For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page.
@Swatiysahu Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. See WP:NOTHOWTO. Also, always a concern of mine, would you keep this up to date for the next few decades? Info like this tends to get out of date and then stay out of date. The kind of articles that WP prefers are not as subject to "becoming incorrect" as time passes. Hope this helps. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear as to why this page Draft: Peter Felt was not approved
and this page, Throope Chapman, was
The Peter Felt page has many more sources than the Throope Chapman page, and shows significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, unlike the Throope Chapman page.
Binx1966 Be wary in citing something in another article as a reason for something in your draft, see other stuff exists. It could be that this other article is also inappropriate and simply has not been addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get past us. If you want to use another article as a model, make sure it is classified as a good article. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft reads like a family history project, not an encyclopaedia article it also begins with details about a house rather than him, which confuses the reviewers. Theroadislong (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the submitting process often confusing. Also I don't see any way to edit the text I uploaded on author Patricia Volk--it eliminated paragraph
breaks, for one thing, and I can't add notes. Also I wasn't sure about the title, so at the moment it has my name, Jan Swafford, when it should be
Patricia Volk. Please advise.
@Milekaki12: Your article draft doesn’t contain enough sourcing to demonstrate notability, as defined by Wikipedia. You need to find independent media coverage. Think about it - if all there is is only known by you, they don’t seem to be well known enough. See WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
19:52:16, 12 May 2022 review of submission by Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet
Hi there, I'm trying to publish a page about a road safety index which is a research project that we're working on. My request for publishing the page has rejected and I wonder why? thanks.
Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but if you read the text, you understand that we're trying to introduce a new safety index which is an encyclopaedia project.
What are the terms to making it published? Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet: You can't. That is what rejected means. Wikipedia is not the place to introduce your index to the world. If independent reliable sources take note of your index and give it significant coverage, it may merit an article that summarizes that coverage. Have you read WP:COI and WP:PAID? 331dot (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you response.
I've read WP:COI and I don't see any conflict of interest in this case. I'd be appreciate it if you can make it clear for me if you see COI.
And regarding WP:PAID, I've written that who made this index on behalf of which company. Do I need to clarify it more? :) Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your user name is Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet. That's also the name of a division at AFRY, so the COI is crystal clear. What do you mean by "I've written that who made this index on behalf of which company."? (Are you using Google Translate? The sentence is garbled nonsense in English, but running it through GTranslate results in a perfectly good sentence in Swedish. Please do not use machine translations in Wikipedia – it is pretty rude to your fellow Wikipedia editors. --bonadeacontributionstalk 21:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use google translate at all! I think humiliating people because of their language skills is rude!
By this sentence: "I've written that who made this index on behalf of which company." I meant that the FIA RS Index is developed by AFRY but the request for developing it is from FIA federation. Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet: This doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not the venue for publishing novel research or to try and publicise something. That just is not how an encyclopaedia works. Published sources that have already discussed the topic are a hard requirement for us to even consider having an article, and even with sources we wouldn't accept novel research like this as it's out-of-scope. I would suggest that whoever's asking you to do this has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia actually is.
And bonadea's not trying to humiliate you or belittle your language skills. That sentence they pointed out is basically word salad in English, and it definitely sounds like something automated translation would generate. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori 06:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
04:44:17, 13 May 2022 review of submission by NickyThejournalist
NickyThejournalist (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recently Submitted an article and it was Declined for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." would you be able to tell me which sources? Can you help me so I can get this page published correctly.
Did you actually read any of these sources? The lot of them read like ad copy, and are written to take in gullible fools who mistakenly believe they're actual news, so as to improve a subject's search engine ranking results. We're nowhere near as credulous as the audience these "news pieces" are intended for, and we're not going to accept an article, let alone a biography of a living person, based on such obvious churnalism. A Google search gives me absolutely nothing usable, either (string: joshdifferent) - not even the News section, which tends to include an embarrasing-for-Google amount of black-hat SEO and churnalism in its results, shows up. The chance of this becoming an article at this time is absolutely zero. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori 07:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me a specific suggestion on how to improve this article so that is published? I used existing sources of information that refer not only to fragmented articles, but also to articles that are related to the company’s history and not produced by creator of the subject. For example : CNews/”Moscow Times” / D.J. Peterson articles are independent, reliable and published sources.
I appreciate your help. Thanks a lot. Pensy
It was declined as advertising eg. “SmartDev makes it easier for companies to scale people, processes, and products.” “focuses on delivering high quality products with short turnarounds”, “a strong track record in the development of applications” “gaming development company with over 70 years of cumulative industry experience” “focuses on bringing leading edge technologies to developing markets across Europe, Africa, and Asia. The Group” none of which is acceptable and is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me a specific suggestion on how to improve this article so that it is published? I used existing sources of information that refer to the company’s history and current trends. What kind of additional references to be used?
I appreciate your help. Thanks a lot. Pensy
Pensy65 Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a company. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article.
