Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
ShowcaseParticipants
ApplyBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Help
desk
Backlog
drives

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


February 15

01:53, 15 February 2024 review of submission by OFTB[edit]

I would like to know the reasons why my article was declined. I have added news articles and also links that backs my writing. Please I would like to know in detail the reasons as I intend to write more here. I dont want to waste my time writting something that will never see the light.

OFTB (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OFTB the reason for the decline was in the decline message at the top of the page. If you click on the blue links in the message it will take you to the relevant policies and guidelines. To give you a short hand version almost none of the sources are about the actual subject or independent of the subject as they are her reporting on events or by her employer. Only one of the wedding references are about her and her husband may be considered independent but it is not significant coverage on her. This means the references do not demonstrate how she meets the requirements of a notable person. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for your help with this. She is a National Emmy winner, is that notable enough? HI have cited 2 articles of important newspapers in spanish, they dont count? How many articles are needed? I bet if I google I could find more. She has been covering the Latino community in the nation's capital for almost 20 years in Spanish that might be one of the reason why you dont see that many English news articles. Been on camera for 19 years or so, is not notable enough? I dont understand why you can't take Univision's own links as proof of her work of her coverage of historic events. I used them as reference of her work. I was thinking about writing about minorities in the media and I am not sure if I am going to be able to do it to be honest. OFTB (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @OFTB, it looks to me as though the articles you have cited are written by Uceda, not about her. What you are looking for are things written about her by people who are not connected to her - so perhaps there might be an article about her Emmy win, or maybe someone has written about her long career. You have one article that's about her marriage - I cannot see it as it's behind a paywall, but if it talks about her life or career then you could probably use it as a source.
The usual guidance given is that you want to find three really good sources - they must be reliable, independent, secondary sources. There should be links in your decline notice to the guidelines for choosing the best sources you can. Definitely have a look through Google! I think your biggest problem might be finding articles about Uceda, since it sounds like she may have written a few herself.
If you find it too difficult, just keep in mind that writing an article is the hardest thing to do. Many editors, including myself, have never written an article - instead we focus on enhancing articles that already exist. You might find it more enjoyable and rewarding to seek out articles on minorities in media and improve those instead, before having a go at writing one of your own. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for your help! I was able to find articles about her and 2 tv interviews about her work as well. I think now I am able to fix the problem. I have also reduced the length of my article to keep it simple. Do you know if somebody could take a look at my draft before I submit it? Thanks again for your help. OFTB (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05:43, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Dr.Hana jalili[edit]

Could you please specify which aspects of the subject's notability are not adequately demonstrated by the current references and provide examples of the types of sources that would strengthen the article's case for notability? Understanding what qualifies as significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject is crucial for me. I'm eager for any specific suggestions on how I can improve the article to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, clarification on what constitutes an independent source in this context would be invaluable, as I aim to ensure truly independent sources support the revised submission. Feedback on the structure or presentation of the article that could enhance its acceptance chances, any common pitfalls or mistakes in submissions like mine, and guidance on the best process for resubmission, including any specific aspects I should mention or highlight, would be greatly appreciated. Finally, are there any resources, guides, or examples you recommend for someone striving to meet the notability criteria for their first Wikipedia article submission? Dr.Hana jalili (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@dr.hana jalili: read the decline notice. click on the links. ltbdl (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:14, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Azy De Silwa[edit]

Azy De Silwa is an accomplished executive at the zenith of the corporate world. With an illustrious career spanning decades, Azy has earned a reputation as a visionary leader, a paragon of innovation, and an astute business strategist. As the CEO of NotchLN, a globally recognized technological powerhouse, he steers the company with a blend of ingenuity and foresight that has propelled it to the pinnacles of success.Azy's journey to the upper echelons of corporate leadership is a testament to his unwavering commitment to excellence. Armed with a profound understanding of business dynamics, he has charted a course for NotchLN that is marked by continuous growth, groundbreaking innovations, and an unswerving dedication to customer satisfaction.His leadership style is characterized by a rare fusion of empathy and determination. Azy De Silwa (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Azy De Silwa: please stop spamming, you are getting close to a block for self-promotion. You shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, and certainly not in that tone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:22, 15 February 2024 review of submission by DESTEN Alasdair[edit]

Hello!

It has been around 8 weeks since my submission, are there any ways for me to access an update on progress? DESTEN Alasdair (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DESTEN Alasdair
 Courtesy link: Draft:Desten
This draft was submitted on Jan 9, which is c. 5 weeks ago. Please be patient, we have 1,600+ pending drafts awaiting review. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DESTEN Alasdair I see that you declared a COI, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:04, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Nicky Falcon[edit]

I am writing about an organisation that is well known in the world of science, its contribution to the study of Africa is very great. And I believe that researchers from all over the world have a right to know about this institute. Wikipedia could help researchers to familiarise themselves with the work of the institute, establish contacts and make their own contribution to science. The Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences is committed to interacting with researchers from all over the world for the benefit of science. Nicky Falcon (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Nicky Falcon. You don't ask a question?
For an article to exist you need to prove notability through the use of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Qcne (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please also remove all external links throughout the body of the text as per our guidelines at WP:EXTERNAL. Qcne (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nicky Falcon, it is not part of Wikipedia's purpose to "help researchers to familiarise themselves with" anything, no matter how virtuous. Such a purpose is what Wikipedia means by promotion, which is forbidden. If the organisation has been written about, in depth, by independent commentators, then there could be an article based on what those commentators have said, not on what the organisation or its associates say or want to say. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologise, there was a misunderstanding, I provided sources. Nicky Falcon (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you help me... I added the link on wikidata with necessary sources through { Wikidata entity link|Q4201381 } but how to convert it in the table. And what does this "authority control" do? Nicky Falcon (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:12, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Footballcontributor[edit]

