Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


December 12

[edit]

00:08, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Natiejournalist

[edit]

I submitted the draft a few times now with ALL the cited references inline and with direct links to the footnotes. Still, my last submission was declined because it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources". What does it mean? Can you instruct on how to finally get the draft approved? Thank you! Natiejournalist (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Natiejournalist as this article is about a living person, every statement is expected to be supported by at least one reference. The "Education" and "Career" sections are mostly unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:20, 12 December 2024 review of submission by BarComos

[edit]

The input of another editor is requested to confirm or accept the draft mentioned in this discussion: "19:18, 11 December 2024, review of submission by BarComos" with user 331dot. A second opinion is requested to determine the page. It is recommended to review the previous conversation for additional context. ; thanks you :) BarComos (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarComos, what are you looking for? Are you asking for someone else to review the draft? If so, you can resubmit it - however, I would not do this without paying attention to the feedback given by both Ibjaja055 (in the draft) and 331dot (on this helpdesk). Both are experienced editors and they have given you good advice. If you are asking whether to listen to 331dot, then the answer is yes, you should pay close attention and take their advice. They have gone out of their way to help and given you detailed information that is very relevant to your draft. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StartGrammarTimeSorry if I was a bit insistent on this topic, but I just wanted a second opinion. Now that I have it... it stays as it is. (｡•́︿•̀｡) BarComos (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Laffuble

[edit]

I am simply confused on how to use the citation bot. Laffuble (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:16, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Laffuble

[edit]

I am simply confused on how to use the citation bot. Laffuble (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laffuble Citation bot only fixes formatting issues in references, but there aren't any in the drafts. What would you like the bot to do? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! My sincere apologies I am still new to wiki and did not know.
Thank you. Laffuble (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, I do have one more question. What does it mean by "Submissions should summarize information in
==>"secondary"<==, reliable sources? Laffuble (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts need to demonstrate notability in order to be accepted. Secondary reliable sources establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks! Laffuble (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Aarush indus

[edit]

How Do I Take This Page Down?

Aarush Indus Aarush indus (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aarush indus  Done, tagged for deletion per WP:G7. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Writer Johnc

[edit]

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (December 2024)

I recently received a notification indicating that I need to report to Wikipedia regarding i work for my employer to create an article about "Orion Land." I would appreciate guidance on where I should report this information and any instructions or guidelines on creating the article content.

Thank you for your assistance. Writer Johnc (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Writer Johnc: the instructions for disclosing your paid-editing status are given in the notice(s) posted on your talk page. Simply put, you need to place the {{Paid}} template, duly filled-in, on your user page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Writer Johnc, thank you for being open. You'll find lots of information at WP:PAID, but the quickest and easiest way to make a disclosure is to place the following on your userpage:

{{paid|employer=Orion Land}}

(if your employer is Orion Land - if not, change 'Orion Land' to the correct name of your employer).

With regards to the content of the draft, your goal is to find sources that show us Orion Land is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are very specific. For a company, the relevant guideline is WP:NCORP. All your sources should meet the triple criteria of WP:42. Sources do not need to be in English, if that helps. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I had just place the link "{{paid|employer=Orion Land}}" on the Writer Johnc User page , is it okay for my action ?
And what's the next i need to do? pls advise and guide me , ,many thanks Writer Johnc (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Writer Johnc Forgive me, but aren't you the one being paid to learn? You've made a correct disclosure. You have been given sufficient advice. Now, what comes next is your doing the work. That's why youi are being paid.
We, by contrast, are not being paid. That means we are unlikely to be interested in helping you to be. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
That advice applies if anything more strongly to paid editors, since your work is likely to be scrutinised especially carefully. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Al Dorecl Sina

[edit]

Hello dear Wiki team, why my article is denied???? It's a legit, I just wanted write about a photography company!!! It's not an adult nor scam!!!! Wtf?? Isn't Wikipedia for every things...???? I couldn't even post any pictures on the article 😞 Anyway, Kindly review my article and reconsider it to post it.

Thanks & Best wishes. Al Dorecl Sina (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Dorecl Sina: the draft was declined, because it is blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You also have another draft at Draft:MAHMOOD • iNKSTECHSHUB STUDIO INTERNATIONAL which does have content, but that's not the one you submitted for review.
Does that answer your "Wtf"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no, Wikipedia is not for everything. There is criteria for inclusion, called notability. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 12 December 2024 review of submission by Aasiea

[edit]

The editor said that the references were not verifiable and were vague about which one. I'm struggling to pinpoint which one. Aasiea (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aasiea, have you reviewed the comments made during the previous reviews? There are still large sections of the draft uncited. Further, have you made a new account? I've left a notice on your talk page about using multiple accounts, please review the necessary information there. Thank you, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 12 December 2024 review of submission by MMM2267257

[edit]

Hello! I struggle to understand why the draft article was rejected. All information is based on the two articles I linked, one of which is an obituary published in a highly reputable journal, and the other a scientific paper.