If you work for this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 15:07:45, 13 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Greenjoy1445
my submission was declined due to it was not supported by reliable sources. I studied this topic well for my article and tried to collect well-known reliable sources, and they are also independent, like klankosova.tv and albinfo.ch. Some of them contain entire articles (not passing mentions) written about TVALB as the first Albanian IPTV platform that launched in the US for the Albanian diaspora, as well as about the support of the company from the Republic of Kosovo.
Could you please help me with some more clear information about the references in my article? Why are they not considered reliable and what kind of additional references should be used? Thank you in advanced.
Krakozjabla (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15:21:48, 13 May 2022 review of submission by Spacecat711
My draft for a children's book author was declined with this comment, "Early life section - try not to use author biography writeup as they may be provided by the author." I am not sure what is meant by this, how can biographical information not be provided by the author? The source I initially used was provided by her publishing house (Allen & Unwin), although this information can be verified across multiple sources. I have since changed the source to the Australian Writer's Center. Any insight and assistance you can provide about author biographical information moving forward is greatly appreciated!
Spacecat711 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spacecat711 We aren't interested in what someone(or close associates) says about themselves, only in what independent reliable sources say about them. What she or her publisher say about her is a primary source. If an independent source with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control reports on her personal history, that should be used instead of statements from herself or her publisher. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I had created this draft in January, and it has since been awaiting review. But today I saw another article created much later, by another user. I don't think that article went through the Afc process. It also lacks references. What should be done here? Thanks in advance.
My submission on Parisi Vending Co. was declined on grounds of notability/references (or both). I originally provided 6 references. Three of those references now have hyperlinks for verification. I am unable to find the other three online, but have PDFs of the original magazine articles.
Is it possible to:
1 - Attach PDFs in citations? (I could not find a Help topic on this.)
2 - Get more specific feedback on what needs to be provided/corrected? Eventually I would like to do multiple articles on the history of bulk vending, which would provide more context for your article on Folz Vending.
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
I believe that before I did not include the online references so that they are easy to be reviewed and verified by someone. Perhaps that was greatly lacking. Before it was mainly hard copy. Now I added where they can be viewed online. Also, I added more accurate detail in the references (location of publication, page numbers, and ISBNs).
Reference for the article (Eghlid Sugar Company) is included in the official website of the company. Please state the exact reason for its rejection.
Ali mahmood nazary (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ali mahmood nazary: I'm not entirely sure what "reference [...] is included in the official website" means, but just to explain that you cannot use fawiki as a source at all, and using the company's own website does not contribute towards notability in the slightest. Therefore, notability is not established, and statements made cannot be verified. And on top of that, the article is promotional in nature, reading like a corporate brochure rather than an encyclopaedia entry. (Also, the first two paragraphs appear to be copied or very closely paraphrased from the company website, which is not allowed.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
08:38:28, 14 May 2022 review of draft by Trikkyupi Mafia
Trikkyupi Mafia (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trikkyupi Mafia: well, technically you can submit it, but you very much shouldn't. The draft, apart from being an autobio (which is very strongly discouraged), is completely unreferenced, therefore failing two of most important requirements, namely verifiability and notability. Not to mention that it is very promotional. As I said, you should not submit this draft; it has no realistic prospect of being accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11:45:39, 14 May 2022 review of submission by 2400:ADC7:108:3200:D405:D0CF:793E:C954
this is naveena group profile its is complete information with references please approve and give chance of thanks
Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editors. If you want to create a profile, do that on social media. Your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
05:20:14, 15 May 2022 review of submission by 2601:205:C002:D1E0:B89D:D345:D0C3:217F
I tried to make a page about "What if 2020 was a person," but it got declined. I added a bunch of references to this article and added more details. I'm not sure what else I can do. I want to know what is 2020 was a person by using imagination and creativity. There is nothing wrong with this draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:What_is_2020_was_a_person%3F2601:205:C002:D1E0:B89D:D345:D0C3:217F (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I request for a re review because I want to know what if 2020 was a person. If it is, there will be punishments for this year, 2020.[reply]
Whatever you are trying to do with that draft, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. That is why the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is a place to summarize independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created a "DirectDL" named article. But I don't know why reviewers do not accept that. I use this service each day and See the website domain on google. It was created four months ago. I don't believe a website with 4-month age can have a lot of good references on the international web. But I see the "Bitport" page too. I believe "DirectDL" and "bitport" use the exact mechanism. But, it has some references more than DirectDL, and DirectDL has local (not international) references. I try to understand everyone who reads this post; sometimes, you have to see and pass. You can't find significant international sources for a 4-month torrent cloud torrent service. But about local sources, I can give some references in turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and... I hope the dear reviewer has noticed it.
E V I L044 A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how the topic meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If a topic does not have enough appropriate sources(likely if it is a new topic), it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time and no amount of editing can change that. Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about, this does not mean more inappropriate content can be added. Otherwise, nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand your meaning. You are right. First, I edited this article many times. But I try to understand you; all of the edits happen because I add new references. For example, in the last edit, I asked a question from the reviewer: can I use local references? and he said: set local references on the article, not send them to me! I never send links to him, and I ask only questions. after that, I set some local country references but sadly, it did not accept.