I recently tried writing my first article on Wikipedia and wanted to share my experience. I followed the guidelines and made changes suggested by more experienced editor. However, the feedback I got felt very judgmental and lacking in compassion. This was really tough for me because I just started and was trying to help out.

I write about football clubs, games, projects, and initiatives. It's where my knowledge and enthusiasm lie. I feel it's disingenuous to force myself to write about topics outside my interest or expertise simply to align with the expectations of seasoned editors.

I think it's important for everyone to remember that we're all here to make Wikipedia better, and that includes helping newcomers feel welcome. Getting harsh comments can make people not want to contribute anymore, which isn't good for anyone.

Despite my best efforts to capture the essence and facts of the subject, I recognise that there might be gaps in my execution or areas that could benefit from more experienced editorial insight. Given the feedback I've received, I understand there might be different viewpoints on how best to present this topic on Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm reaching out to the community to see if anyone with a shared interest in football or expertise in this area would be willing to collaborate or take the lead in refining the article. Footballcontributor (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Footballcontributor: do you have a question about this pending draft, or did you just want to air your grievances?
Also, who is forcing you to write about subjects you're not interested in? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Footballcontributor. I'm afraid your experience is pretty common for people who plunge into the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent time learning the essentials about how Wikipedia works - like notability, neutral point of view and reliable sources.
If you'd just taken up tennis, would you immediately enter a major tournament? And if you did, would you expect to find people sympathetic, or for their criticisms to make much sense to you?
I always advise new editors to spend at least a few months learning how Wikipedia works before they even try creating a new article; then to read your first article. BACKWARDS is a useful essay to read, too, because like many people who try to soon, that's how you have written your article. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:13, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Rvaghasia[edit]

I've corrected all the sentences that seemed a bit promotional to me.. and also added references to comply with the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. What can I do next to get the article approved and move it to Article Mainspace from Draft. Also, I have also got PDFs and Images of Regional Newspapers.. how can I refer them as my source? Rvaghasia (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rvaghasia: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further.
Also, judging by your username, this draft is either about you or someone you're closely associated with, so you should not attempt to publish this yourself, no matter what. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:12, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Rhiannon1991[edit]

This Wikipedia article was rejected on the basis that the topic was "not notable enough" for inclusion in Wikipedia and that the vast majority of sources were primary, meaning "sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." The sources quoted in the article include Crains, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Israeli American Council. In the case of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Crains, these awards were given by independent news organizations. These are not organizations which allow the subject to write the account. I'd like to appeal this decision given the fact that the source has been covered by this various organizations of note. Rhiannon1991 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging the rejecting reviewer, @S0091. However I agree with the reviewer:
  1. Crains: This is not significant coverage of Daniel.
  2. Israeli American Council: This is just a speaker profile.
  3. Jewish Telegraphic Agency 1: Only mentions Daniel in passing.
  4. Jewish Telegraphic Agency 2: Is an interview, so does not confer notability.
  5. Jewish Telegraphic Agency 3: Does not mention Daniel.
Qcne (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rhiannon1991: what is your relationship with the subject of this draft, given that all your edits seem to be related to it? This was queried on your user talk page more than six months ago, but you haven't yet responded. Please do so now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please refer to my comments back in 2023 at User talk:S0091/Archive 5#Declined draft: Daniel Kraus (rabbi). Since that time, two sources have been added, NPR and another JTA both of which only mentions Kraus so not anywhere near enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. S0091 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:36, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Willybonty95[edit]

Hi. I wrote about a producer currently topping the charts in the Nigerian music scene, he currently has a song titled "Twe Twe" with Kizz Daniels and a remix with Davido which is topping most charts. It was rejected stating "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines" I want to know what I can do for my article to pass these guidelines. Willybonty95 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You offer no sources for the claim that his music is topping Nigerian music charts. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Willybonty95: the draft wasn't rejected (which would mean the end of the road), only declined (which means you can resubmit once you've addressed the decline reasons). You need to provide sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:41, 15 February 2024 review of submission by 66ozone[edit]

Thanks for the feedback on this submission. Very interesting and helpful. I’m studying for a music industry course. Wikipedia has come up as part of one of the units we are going through. I find it intriguing, so I have been reading a lot on and around Wikipedia, and I am enjoying trying to submit a page for the first time.

While I have made some futher edits, from the notes left on my first submission, there were largely questions on notability. I have read a lot about notability, as I feel you need to in order to submit a page, and have found the analysis table on the ‘Notability (organisations and companies)’ really helpful.

From my reading, I have understood that references need to be significant, reliable, independent, and secondary and come from sources like mainstream newspapers, non-vanity books, established magazines, television, and radio documentaries, etc.

