. Compare 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) or Odyssey Number Five, which are featured-class articles on albums. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

06:19, 19 April 2024 review of submission by TALARI ARUN KUMAR

I edited my article named "Traits of a successful salesperson". Please refer and approve it TALARI ARUN KUMAR (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@TALARI ARUN KUMAR: We do not host op-eds. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

06:24, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Prathiksha1996

Hi, this is the third time I am writing this article can you please help me which point sounds like an advertisement here so that I can edit it accordingly Prathiksha1996 (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Prathiksha1996: Before we continue, what is your connexion to FloCareer? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
(Blocked as sock.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

09:24, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Eeeenah0209

Hi There,

My recent submission has been declined for the following reason:

Resubmitted with no meaningful improvement, previous decline(s) still apply. Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at KWV South Africa instead.

The following article is on KWV Brandy, a label under the KWV umbrella, and therefore needs its own page. The existing KWV page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KWV_South_Africa) simply states the history and origin of the brand. The purpose of my article is to give more information about KWV Brandy and its varieties, along with all of its awards. Is there a there perhaps a way forward?

Eeeenah0209 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Eeeenah0209: if you can show that KWV House of Brandy is independently notable, then it may be possible to have a separate article on it. (I'm not saying even then we necessarily should have a separate article, but it would be at least possible.)
Could you please respond to the conflict-of-interest query on your talk page? Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

10:25, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Zeeyas

According to my article reviewer, the article was declined due to insufficient published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. However, I believe that the references provided meet these criteria. I kindly need assistance in updating the article in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia. Zeeyas (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zeeyas: so that we don't have to plough through nearly 50 (!) citations, could you please list here the three strongest ones in terms of meeting the WP:GNG / WP:ORG guideline, namely: secondary sources that provide significant coverage, directly of the subject, and that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Note that passing mentions, routine business reporting, anything where a representative of the organisation is commenting or being interviewed, and anything that is based on press releases, sponsored content or other material originating with the organisation do not count. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing Kindly see below a list of our three strongest citations based on the criteria:
  1. https://www.macfound.org/grantee/shehu-musa-yaradua-foundation-39438/
  2. https://luminategroup.com/investee/yaradua
  3. https://statehouse.gov.sl/sierra-leones-president-julius-maada-bio-seeks-partnership-towards-promoting-purposeful-leadership-with-a-symbolic-visit-to-the-shehu-musa-yaradua-centre-nigeria/
Thank you. Zeeyas (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Zeeyas: DoubleGrazing may not be willing to take the time to assess 50 sources, but I am. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of the sources you have that I could assess are usable in any way. Please read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Notability (companies and organizations) and look for better sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano: Thank you for the very detailed feedback. I will work on the sources as advised. Zeeyas (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Zeeyas You said "our" above. Are you associated with this Foundation? 331dot (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

13:31, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Shark4124

I cannot submit it,because it says "ratelimited" what i gotta do? Shark4124 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Shark4124 I fixed your post to provide the correct link to your draft. I'm not sure about your issue, but your draft would not be accepted if you submitted it, as it has no independent reliable sources summarized. Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles, per WP:CIRCULAR. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The source are hard to find,sorry. Because it really rare. Shark4124 (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Shark4124 Sources are a must; you should have them in hand before starting to write a draft. Sources do not need to be online, a book in a library is fine.
If sources are hard to find, how do you know about this man? 331dot (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I got in from the youtube actually (sorry if i say "youtube") ill change it bro. Because it a bit confusing,sorry! Shark4124 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks bro,appreciate that for the suggestions, i able to submit it Shark4124 (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

14:18, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Revbunmi

I know very well of the subject matter; Olubunmi Adeleye Thomas, he is an unpublished personality very few is online about him and the Oyo State Government official website has information about him at www.bunmithomas.org.ng and knowing him to be an human right activist and clergy in Ibadan the most populous city in Nigeria, he ought to be on wikipedia. please i recommend that you call for articles concerning him. thank you. Revbunmi (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Revbunmi If there are few sources about this man, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. We do not place phone calls here searching for sources, it's up to you to provide them. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

15:42, 19 April 2024 review of submission by Fanindradev

I’m trying to add a biography page of Fanindra bhardwaj he is music producer and songwriter please help me to add a title for fanindra bhardwaj and please suggest me which reference needed in submission [[ user:fanindradev]] (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

22:55, 19 April 2024 review of submission by 2A01:9700:1021:B00:CEDB:B79C:29BF:D4BD

whywas it rejected 2A01:9700:1021:B00:CEDB:B79C:29BF:D4BD (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

April 20
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:AFCHELP, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.