About the article, the function of the site is straightforward. It converts torrent (peer-to-peer) to direct link (DDL). You can get on the site and work with that. This is enormous proof that shows that the article's content is not inappropriate at all.
But if the reviewer accepts, I can add new local country references (turkey- Saudi Arabia - Iran ) to the article. E V I L044 (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if one is a Senior Wrangler - this is very notable and you even have a wikipage dedicated to these people !! The material is not self published, since one article was in a School magazine historically (it is in the School archive) other material is in a Cambridge College archive in addition to the school archive. If people wanted to verify this, they would have to go to the archives themselves - it is not going to be electronically accessible ! I should have highlighted both the Senior Wrangler words in blue and Sir John Wolfenden's name as these both have wiki pages dedicated to them, I do not know how to do this in the text and would appreciate you could tell me.
I do not like the inference of the editor that the material cited has been self-published elsewhere to support the article - this could
not be further from the truth. The gentleman in question is deceased and the articles cited are historical and reside in archives at Cambridge University and at Uppingham School (not on-line but verifiable as the Archivists could be asked to provide the material).
Hello @Mruthsanderson: please review the notability guideline at WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. The sources cited in Draft:David Dunbar (mathematician) are all primary, and too close to the subject to be considered independent (which is what the 'self-published' comment referred to). They are also offline, which in itself is fine, but they must still be published sources (which school archives probably aren't), and cited with sufficient details to enable a third party to verify them if they wanted to. Hope this clarifies the matter, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it was not written in that vein as a "social media platform" or the other attributes that you cite "discussion forum, or advertising space for 'sharing' or otherwise promoting your community" this is extremely cynical. It was a historical biography of a Senior Wrangler for which there is a page and also there are biographical articles for the mathematicians listed there in that article. Quite straitforward. Mruthsanderson (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not as Doublegrazing mentions, school archives but Cambridge College archives. Quite straightforward "typo" Mruthsanderson (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mruthsanderson: one of the draft's sources is described as school archive, hence my comment. And whether school or college archive, either way the issue remains that they are not published, and may not be available for verification by members of the public. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes I agree, they are unpublished, but there is no way through this impasse as this archived material is not web accessible. Mruthsanderson (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Birbd although you haven't actually asked a question, let me pre-empt one and answer anyway. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; not a social media platform, discussion forum, or advertising space for 'sharing' or otherwise promoting your community. This is why your submission was rejected, and subsequently deleted. The various links posted on your talk page provide further information on relevant policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15:24:23, 15 May 2022 review of submission by SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES
SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES (talk·contribs) (TB)
I would like to learn why this has been rejected if it is a legitimate theory, even if it has not been accepted yet by official science. The thing is, Wikipedia even has a page for Flat Earth theory, which is absolutely demonstrably false. So, how comes you reject this hypothesis if it even has some evidence?
SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES: see WP:OR, WP:V, WP:REF. Wikipedia reports/summarises what other, reliable published sources have said about a subject. This is not the place to propound new 'alternative ideas'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16:19:21, 15 May 2022 review of submission by 2601:205:C002:D1E0:5991:1D21:CB4C:7962
Please stop. First time can be regarded as humorous. Keep doing it, and eventually you will cross the line into disruptive. We have over 3,000 pending bona fide drafts to review; please do not create unnecessary work by submitting something that stands no chance of becoming part of an encyclopaedia. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We provide the official website or document from the organizations to proof Denis Yip's occupation in certain position. Is it the most authoritative evidence? Why is it necessary to provide evidence from other sources? Thanks!
Michael Biu (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why was my article rejected? Please guide me IPordel (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IPordel Your draft was only declined, not rejected("rejected" would mean resubmission is not possible). The reason was left by the reviewer at the top of the draft. Do you have a specific question about that? 331dot (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14:41:55, 16 May 2022 review of submission by AvonMooch
My draft David J. Brown (artist) was rejected and thought to be autobiographical (which it is not). As a resource and a guide, I have looked at other similar and published wiki articles on similar people. I would appreciate help in refining my effort so that its suitable for wiki inclusion. thank you.
AvonMooch (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AvonMooch Beware in using other articles as a model, as those too could be inappropriate. See other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, make sure that they are classified as good articles.
Do you have an association with Mr. Brown? I assume that you did not choose him at random to edit about.
As your draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to tell about someone and what they do; it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply331dot and the info/links included in it. To your question, I know about this person, hence my interest in putting something forward. I will do some more homework via the links per your suggestion. AvonMooch (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15:15:34, 16 May 2022 review of submission by Emmacamill
I created a page for a company that seems to be doing a lot of work in blockchain research, however there was a speedy deletion. I'm not sure why that happened or what information specifically caused the deletion.