I believe a number references I included in my submission meet this criterion and would highlight this as a notable company. I would love to understand further what I have not quite grasped in my thinking on notability.

The company in question is a video streaming platform. I have included a number of references, including those included below as examples which come from a mixture of established magazines and radio stations. These appear to be independent of marketing spend or ‘advertorial’ content, and highlight that the work the company has a notable footprint.

Some examples of included references:

REF1 – T3 Magazine Significant: Leading international tech publication. Print + Online. In print since 1996. Independent, Secondary + Reliable: Sole focus of the article is On Air (300 words). Not sponsored. Written by one of their regular staff writers.

REF2 – Radio X Significant: Radio station + online site site. Established in 1997. Independent, Secondary + Reliable: Largest alternative radio station in the country. Full article on our product. Regularly covers this subject: Noel Gallagher. Not a sponsored article.

REF8 - Music Week Significant: Biggest UK Music Industry publication. Print + Online. Independent, Secondary + Reliable: The linked article focuses on the On Air product with international pop-act Years & Years. Shared as organic news – not sponsored. Written by their news editors.

REF10 – NME Significant: Legendary international music magazine. Independent, Secondary + Reliable: They regularly cover the artist in question so is a typical / expected piece of coverage – not sponsored. Written by a regular staff writer.

I would love to understand more if I am wrong in my beliefs that these are quality references for the company.

Thanks in advance. 66ozone (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@66ozone: I'd say the first source looks pretty solid. The other three that you mention seem to be more about the artists than about On Air. My hunch is that On Air is using those events to publicise themselves, because they know that big names get more attention. (Whether the publications in question are playing along wittingly or unwittingly, I don't know.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks for the feedback. I understand what you're saying re: the publication potential covering the artist more than On Air. I felt that with them being established magazines, they would work as reliable examples of the service On Air offer being covered in relation to notable artists from established sources - trust me, there were many others from much smaller online zines and blogs. But I'm happy to rethink those.
Thinking about updating the profile to resubmit, would you recommend removing those and purely sticking with those which are directly focused on them? Remove those with a dual focus on artist and company? 66ozone (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@66ozone: if you accept that those three sources don't contribute towards notability, and that you therefore need to add more sources that do, then at that point these become superfluous and could/should be removed (unless of course they support some information which by so doing would become unsupported). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
great advice. thank you 66ozone (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:12, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Cmos16[edit]

May I ask why this was rejected? Cmos16 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cmos16: did this really look like a viable encyclopaedia article to you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha thats not how wikipedia works. Coulomb1 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:17, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Lochlan.kirk[edit]

I'm trying to publish an article about Colonel Frederick G Danielsen D.S.O as there is very little on him though his name appears in multiple honours such as the 1917 new years honours, however I have no online references available as the information is in the form of letters sent from the royal regimental museum of fusiliers. I have inserted pictures and links to their websites but these dont seem to count as a reference. how can I get this published to preserve his legacy? Lochlan.kirk (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Lochlan.kirk.
You might be better off hosting this on a blog. We are an encyclopaedia of notable topics, using our special definition of notability. You have not demonstrated how the Colonel meet our notability criteria.
You also did not source the draft correctly: we cannot accept an article that is only primary sources. Qcne (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also suggest reading Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Qcne (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
why would this one not get published when there are the same type of articles about other men in the service. For example there are plenty of people in the 1917 and 1944 new years honours that go to a personal account of them. Lochlan.kirk (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately we have many tens of thousands of poor quality articles which no one has gotten around to deleting or cleaning up. This is a volunteer project, and we certainly don't want to add more poor quality articles to the project. If you give me some examples of other 1917 and 1944 articles I can look to see if they are salvageable.
If you wanted to base your draft on an existing article, please choose a WP:GOOD one which has been vetted by the community as passing our minimum standards. Qcne (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brigadier general John Harold Whitworth Becke, CMG, DSO, AFC (17 September 1879 – 7 February 1949) is one example very similar to what i have tried to publish, this only contains one reference Lochlan.kirk (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Lochlan.kirk. That article has now been tagged as likely not notable enough for inclusion in the project. Qcne (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:35, 15 February 2024 review of submission by Coulomb1[edit]