Do you have suggestions on what needs to be changed for the article to be accepted? MMM2267257 (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One obituary by people who evidently knew him is not an independent source; and neither is an article by him. And normally at least three sources that meet WP:42 are required. The draft either needs to satisfy WP:NPROF or WP:GNG: at present it does neither. ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:29, 12 December 2024 review of submission by A Real Living Person

[edit]

My article here was just declined. This is my first article. It was something about sources and notability. Are my sources not credible? I am I lacking citations in important spots? This band I am writing about isn't giant but they have 190,000 monthly listeners on Spotify and articles written about them so I can't imagine their not notable enough for a Wikipedia page. So, as a new editor, I must've screwed some things up. Any and all help is appreciated. A Real Living Person (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of listeners is meaningless in terms of notability. You need to show that they meet at least one aspect of WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @A Real Living Person. I'm afraid you are having a very common experience for people who create an account and immediately start trying the very challenging task of creating a new article. Would you enter a major tournament immediately after you took up a sport for the first time?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 12 December 2024 review of submission by 17081968DavidNeilHowes86918071

[edit]

Critic needs to read the content!!! 17081968DavidNeilHowes86918071 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @17081968DavidNeilHowes86918071. No, the reviewer does not need to read the content: you need to read what Wikipedia is not. A Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject, and very little else. In particular Wikipedia absolutely does not publish original research. ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17081968DavidNeilHowes86918071, your draft bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

[edit]

00:26:15, 13 December 2024 review of draft by Susan Hackett

[edit]


Susan Hackett (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to add find my title page for my article: Laura C. Gentile, renowned figure in the sports and marketing industry

Susan Hackett, your draft is located at User:Susan Hackett/sandbox. It has a promotional tone in violation of the Neutral point of view, a core content policy, and must be rewritten to comply. Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I toned it down. thank you. Susan Hackett (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Susan Hackett you need to tone it down more. There are still peacocky words such as groundbreaking platform, Her vision to amplify, crucial in adapting, etc. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Susan Hackett, your draft is exceptionally poorly referenced. Every substantive assertion requires a reference to a reliable source that verifies that assertion. So, when you write that she was Born in 1972 in Oceanside, NY, you need to provide a reference to a published reliable source verifying that. When you write that she was earning accolades in high school, you need to provide a reference to a published reliable source discussing her "accolades". And so on with every other assertion that you make. You have many inappropriate External links in the body of the draft article. Almost all of then should be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Susan Hackett. Like most editors who plunge into the challenging task of trying to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft Backwards.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:29, 13 December 2024 review of submission by Ravi Venkatraman

[edit]

May I open a page for me with my name and after page is created can I post credits Ravi Venkatraman (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravi Venkatraman I'm not sure what you mean by post credits, but we cannot accept blank drafts. Also note that you are strongly discouaged from writing about yourself. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 13 December 2024 review of submission by 2001:FB1:E3:9902:3859:44D5:E5BE:12E2

[edit]

T0829 13De mber/12/2024reviewot Sbmissionby2001F13.E39902385944D55EBE12E2 edit 

2001:FB1:E3:9902:3859:44D5:E5BE:12E2 (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please unscramble that – do you have a question you'd like to ask? (And is it about a draft or the drafting process, as opposed to an existing article?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 13 December 2024 review of submission by 145.224.95.51

[edit]

Is this worth of persuing or we should abondon it. If it is please advise how we can best do it. 145.224.95.51 (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no further prospect of changing the draft to address the concerns given, it's not worth pursuing. It will be deleted after six months of inactivity, or you can place {{db-user}} on the draft to request its deletion faster. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 13 December 2024 review of submission by Sophie.hampson

[edit]

Hi

I recently submitted a page on Bransby Horses, but it was rejected by Wikipedia as it read like an ad. It stated that I needed to have a range of sources from independent and reliable publications and not from the charity itself. But not one of my sources links back to the charity's website and every single one is an external source, so I'm really confused how Wikipedia have come to this conclusion.

Please could you advise on how I fix this. Sophie.hampson (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sophie.hampson: just to explain, the draft was declined for informal or non-neutral language, and I think it does have a vaguely promotional feel to it. (Also, information like opening hours and cost of entry is absolutely not needed and quite inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article.)
Where the decline notice mentions independent sources, it means (among other things) that when you say things like "their experts also take part in external events and contribute to the global research community on equine health", this must come from an independent source, you cannot call their people "experts" or contributors to global research, and neither can they themselves, that makes it just peacock language.
I haven't looked at the sources in detail, but it's also possible that some of them regurgitate what someone from the charity has said (eg. in an interview) or written (eg. in a press statement), in which case although superficially the source looks independent, the ultimate source is actually the charity itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Thank you for this feedback. This has really helped :) Sophie.hampson (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:39, 13 December 2024 review of submission by RHAMGA

[edit]

How to show the notability of the subject?