Could you clairfy please?
Emmacamill (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emmacamill Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does- a Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. This does not include brief mentions, staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources.
You have chosen to edit in a contentious area, blockchain/cryptocurrencies. There are special rules about this, which I will inform you of on your user talk page. If you work for nChain, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17:04:58, 16 May 2022 review of submission by Cherub890
Thank you for the additional information. I am not a marketer and generally just writing to be neutral, but I have made some adjustments to try and make it sound better for Wikipedia's style. I've also added some additional references, and just resubmitted.
I have resubmitted after making some more changes based on what I was told, including of getting rid of marketing-like tone and adding a few more references, but I see I got declined again for the same reasons, with no additional information.
Can someone please give me some more details why I this resubmission was not approved? I have went through all the text again and it seems very neutral and factual to me, and I have a bunch of references, several of which are not related to the producers of the app.
I would like to improve the quality so I can get accepted but with out very specific details (meaning that specific sentences are referred to, etc.) I am not sure how I can do so.
There is no magic number, and quality as well as quantity matters: three solid sources is probably enough, whereas even thirty flaky ones isn't. That's for establishing the notability of the subject. For supporting the article contents, you basically need to be able to reference every material or potentially contentious statement to a reliable source, and you therefore need however many sources that requires. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
00:17:29, 17 May 2022 review of draft by Wonder.itn
So I decided to work on Draft:Kathy Barnette, as when I found it, it was basically blank. I wrote a fairly basic article, and submitted it for review. Almost immediately, the draft was rejected and I learned that Kathy Barnette had been salted. While I'm not at all attached to Barnette or what I wrote, from my perspective, she definitely seems notable as she has been in the headlines CONSTANTLY! I can't seem to get away from her, Barnette this, Barnette that, she's everywhere. I will not be resubmitting the draft for review unless she wins, but I do think a discussion is needed to just talk of the possibility of unsalting Barnette.
Physeters✉ 00:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Physeters, thanks for coming to the AFC help desk, I would like to ping Robert McClenon, the reviewer that rejected the draft, and Nick-D the salting admin for their opinions on the subject's notability. There does appear to significant coverage occurring around last week about the subject after both AFDs. (Reuters, Nytimes, USA Today) Which might make the subject notable. However, the draft does need to be significantly altered before being accepted, WP:FOXNEWS is not a reliable source for political topics. Justiyaya 03:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Physeters, User:Justiyaya - First, candidates for political office very seldom are considered to pass general notability. They do not meet political notability as candidates. Aside from the matter of notability, drafts on candidates are often non-neutral. So candidates for political office very seldom have articles unless they already passed general notability before they became candidates. Second, articles on Barnette were resubmitted disruptively twice in the past two weeks, after the first article had already been deleted at a deletion discussion. So I agree with the salting administrator. Third, I know that some other editors will disagree with me, but in this case I think that any request to unsalt should go to Deletion Review with an appropriate neutral draft. and that no request to unsalt should be made without first developing a draft that passes both notability and neutrality. Fourth, we, the Wikipedia community, have to take what is basically a negative attitude toward articles about political candidates, in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and avoid be manipulated by candidates. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth, I rejected the draft because it had been salted after a deletion discussion. I didn't make an evaluation of the quality of the sources or of the neutrality of the draft. I couldn't have accepted the draft even if I wanted to do so, so I didn't review it. To accept any draft, I would have to open a locked door to which I don't have a key. I almost certainly would have declined it otherwise. I won't review a draft if the title is salted, and I wouldn't advise another reviewer to review a draft on a salted title without first discussing the salting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon I think I do agree with you with most of your points. I wasn't aware of the disruptive submissions before, thank you so much for clarifying! Justiyaya 04:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my draft is written in a biased manner. I don't actually have a very high opinion of Barnette, and I tried to be objective, but I guess I must have failed. I had zero idea that Fox News was not considered a good source, and I will not use them for citations in future. (though three of the four Fox articles I cited where to show that she had worked with them in the past before she was in the spotlight) I really enjoy editing as a small hobby, and if I did something wrong in submitting this draft, I apologize. As to rejecting the draft, there are no hard feelings. We will have to see what Nick-D says on notability. (I had already posted a message on their talk page and have yet to get a reply.) Thank you again for clarifying this, and have a great evening! Physeters✉ 04:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Physeters - I don't know if your draft is written in a biased manner. I didn't review its tone, or its adequacy, because I couldn't have accepted it if I had decided to accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I finally got a response from Nick, and he said that he still did not think she is notable enough to remove the salting. So, depending on what todays primary results are, this is either a dead case, or the wiki admins will probably write there own, much better article. Thank you @Robert McClenon for your time! Physeters✉ 10:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
02:10:07, 17 May 2022 review of draft by Blemckert
Hi! I'm still quite confused as to what kinds of sources are needed to prove the author's (Chris Patterson) merit/relevance. Is it interviews that I need? Should I be referencing reviews?