I'm getting my submissions declined. I tried to expand upon my article keeping in mind the feedback, but it still got declined. What exactly should I focus on to improve the draft? I feel like I have good enough sources, but apparently I don't. Coulomb1 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Coulomb1. Of your five references, three are published by Microsoft and are therefore not independent of the topic. They are of no value in establishing the notability of a Microsoft product feature. The other two references do not devote significant coverage to the topic of "Compute pipeline". Cullen328 (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Cullen328, I don’t see how Microsoft documentation wouldn’t be acceptable for a Microsoft API. I can see how that would be true in a general case like a biography, but for documentation of an API, I feel like it would have the inverse effect. Microsoft wouldn’t want to give wrong information on how to use their API.
And for my other sources, I believe that Compute pipeline is the best term to encapsulate the whole field of compute shaders, pipelines, and command lists. D3D12 uses a compute command list to use compute pipelines, which uses a compute shader. This is why my references vary in what area they’re talking about, but they are all still closely related to the compute pipeline. Coulomb1 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coulomb1, Please read the General notability guideline carefully. It says "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This applies broadly to all topics and there is no carve-out for computer related topics. As for closely related to the compute pipeline, this is not adequate. What is required is Significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. When you write I believe that Compute pipeline is the best term to encapsulate the whole field, that is Original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Nobody cares what you believe. Literally all that matters in this process is what reliable, independent sources say. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328, I understand the importance of the independence of the sources from the subject of the article. However I still don’t understand why Microsoft would willingly put false information in their documentation, but nonetheless I will respect the rules and I will try to not use their sources.
As for original research: I did not mean for that to stand as original research; I am not stating as a fact that they are all the same, I am saying that it would probably be best for them to be grouped into a single article. I will certainly put them into their separate articles if you think that it is best, but all I was saying from my response was that I think it would be cleaner to put them all into one article.
From your feedback, perhaps instead of making this article, I could put this information in DirectCompute? Coulomb1 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coulomb1, I never said, implied nor hinted that Microsoft would willingly put false information in their documentation. No such thing. Your comment conflates the reliability of a source with the independence of the source. In order for a source to contribute to the notabilty of a topic on Wikipedia, the source must meet three standards: it must be independent and reliable and devote significant coverage to the specific topic. It is a three part test, and two out of three is simply not good enough. If anyone wants to know what Microsoft says about a Microsoft feature, then they have the simple solution of going straight to Microsoft's website. An acceptable Wikipedia article about a Microsoft feature will summarize what reliable sources entirely unconnected with Microsoft say about it. If that independent coverage does not exist, then the topic is not eligible for a freestanding Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you, and for any annoyance I may have caused you. I was half-way through writing a whole paragraph and decided to scrap it lol. I'll just make sure to adhere to these standards, no matter the circumstance. Have a good weekend. (It's Friday, yes? Ugh finally.) Coulomb1 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 16

03:24, 16 February 2024 review of submission by Stikipedia[edit]

This submission was declined. According to the notability criteria for books, it should meet the standard:

The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews.

I have cited two or more independent published works of which the book in question was the subject.

Please advise. Thank you Stikipedia (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stikipedia. Your draft currently has three references. The first is a Google Books listing which is of no value in establishing the notability of the book. I recommend that you get rid of it. The Cafe Racer reference is an interview with the author and is not an independent source and therefore it does not contribute to notability. The Ultimate Motorcycling reference is better. That publication is already widely cited in motorcycling articles. You need several really good references, not just one. Cullen328 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's helpful. Thank you. Stikipedia (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

04:18, 16 February 2024 review of submission by Jabril tatum[edit]

I can't find where I need to type my article. can you aid me? Jabril tatum (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing to promote non-notable YouTube channels is contrary to policy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

04:22, 16 February 2024 review of submission by Skhousad[edit]

what could qualify for publication as this is a credentialed certified individual? Skhousad (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Blocked for spamming.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:29, 16 February 2024 review of submission by Gulafshasheikh[edit]

I am from shivalik college. why my page is deleted? Gulafshasheikh (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your draft was overtly promotional and unreferenced. It did not resemble an encyclopedia article in any way. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:00, 16 February 2024 review of submission by Wikidragonrider[edit]

Hi, I have a doubt like I have written the journey of the entrepreneur from start to end. So why is it in speedy deletion Wikidragonrider (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wikidragonrider: this draft was entirely promotional, and has been accordingly deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the information Wikidragonrider (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikidragonrider, please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:31, 16 February 2024 review of submission by Ojaskedar00[edit]

Help me how to get this page approved Ojaskedar00 (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By proving notability via WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Qcne (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:05, 16 February 2024 review of submission by Rafik.hannachi[edit]

I would like to know what can I improve in terms of sources, because they are from big news publications in the GCC region. In addition, I lost the option to edit and send for review, it seems like the editors are not aware about other sources from other regions outside the US and Europe. Also, how can you disclose the type of work that you are doing. Rafik.hannachi (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rafik.hannachi: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
You also must disclose your paid-editing status (see WP:PAID), which has been requested but so far not responded to.
You also should not create multiple user accounts, please see WP:SOCK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should be another way instead of not considering it further, I am asking for guidance on how and where to disclose so I can follow the guidelines. If you think you cannot help with this, then I will reach out to Wikimedia council concerning the issue, so please let me know. Rafik.hannachi (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rafik.hannachi: what guidance do you need? The instructions for disclosing your paid-editing status have been posted on your talk page, but you've chosen to ignore them.
Or are you asking for advice on how to disclose your use of multiple user accounts, perhaps? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have disclosed what you asked when checking online how to do it, can you let me know how I can send it for review again please, for the multiple accounts, I assumed it was an issue with account setting please advice on how I can take it further. Rafik.hannachi (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kindly waiting for your reply. Rafik.hannachi (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rafik.hannachi Looking at the last entry with content there is still no evidence this company merits a Wikipedia article at this time. Qcne (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article talks about the first Media Hub to ever exist in the MENA region currently changing the Media landscape in the region, I have removed this part form the article so it does not sound promotional. What would you advice to proof it's merits. Rafik.hannachi (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You cannot make notability up from thin air. It might simply be too soon for an article about this company to exist on Wikipedia. If the sources do not exist that prove notability, then there can be no article at this time. Qcne (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please let me know what prove notability, because the company was also awarded the Broadcast pro Innovative project of the year 2023, which is a highly renowned award in the GCC region that so many broadcast companies take part of. Thank you in advance. Rafik.hannachi (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To see our notability criteria, please read WP:NORG closely. Qcne (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:08, 16 February 2024 review of submission by Kico1983[edit]

Hi.