Hi Blemckert, welcome to the AFC help desk. This article is one about a living person, and as such, requires contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral to be supported by a reliable source. sources such as wordpress or most self published sources should not be used. Additionally, the draft needs to meet our notability guidelines, which, to put simply, requires 3-4 reliable sources independent of the subject providing significant coverage in the article for an easy accept. Happy editing! Justiyaya 05:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
03:30:16, 17 May 2022 review of submission by 126.96.36.199
History is Declined, Declined, Declined, Rejected, Declined, Rejected, nominated for deletion at MfD on 9 May and resubmitted to AfC on 17 May. Multiple IPs with identical or near-idential Edit summaries dating back to creator, so may also be IP socking. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11:14:44, 17 May 2022 review of submission by 2406:7400:75:B466:5C96:6081:686D:F500
Once the film is released, and if her role in it is signficant enough to make her meet the definition of a notable performer, the rejection may be reconsidered at that time. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability standards for actors (linked above) require significant roles in multiple films. Probably WP:TOOSOON. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13:32:36, 17 May 2022 review of draft by Krakozjabla
Dear reviewer, unfortunately I didn't get any replies to my opposite messages. My submission was declined due to it was not supported by reliable sources. I studied this topic well for my article and tried to collect well-known reliable sources, and they are also independent, like klankosova.tv and albinfo.ch. Some of them contain entire articles (not passing mentions) written about TVALB as the first Albanian IPTV platform that launched in the US for the Albanian diaspora, as well as about the support of the company from the Republic of Kosovo. Could you please help me with some more clear information about the references in my article? Why are they not considered reliable and what kind of additional references should be used? Thank you in advanced.
Krakozjabla (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakozjabla: that particular decline notice ("This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources") can mean either that the sources cited are not considered reliable, or that the article contents are inadequately supported. I expect in your case it's the latter, seeing as there are several paragraphs without a single citation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakozjabla: It's a decent start, but you need more sources to show notability. Setplex is a commercial site, and doesn't help show notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15:05:51, 17 May 2022 review of submission by Tsber1979
My article submission was declined and I would like to know why
Tsber1979 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsber1979: that would be for the reason shown in the decline notice (see that grey box inside the big pink box). This is the English-language Wikipedia, and can only accept articles in the English language. I'm no expert, but your text looks to me to be in Greek. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15:30:40, 17 May 2022 review of submission by Arshuspeaks
Randieldridge (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Randieldridge You don't ask a question, but three words will not be accepted as a Wikipedia article. 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 meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and writing an article- which is the hardest task to attempt here. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20:37:26, 17 May 2022 review of submission by MemeMan2022
Why did i not get it published? What did i do wrong?
MemeMan2022 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MemeMan2022 Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell your thoughts on Fortnite or give your personal comparison to other games. There is already a Wikipedia article on Fortnite if you have edits sourced to independent reliable sources to contribute there. Please read Your First Article. Creating a new article is the hardest task to attempt on Wikipedia, please learn all you can about doing so first, and spend time editing existing articles, so you learn what is expected. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
04:45:25, 18 May 2022 review of submission by Digihemchand
Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->))
i want to share knowledge about vfx company in india
Digihemchand (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Puneet Singh (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is your question, @The Puneet Singh? The draft in your sandbox has been deleted as promotional, in case that's what you were wondering. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what i wrote was not promotional. it was just to share company information and that too in subtle form. however it got isapproved again. is there any other means by which it can be uploaded. The Puneet Singh (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To share company information is a definition of promotion, if that is your goal you will not find Wikipedia a hospitable environment as we frown upon any form of promotion. We only want to see what others have written about a subject on their own accord. If multiple reliable source have not written about the subject then they will not be considered notable. McMatter(talk)/(contrib) 15:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you please explain why exactly you are rejecting my submission? You have mentioned that it looks like an ad, however, I have stated pure information about when Renderforest was founded and what products it has. Could you bring one specific example for me to understand what part of the article feels like an ad?
RosiGhalach (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RosiGhalach: at a quick glance, the draft reads to me like WP:ADMASQ rather than an encyclopaedia entry; it is the overall tone and style which comes across as trying to sell the service. And one specific, concrete thing is the pricing information, which is a sales & marketing feature and has no place in an encyclopaedia.
BTW, just to clarify, your draft has not been rejected, only declined. Rejection would mean it has been turned down and cannot be resubmitted. Decline means it has been turned down for now, but can be resubmitted once the reasons for declining have been addressed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to upload my three photoes
11:46:48, 18 May 2022 review of submission by Meheqkhokhar
Hello @Meheqkhokhar: - you've not asked a question. The current draft is extremely short and has no citations, so is not going to be approved. Take a look at Help:Intro for a simple guide on how to add sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13:06:22, 18 May 2022 review of submission by Meheqkhokhar
@Meheqkhokhar: you haven't actually asked any questions, but I'm guessing you want to know why your submission wasn't accepted. The first thing to say is, you really should not be submitting your autobiography. For reasons why this is, see WP:AUTOBIO.
Secondly, every article must be supported by reliable sources, which are needed both to verify the contents and to establish the subject's notability; this is important for all articles, and especially so for ones on living people. Your draft doesn't cite a single source. See WP:REFB and WP:GNG for advice.
Thirdly, you twice submitted a blank draft, because the little content that there was was hidden inside comment tags. In the future, please use the preview function to check that your content appears the way you intended, before publishing. Or at least check after it is published.
And fourthly, when a draft is declined, you're meant to address the reasons for the decline before resubmitting. It seems that you just resubmitted (three times) without any improvement. At some point the reviewers are bound to conclude that this is unlikely to result in a publishable article, and halt the process. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13:38:49, 18 May 2022 review of submission by Gageweston
Good Day! I am having trouble locating Draft: David J. Brown to be able to address the shortcomings (EDIT) of this recently rejected article
I can access it but I can't seem to find the editing tab. Thank you!
AvonMooch (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject can't be addressed again? AvonMooch (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AvonMooch It cannot be resubmitted unless there is a dramatic change in circumstances, such as new information that was not considered by the reviewer. If so, you must appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info! AvonMooch (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
03:44:46, 19 May 2022 review of submission by FeodoreVik
- The publication won website of the year, which is the most coveted publication award. It's listed on the page linked: "Website of the Year – Consumer/Custom. WINNER: CarExpert.com.au – Car Expert Pty Ltd with Expert Media Pty Ltd"
"I cannot assess either The Australian source (walled)."
- The lack of a subscription to a notable publication shouldn't count for its exclusion. The contents of the article that was published in print and available online to subscribers in a notable publication validates the line attached to that reference. This article outlines an investment from one of Australia's biggest media organisations and meets the definition of significant coverage, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization."
- I disagree with this point. An article solely focused on the topic from one of Australia's most notable financial publications isn't routine coverage. The definition of significant coverage is "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." This article meets that criteria by providing in depth coverage, commentary, discussion and evaluation of the company.
The rest of your comments make sense. I believe the linking of these sources may not help with notability (as explained by you), but help reference the points in the draft. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In responce to your points, except for the Mumbrella one (as I will concede that):
When I say I cannot assess a source, it means literally that - I can't judge whether or not it's a usable source. As such, I'm neither saying it's okay or saying it's unacceptable. I'm only saying I personally cannot assess it. That is all. Someone with an active subscription to The Australian needs to assess it. Note that I even explicitly said, at the end, "Discounting the sources I cannot assess", the implication being I cannot speak as to whether they are good or not.
Did you even look at WP:CORPDEPTH, since I explicitly linked it in the quoted excerpt? "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:[...]standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as:[...]expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, [or] of a capital transaction, such as raised capital[.]" By that standard, this article is useless for notability. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori 06:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your points:
"When I say I cannot assess a source, it means literally that - I can't judge whether or not it's a usable source. As such, I'm neither saying it's okay or saying it's unacceptable. I'm only saying I personally cannot assess it. That is all. Someone with an active subscription to The Australian needs to assess it. Note that I even explicitly said, at the end, "Discounting the sources I cannot assess", the implication being I cannot speak as to whether they are good or not."
- Yes, I understood what you were saying. But my point is that this source from a reputable publication meets the requirements for notability. The onus shouldn't be on the editor or the content contributor to supply subscription to notable publications for verification - this should be the onus of the person assessing this contribution.
"Did you even look at WP:CORPDEPTH, since I explicitly linked it in the quoted excerpt? "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:[...]standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as:[...]expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, [or] of a capital transaction, such as raised capital[.]" By that standard, this article is useless for notability."
- Yes I did. And as I mentioned, the contents of that article absolutely meets the definition of significant coverage by virtue of "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The mention of an acquisition isn't the main contents of the article and can't be used as the sole reason to mark it as insignificant coverage.
Wikipedia is an intimidating place and it's made even worse when aggressive language is used to respond to people. Please don't speak to people like that. Comments like "Did you even look at", are aggressive and unnecessary.
As I mentioned in the initial response - in the automotive space this publication is absolutely notable. References and dedicated articles by two of Australia's most reputable general interest and financial publications wouldn't exist without this notability. Likewise a referenced investment from Seven West Media. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to supply a subscription. Nowhere did I imply I was looking to find some way to cheat the paywall. I'm under no obligation to try and find some way to cheat past a subscription wall to assess a source; if a third party that is familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policies can assess the source I will accept what they say about the source.
The contents of that article are the standard routine business news stuff I see on a daily basis both here and on #wikipedia-en-help. Business finances are routine. Business earnings are routine. All we have here is just blind parroting and paraphrasing of mandatory financial reports and documents. That the Financial Review covered it does not make it any less routine. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori 07:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not asking you to supply a subscription. Nowhere did I imply I was looking to find some way to cheat the paywall. I'm under no obligation to try and find some way to cheat past a subscription wall to assess a source; if a third party that is familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policies can assess the source I will accept what they say about the source."