I tried to write this article, it got rejected few times and I edited it every time.

Can you check is it now good to be published?

Thank you. Kico1983 (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kico1983: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk; you have resubmitted this draft, and it will be reviewed in due course when a reviewer comes across it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I'm new in all this. Thank you very much for quick response.
Best regards. Kico1983 (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:47, 16 February 2024 review of submission by 2003:E7:673D:700:313E:53B1:1A64:4959[edit]

Can anybody help me? What exactly do I need for this page? All references are independent reportings - official reports form the Berlinale, OFDB, screendaily and an atricle written by the TAZ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Tageszeitung) - I do not really know what is wrong with that? 2003:E7:673D:700:313E:53B1:1A64:4959 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only one of your seven references - the TAZ article - even approaches meeting the triple criterion of being a reliable source, being wholly independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject. The others are all either from Tromanale, or no more than listing or mentions. Please see WP:CSMN ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:59, 16 February 2024 review of submission by Avlesfirebees[edit]

how to submit my article to review and help to publish Avlesfirebees (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft is blank. If you intended to have text there, it isn't. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You appear to be writing your draft BACKWARDS. First find the reliable independent sources with substantial coverage of her, then forget everything you know about the subject and write a summary of what the sources say.
I have added a header which will allow you to submit your draft for review. But there is no point in doing so until you have adequate sources. Your current citations merely mention her without saying anything about her. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:19, 16 February 2024 review of submission by SyedAshharImam[edit]

i don't know how to format correctly SyedAshharImam (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Zaki Ahmad. Please read WP:YFA and WP:MOS. Theroadislong (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your draft Draft:Zaki Ahmad is not an encyclopaedia article, but a CV, which lists no independent sources at all.
New editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of creating a new article, without having learnt or practised any of the skills and procedures of Wikipedia, often have a frustrating and disappointing time. Imagine taking up a new sport, and the next day entering a major competition: not only will you not succeed, you will likely not even understand any criticism from experienced players.
I always advise new editors to put aside any idea of creating a new article, and spend several months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles. Once they have learnt something about topics such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, then they can study your first article and see how to go about creating a new article. (If they see a need - I have been editing for eighteen years, and made over 24 000 edits, but I have only ever created half a dozen articles). ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 17

03:06, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Dbaines84[edit]

I am unable to submit the page for review. Please can you advise me with what I need to do in order to publish the page? Dbaines84 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dbaines84: you have submitted it; it is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and now I have declined it. Please read WP:NCORP. Also, WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05:03, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Ocherrya[edit]

I created and corrected MugglePay topic, and did not get update, would you please review my topic and give feedback? Thanks! Ocherrya (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ocherrya: there is no 'update' forthcoming, because this draft has been rejected (which remains the case, despite you removing the rejection notice) and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear,
Could you please tell me the reason for rejection? How I should correct it and then can set topic? Thanks! Ocherrya (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05:40, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Zzremin[edit]

Hi all. My article was published in the main category. But, I noticed that it is not indexed by search engines. Please, help! Zzremin (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zzremin: it becomes available for indexing by search engines when it has been reviewed by the new page patrol, or is 90 days old, whichever comes first. There is currently a backlog of over 9,500 new articles awaiting patrol, so it could take a while. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Zzremin (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:55, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Appliancetechsc[edit]

It was cited that my article was "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" How is that? This is information on what occupation of work services and repairs home appliances- which is there no reference for Appliancetechsc (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Appliancetechsc: because it wasn't written as an encyclopaedia article, more a Q&A, and it was entirely unreferenced. It did contain an external link to a business website with a remarkably similar name to your username, therefore I concluded that the draft was just pure WP:ADMASQ. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought referencing Wikipedia all throughout the article was a referenced article. Even with a few external links that are objective to the role of an appliance repair technician. As far the link to a business website, that has been taken out.
There is no reference for this occupation, and the "home appliance" section is so poorly referenced, I felt I needed to add a contribution to what an appliance technician does in the role of home appliances for the public. Appliancetechsc (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have corrected it so that it won't look like a Q & A
I have given references
No business website linked
Just pure, factual information, 95% referencing Wikipedia, the official NAICS website for US labor statistics, and an EAP testing organization Appliancetechsc (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for other Wikipedia articles, see WP:CIRCULAR. Blocked for promotional username. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:36, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Thisasia[edit]

Hello, I submitted Leehan for creation but it was declined despite the fact that it has all the necessary Rs required. Leehan is Notable so I don't know if there are more special requirements for any article to be approved? Thanks. Thisasia (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thisasia You must disclose your connection with this musician, see conflict of interest. If you work for him, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see the paid editing policy.
You have not shown that this musician meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Your sources are wholly inappropriate for doing this. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not connected to the musician in anyway, I'm rather interested in Korea WikiProject, and I'm just a volunteer contributor. THANKS. Thisasia (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will discuss this more on your user talk page; which of the musician notability criteria do you claim this person meets? 331dot (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:00, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Vderetic[edit]

1. I am failing to understand where precisely the specific cases of citations overkill are? Could you please point out to the specific examples that need to be altered and how (e.g. give one citation only, or whatever is your desirable format). Right now, the citations are based on published peer-reviewed scientific articles, and it is not uncommon to have multiple citations that converge on and support a topic. 2. There was a comment on the style. Can you please point out precisely where the issues are, and what changes you'd like to see.