- I'm not asking you to cheat. I'm simply suggesting that the fact a source is behind a paywall shouldn't preclude it from being assessed for notability, which is what you did, by the basis of not including it as part of the assessment. I'm suggesting that as part of the help section (which is what I've posted this to), this should be delegated to somebody with a subscription that can assess its notability.
"The contents of that article are the standard routine business news stuff I see on a daily basis both here and on #wikipedia-en-help. Business finances are routine. Business earnings are routine. All we have here is just blind parroting and paraphrasing of mandatory financial reports and documents. That the Financial Review covered it does not make it any less routine."
- I disagree with this. There's no mention of any mandatory financial reports or documents. It's an article that outlines the business, notes its valuation and supports statements made in the original Wikipedia entry. And it's in one of the most notable publications in Australia.
We're going around in circles with this. I'm not sure I understand the process enough to see what to do from here. But the basis is that I disagree with your assessment. If the buck stops with you, that's fine, I'll move on with life. If it doesn't, I'd like these points to be addressed - in particular what the policy is around sources with subscriptions. This can't be the first time a subscription has been required to view a notable source on Wikipedia. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, you said But my point is that this source from a reputable publication meets the requirements for notability.. That a source is reliable is an essential requirement, but it is not sufficient to show notability. For instance: a press release published in a reliable source does not count towards notability for the topic, and a trivial mention in an article in a reliable source almost never counts towards notability for the topic. Two different articles in The Australian are used as sources for two different pieces of information: a) "The founding team had previously founded automotive publisher CarAdvice.com.au that sold to Nine Entertainment in 2018 for $35 million." and b) "In October, 2021, Seven West Media invested $3 million into the business, valuing the operation at $25 million." Both pieces of information have other, non-paywalled sources; the first one is "trivial coverage" (per WP:CORPDEPTH) of a different company, the second one is trivial coverage of CarExpert. So there is nothing in there that indicates notability for CarExpert. --bonadeacontributionstalk 08:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response.
"So there is nothing in there that indicates notability for CarExpert."
- With regards to your statement - is this in response to the line used in the Wikipedia article, or the contents of the linked reference? The definition of significant coverage is "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." Is your assertion that other content within the referenced article should be used within the Wikipedia article to denote notability, or is your assertion that the contents of the reference isn't sufficient for denoting notability?
- My response to the user above is that both of these referenced sources - The Australian (which the user couldn't open due to a paywall) and the Australian Financial Review meet the requirement of significant coverage. The articles are entirely about the organisation and not brief mentions of the organisation within other articles. The articles themselves then provide and overview, description, commentary and discussion of the company, which are items that are mentioned within significant coverage. This significant coverage therefore denotes notability.
- My final point here is that notability of a subject needs to take into context the industry that subject sits within. A subject independently awarded, invested in by major media organisations and notable enough for individual coverage in main publications is notable in general and very notable within its industry. This context is relevant and crucial in determining notability. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 07:29:39, 19 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by FedFoxEx
I am wondering why my request for the Wikipedia page, 'Matthew Keong' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matthew_Keong) was denied. The reviewer stated that it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources" and "they do not show significant coverage about the subject". This is incorrect, as I have clearly supported all information in the page with reliable sources, most of which are secondary sources. They are mostly news articles - which contain several extremely reliable sources, such as ABC news, The Brisbane Times, The Courier Mail and 7 NEWS. I have included 12 references/citations of these reliable sources, which shows why I am confused about the first reason of "not [being] adequately supported by reliable sources", as I've clearly added many reliable sources. The second reason of not showing significant coverage is also very bizarre. As I explained above, I've provided many reliable sources, which feature the subject (Matthew Keong), in the source. I am not sure why this is not considered as "significant coverage". Could you please explain why the page was not accepted, since I feel I have followed all the guidelines, and if it did not follow all the guidelines, what can be done to improve the page so it will be accepted and is acceptable? Thank you.
@FedFoxEx: this wasn't the reason for declining your draft, and doesn't therefore answer your query, but just to say that when I first saw the draft I felt that it almost amounted to an Attack page (despite being sourced), given that it only describes the person in negative or at least controversial terms. If you haven't yet done so, I would recommend that you review the guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Odwar (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HOW DO I DO COLLABORATIVE EDITING ON AN ARTICLE
I am making my first Wikipedia profile of Grace Lubega, a prominent spiritual leader in Uganda.
My first edit was rejected and was hoping I could find someone to help proofread it before it gets re-reviewed.
I want to have fewer chances of having it rejected again.
@Brian Odwar: Wikipedia is by definition collaborative, and anyone can freely edit the draft. As for finding someone to help you, perhaps you could ask over at WP:WikiProject Uganda?
Your draft wasn't, and wouldn't be, declined (not 'rejected') for lack of proofreading; it was declined for being promotional in tone. You need to write in neutral, factual language (avoiding expressions like 'prominent leader') without trying to promote the subject or make them appear in a positive light. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
08:58:30, 19 May 2022 review of draft by Fearghail
Hi @Fearghail: basically, no. Until you click that 'publish' button, the unsaved content exists only locally in your browser. (Some browsers are pretty good at recovering the latest state following a crash or similar, but I'm guessing you've already ruled out this possibility at your end.) Anyway, this is my non-technical answer... someone who actually knows what they're talking about will come along shortly. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fearghail I’m afraid DoubleGrazing is right. Until you save your edits by publishing them, they exist only in your browser. In the future, you might use Wordpad or another text editor to store the syntax, as I do in case my computer crashes or the power goes out. In the meantime, add the most important items with the best sources. If you can source the new solo album with a couple of reviews, that will help. TechnoTalk (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16:12:30, 19 May 2022 review of submission by Joe Savvas
Hi there. I just got a speedy rejection for my submission of the Savvas Learning Company page. I believe the reason is that it might come across as having marketing language, but could you be more specific? There are other companies like Savvas that have similar pages with similar language. I would like to revise the draft so it meets Wikipedia's guidelines, but I believe that it's written in a neutral way already, so I'm not sure how to revise. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Joe Savvas (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joe Savvas: the draft does indeed read like marketing blurb, with expressions like "Savvas carries on a 120-year history of innovation and leadership", "next-generation learning solutions", etc.
Before the article is deleted (which can happen at any time), you have the right to contest the deletion, by clicking on that blue 'contest' button. This won't necessarily prevent deletion, but at least it gives you the chance to make your case.
I should also mention that the sources cited are insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT, so if you do get a chance to develop this further, you will have to find more and better sources.
Thank you for clarifying. If I were to rework the draft and find better resources, would I just submit a new draft? Or revise this one if it's not deleted? Thank you for your help! Joe Savvas (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Savvas: if this draft doesn't get speedily deleted, then I would continue working on this one, because otherwise it will just wither on the vine, so to speak, and one day get deleted as an abandoned draft. And given that it occupies the article name you (presumably) want, you would otherwise have to jump through an extra hoop to have a new drat at that name.
Of course, if it does get deleted, then you have no option but to start a new one.
A word of advice: the next time you come to submitting something like this, make sure it doesn't come across as something written by your marketing department — if anything, it should come across as having been written by one of your competitor's marketing deparment! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I reworked it so it is much more neutral. Should I, at this point, contest the rejection? Or will the changes be re-reviewed? Thank you for any and all help! Joe Savvas (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Savvas: you cannot contest the rejection. And in saying that, I realise I may have been earlier leading you down the proverbial garden path. I was too focused on the speedy deletion request, overlooking the fact that the draft has been rejected, not just declined. This means that it will not be reviewed again, which in turn means that if you wish to resubmit, you would have to not only significantly rewrite it but to also include new content which would effectively make it a different draft from the rejected one. Apologies for any confusion. (Anyone else care to step in at this point, before I make an even bigger mess of this?!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16:22:38, 19 May 2022 review of submission by Bonsu Nyame Ishmael
My submission is very new and I have obliged by the guidelines of Wikipedia in my writing. The initial reviewer checked my piece in a very few minutes right after my submission was posted.
Bonsu Nyame Ishmael (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonsu Nyame Ishmael: the draft is basically WP:ADMASQ with no encyclopaedic content (not to mention that it is also laid out in such an odd manner, as to be largely illegible). You would have to completely rewrite it, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would have taken less than a minute to conclude that this is not a viable Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
18:19:06, 19 May 2022 review of draft by Workspaceengineer
Hello! I am working on a draft for a Wikipedia article about HiView Solutions, a company I work for (I have declared the COI). I am confused about how to create references. It seems that references should generate automatically, but all I see are the links. I haven't found a way to edit the reference section to make each reference complete. Please advise.
I was working on a draft when an editor who clearly didn't know what he was doing submitted it to AFC as if he'd written it... without discussing that and when it was obviously not ready. It was immediately declined, of course, and I continued working on it. Out of the blue, the editor who declined it took it upon himself to resubmit it... and it has sat unreviewed for two months since. In the meantime someone else created a stub on the same topic. Is there any way to get my better-developed article out of limbo to replace it? I'm an experienced editor and never needed AFC's approval: can I unsubmit my (hijacked) draft and move it to article space on my own authority?
Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonAQuest: you should not publish your draft now, if it replicates an existing article (meaning, they describe the same subject, even if the article name and content are different). You are welcome to contribute to the existing article, of course — that article isn't 'owned' by its creator, any more than your draft is owned by you.
FWIW, I don't believe that the reviewer who declined your draft resubmitted it; it looks to me like the same editor who submitted it the first time resubmitted it later; you then deleted that submission template, and the declining reviewer only restored it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 20:15:06, 19 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 22.214.171.124