Thank you for your input and consideration.

Vderetic (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't look like overkill to me, but Zoglophie can comment. Cremastra (JWB) (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was that as I described previously until the most recent edit here. zoglophie•talk• 09:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:43, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Femspace[edit]

What’s the issue with the page can be removed but the page can’t be romoved so please give suggestions Femspace (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not he considered again, and it has been deleted as blatant advertising. If you are associated with this topic, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:07, 17 February 2024 review of submission by RobertJPierno[edit]

I don’t know RobertJPierno (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct link Draft:Robert Pierno, draft was rejected clearly you are not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:55, 17 February 2024 review of submission by DAFFODIL555[edit]

this is my brand name DAFFODIL555 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Draft speedied, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:31, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Publicrelationr[edit]

Dear All,

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate the time you've taken to review my article submission. I apologize if my attempts to address the concerns were not satisfactory, and I acknowledge the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines.

I am open to learning from this experience. If there are specific areas where I can improve or if you have suggestions for more suitable topics, I am eager to listen and contribute in a constructive manner.

Thank you for your guidance, and I look forward to your continued assistance in ensuring the quality and relevance of Wikipedia content.

Best regards, Publicrelationr (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have answered below, please do not create multiple topics. Qcne (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:36, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Publicrelationr[edit]

Need a neutral advice without any bias Publicrelationr (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Publicrelationr your draft has been rejected and therefore will not be considered further. Your wrote in a completely unacceptable way and ignored all advice left by the two reviewers. Qcne (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your comments but where have I rejected their advise. I edited draft all the time as per their advise. Can you please have a look and be specific about the need for improvement and not make generalized comments. 78.110.76.22 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please log in when replying.
You clearly did not take the advice as you re-submitted four(!) times today with very little improvement in the inappropriate language or sources. There is no longer any advice to give you as the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Publicrelationr, your deleted draft included overtly promotional and advertising language like showing inordinate talent in chess and is becoming known as an inspiration for young chess fans worldwide. That's not neutrally written encyclopedia language. Far from it. Looking at your username, I need to comment that any form of public relations activity is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:08, 17 February 2024 review of submission by FayezAhmed78[edit]

Why was my page rejected FayezAhmed78 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because you provided zero evidence of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:05, 17 February 2024 review of submission by NilsenAudun[edit]

I wished to submit a page for review, and almost immediately after I pressed "publish", I got three posts about conflict of interest and then the option of submitting for review was gone, so I didn´t get a chance to press submit for review.

What made me feel real uncomfortable was that the individual who told me not to edit anything until I replied gave me a very robotic and, to me, strange reply after I reposted the requested disclaimer again on my talk page.

I don´t wish for things to be misunderstood or decided in haste, so I ask here sooner rather than later.

Should I assume that this individual has put a block on my review?

Where would I file a complaint?

This is the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ABL_Group

There are literally 1.000s of articles like this one. I feel a little uneasy about this. NilsenAudun (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a real human being (as far as I know). What I posted on your talkpage are called templates. Having to explain things over and over again would get boring real quick, so the Wikipedia community has made a bunch of templates that can be used to quickly post a message to a new user explaining how (parts of) Wikipedia work. In this case I used Template:Welcome, Template:uw-paid and Template:uw-coi. I did not block anything (and I can't, we have moderators for that sort of stuff, see WP:ADMIN) and your draft has been reviewed by another user (which is why you no longer see the message asking you to submit it for review). Polygnotus (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see WP:WAX. Basically, don't try to use another article's existence to support your article. ''Flux55'' (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NilsenAudun I have re-added the Submit the draft for review! button. You accidentally removed it in this edit, not @Polygnotus.
However, it is not ready for submission in it's current state as there is no indication yet the company passes our WP:NORG criteria. Qcne (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is also VERY promotional in tone, which has led editors to question whether you have a conflict of interest with the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 18

08:20, 18 February 2024 review of submission by Etienneadaher[edit]

Why is my page rejected? I, Etienne Daher, am the CTO and founder of Ete-services

What do i need to do to have my page published? If more date is required, I will fill them, just kindly give me clear guidelines on what's requested. Etienneadaher (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeing your obvious conflict-of-interest, I highly advise you NOT to make that article again and instead focus your contributions elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting or publicizing. If your company is notable enough to warrant its own article, then please go to Wikipedia's requested article page. ''Flux55'' (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seeing your previous activity in the help desk, this is a guideline for notability. ''Flux55'' (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Etienneadaher: this is not social media, where you can write up your 'profile' or tell the world about yourself and your business. This is an encyclopaedia, and we publish articles on subjects which are considered notable and encyclopaedically worthy. You should probably look into the likes of LinkedIn, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:12, 18 February 2024 review of submission by 116.90.110.117[edit]

business purpose 116.90.110.117 (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quit spamming! Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:11, 18 February 2024 review of submission by Masudrana10[edit]

nothing Masudrana10 (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Masudrana10: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and is awaiting deletion. Please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO and WP:PROMO. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:58, 18 February 2024 review of submission by Nicky Falcon[edit]

Hello, can you give me an advice where I should add the sources to? As was noticed UNIT EL is a wrong place, so what is the necessary place. Also I think new links meet the requirements of wikipedia Nicky Falcon (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Nicky Falcon. Please read WP:EXTERNAL. There should be no external links in the body of the text, and only one or two in the External Links section at the end. Qcne (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, I did what you said, could you please check my work and if possible give me some advice on how to improve it. And do you think it can be sent for reviewing? Nicky Falcon (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Nicky Falcon, that is a lot better now. I would submit for review. Qcne (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:40, 18 February 2024 review of submission by JerseyCurator23[edit]

Seeking volunteers for assistance with this draft. I am unable to convince the powers that be that the Mandela Effect is a topic worthy of its own page. There is a difference between singular false memory and shared/collective false memory, and I find the need to shove the two together to be a disservice to readers. Nevertheless, I'd like to request that someone either incorporate this draft into the existing subsection or continue work on it independently so that someone up above might finally find it worthy. My work on this page is over, so its future is in your hands. JerseyCurator23 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This forum is not for soliciting replacement editors. If you want to offer this as a proposed addition to the existing article you mention, you should use its article talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:41, 18 February 2024 review of submission by JuniperChill[edit]

With regards to 'WP:TOO SOON', does it mean articles should not be created before release, hence I cannot really find any reviews from Solarpunk? Or the fact the game is not notable, at least for now. Plus, I did cite sources so that it is real.

Also, are images not allowed for draftS since it won't let me upload a cover for this

Additionally,, does decline(d), deny/ied and reject(ed) mean the same in the sense of AFC since thats normally the case. Since I moved this to draft (accidentally made this an article at 1st), why did the Solarpunk (video game) need to be removed since redirects need be kept after moves/renames. JuniperChill (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @JuniperChill. Your sources do not show notability yet, because they are all WP:PRIMARY. Once the game has been released, and some mainstream websites review it or it appears in magazines, then you will likely have enough secondary sources for the game to become notable. So it is too soon in the sense that there are not yet enough secondary sources to prove notability.
The article was moved to draftspace- if it is accepted then it will go back to mainspace. The redirect was deleted under WP:CNR.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I will take a stop from working on Solarpunk (and Draft:Sun Haven, both articles I made) for now, at least for 60 days since Solarpunk is due to release in the summer. Plus, how did it get reviewd within 30 minutes when others take a week? You also forgot to answer questions about images on drafts and the meaning of declined/rejected drafts. JuniperChill (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JuniperChill: non-free content (which I presume the images you refer to are) can only be used in the main article space. In any case, images are not needed before publication, as they do not contribute to notability or otherwise affect the draft's acceptability in any way.
Some reviewers patrol the newly submitted end of the draft pool, and therefore many drafts are reviewed in a matter of minutes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 19

05:35, 19 February 2024 review of submission by Poketape[edit]

This article is being held to a higher standard than other tennis tournaments, such as Almaty Open and Zhuhai Championships. It is simply the nature of tennis tournaments that all required information comes directly from the ATP/WTA Tours or the tournament host. poketape (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Poketape. Wikipedia has, unfortunately, many tens of thousands of poor quality poorly sourced articles. We certainly don't want to add more to that pile. Looking at the draft now compared to when it was declined, I think it's now passed the threshold of notability so I will accept it for you. Qcne (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:37, 19 February 2024 review of submission by Ravikantshinde[edit]

I Understand that the article had large number of references but honestly this was for the notability proof of the work. This article needs to be accepted. Please guide me so that I can make it possible with all respect. Ravikantshinde (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like it was deleted as "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person". It clearly DOESN'T need to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your relationship with Dr. Shinde? Are you a relative? 331dot (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:15, 19 February 2024 review of submission by 47.221.1.83[edit]

How can I include references from printed articles that are not online (from before 1994)? 47.221.1.83 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See this for advice: WP:OFFLINE. It's important to include enough details in the citation so that the source can be reliably identified. It would also be very helpful if you could somehow indicate what the source says, eg. by including a quotation. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:49, 19 February 2024 review of submission by MTlegends[edit]

I continue to submit my article for review and it continues to send blank. Help me understand exactly what I am doing wrong. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 17:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MTlegends: that's because your sandbox is blank.
It seems you've added draft content to your talk page User_talk:MTlegends, though, and also submitted that. I will move that to a new draft page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One source of confusion may be that you need to click "Publish changes" to save your edits. This button used to say "save", but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I am not a educated enough to understand how this systems work. I appreciation the guidance. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MTlegends: okay, I've moved the content to a new draft, at Draft:Walter Wetzel Sr., and removed it from your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:29:02, 19 February 2024 review of submission by PenmanWarrior Draft:Michele Evans[edit]

This was declined erroneously.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/opinion/rikers-jail-covid.html https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/

There are many other articles about Ms. Evans PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have not addressed the concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @PenmanWarrior. Why are you so hell-bent on getting this draft created (I presume you are the IP editor from the Articles for Deletion discussion)? Do you have a connection to Michele?
I've had a glance at the draft as an uninvolved reviewer and I do not see the notability. I see a lot of fluff about her self-published books, professional and, personal life: but frankly most (all?) of it could be deleted. You have also refbombed the defamation lawsuit paragraph, and I do not think it warrants inclusion in the article at all.
Her software engineering does not make her notable. Her self-published books do not make her notable. Her filming work does not seem to make her notable.
Her personal life (death of daughter, grandfather, lawsuit, etc) do not make her notable.
I think we might be able to get to the notability threshold by focusing on her Riker's Island incarceration? But I am not sure if it would warrant it's own article. Surely her advocacy about the conditions on Riker's island has been reported in the local or national press? The two sources and the op-ed for this are primary sources so useless for establishing notability.
My best advice going forward is to start from scratch, focus entirely on the Riker's Island stuff, and choose three (and only three) sources which are all independent of Michele, from reliable places, and show significant coverage of her.
The draft was not declined erroneously and I agree with @Muboshgu's declination as an uninvolved reviewer.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At what point do you stop downplaying someone's accomplishments? 6 Novels and a Children's book? You can argue self-published all you want but you can't argue it's feature in The New York Times! This is the holy grail of authors. Time to stop ignoring facts. PenmanWarrior (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are defensive and I don't appreciate the tone. Please answer the question: what connection do you have to Michele.
I am not downplaying her accomplishments. There are literally millions of authors, only a fraction are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Her NYT op-ed is great, but we need significant coverage in multiple sources that are independent of her. Qcne (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provided two NEW SOURCES which most definitely address concerns at the article for deletion.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html
2. https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ PenmanWarrior (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reviewing your sources:
  1. NYT: This is an okay source. It is an interview with Michele but contains enough commentary to put it over the edge.
  2. Rocky Mountain News: This is an interview and a fluff piece and confers no notability.
Qcne (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. More than an ok source. A book featured in the New York Times is the holy grail for authors. This is a known fact.
3. Define notability. Who gets to decide it's a fluff piece? It's concerning Evans' work. Show me where describing someone's work is fluff. Especially since the deletion article's only complaint was there were no sources. There are now sources, independent of Evans, which is what was demanded. Please re-read the deletion discussion. PenmanWarrior (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I give up on responding to you. I gave you constructive criticism. I have 2000+ article reviews under my belt and know what I am talking about. I also trust the consensus from the deletion discussion. This person is not notable and I hope you will be topic banned as per the ANI discussion. Qcne (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"You can be blaze about somethings Rose, but not the Titanic!" - Caledon Hockley PenmanWarrior (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By consensus, she was not notable as of 17 January 2024, so 2008 and 2021 refs cannot help overcome that. PenmanWarrior, it seems counter-productive to take a beligerent tone and argue so strongly against those who are explaining our policies and guidelines and even giving you guidance on a route to accomplish what you want. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your logic makes no sense. The argument in the deletion discussion was that no one could find sources that were independent. They have now been found and included. PenmanWarrior (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 20

00:16, 20 February 2024 review of submission by ProdBy.Skittlez[edit]

why im crying right now can you help me get this wiki Skittlez (Rapper) published pleased i need to get this wiki published i love yalll and enjoy ProdBy.Skittlez (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID; but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

04:00, 20 February 2024 review of submission by Sandile Rekhotso[edit]

i need help with notable topics#Sandile Rekhotso (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandile Rekhotso: see WP:N. While you're at it, see also WP:AUTOBIO and WP:PROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

04:07, 20 February 2024 review of submission by Obyno2020[edit]

This person is notable, please I need help in creating this page Obyno2020 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Obyno2020: notability has not been demonstrated, therefore this draft was rejected. It's not enough to say a subject is notable, we need to see evidence, and the onus for that is on the draft author. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What if I provide links to secondary sources? Obyno2020 (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:07, 20 February 2024 review of submission by EnCyClOpEdIA VII[edit]

Why are all my drafts getting rejected? EnCyClOpEdIA VII (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EnCyClOpEdIA VII: I've reviewed two of them, both were entirely unreferenced, and the eggplant one was also unsuitable for a standalone article (we cannot have separate articles on eggplant, canned eggplant, dried eggplant, etc.). It's great that you're enthusiastic about editing, but you need to go about it the right way. See WP:YFA for advice on article creation, and WP:REFB on referencing. Also, read WP:N on the concept of notability, as it applies in the Wikipedia context. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:50, 20 February 2024 review of submission by 184.149.27.16[edit]

Hi there, I'm trying to create a wikipedia page about The Toronto Heschel School. After submitting my article, it was declined stating, "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." It claims my references aren't in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary, or strictly independent. I included many references that do follow each requirement but it was still declined. Not sure if I am misunderstand something. 184.149.27.16 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was declined as blatant advertising, the content is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and reads like a school prospectus, do you work there by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:16, 20 February 2024 review of submission by NiladriSarker[edit]

can you please help me to publish my content about my company NiladriSarker (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is nothing but blatant advertising it was rejected meaning it will not be considered further and I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:01, 20 February 2024 review of submission by Chicken4War[edit]

Hello! I am suggesting that we merge this draft with the page for 25 Years Of Innocence. Chicken4War (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 21