I have made a submission for adding a page, but it has been rejected due to the fact that the primary sources do not establish notability. Other UK based bodies that are related to the Guild currently have their own page, including:

https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Antiquarian_Horological_Society https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Clockmakers https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/British_Horological_Institute

The Guild was established in 1907 and has a larger membership that 2 of those 3 bodies. The British Horological Institute's (BHI) page only has sources that are from their own website, and so it is unclear why the notability for the Guild is being rejected, but not for the BHI.

I am happy to make any necessary changes, but having read the notes from Wikipedia on the subject, I am not clear what I need to do. Thanks RHAMGA (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RHAMGA: it doesn't matter whether other comparable organisations have articles in Wikipedia, that is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy. We don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, but rather by reference to the applicable policies and guidelines. Organisations must establish notability per WP:ORG, which requires significant coverage in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other. Your draft cites almost exclusively primary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, many thanks for clarifying that; I'll make the suggested changes. I appreciate what you're saying about past articles and that as standards have changed they may not be up to current levels - and so I shouldn't try and compare with them. RHAMGA (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out those woefully undersourced articles. I have tagged two of them with their shortcomings: the third was already tagged. I suspect that suitable source to establish notability do not exist for any of the three, but I have no interest in searching for such sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:57, 13 December 2024 review of submission by Untitledwriter17

[edit]

please tell me what is the problem so that I can resolve it Untitledwriter17 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a message as to what the reason was. Do you have questions about it? 331dot (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Untitledwriter17: apart from the fact that you're not notable, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:52, 13 December 2024 review of submission by Fryeng1990

[edit]

Soccer team Fryeng1990 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fryeng1990 "soccer team" isn't a question, and the draft has been rejected as a blank submission. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

[edit]

05:13, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Skronk monster13

[edit]

i would like to change the article name to “StuGo” instead of “Stugo” but i can’t figure out how. Skronk monster13 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skronk monster13 the title doesn't really matter, as the reviewer will pick a suitable one if the draft is accepted. Also, there is already a Draft:StuGo with more content. Perhaps you'd like to work on that? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i didn’t realize there was already a draft for the show. thank you! Skronk monster13 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:11, 14 December 2024 review of submission by 2.138.115.80

[edit]

I recently submitted a draft for a Wikipedia page and am seeking your help to ensure it meets the community's standards and guidelines for approval.

I want to make sure the content is accurate, neutral, and well-cited, but I may need a clearer understanding of what specific adjustments are required to make it suitable for publication. Could you kindly review my submission and provide feedback on:

Whether the content sufficiently demonstrates notability through reliable, independent sources. If there are areas where I might unintentionally include promotional language or lack neutrality. Any additional suggestions for improvement in formatting or tone to better align with Wikipedia’s standards. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated, and I am more than willing to make the necessary revisions.

Thank you for your time and assistance! 2.138.115.80 (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting for review is the way to get reviewed. But in my opinion, this promotional piece has been written BACKWARDS, as usually happens when a new editor attempts to create an article without having spent time learning how Wikipedia works.
Wikipedia is not interested in what Van Rongen says or wants to say, or what his employers or associates say. It is (almost) only interested in what people wholly unconnected with him have chosen to publish about him, in reliable places.
  • First, find severaal sources which meet all three of the criteria in WP:42.
  • Then, assuming you can find at least three such, forget everything you know about van Rongen, and write a summary of what those sources say.
By the way, please remember to log in: I assume that you are @Voice007.? ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 14 December 2024 review of submission by HKLionel

[edit]

A previous draft by a now inactive user was deleted. Is there a way I can view and use the contents of that draft for my current draft without requesting undeletion, which is impossible since the draft already exists (after I created it)? Thanks. HKLionel (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HKLionel: I was going to say that I can restore the deleted draft for you, but I've just looked at it and there is so little content in it (two short paragraphs of pretty pointless blurb, if I'm honest) and no sources, so it's not really worth it. I'd say proceed with your draft, it's already much more advanced in every respect. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted with thanks! HKLionel (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Trishanthreddy

[edit]

Why my page is getting declined, please help me and. Tell how to improve this, I am an 14 years child, and this is my first attempt please please and I am from India, explain me clearly how to do this and what changes and where I have to do the changes. Please Trishanthreddy (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, such as a notable organization. Your draft is completely unsourced. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is recommended that you first gain experience by editing existing articles, as well as use the new user tutorial. I'd also suggest that you read this page with a parent or guardian or custodian. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trishanthreddy: every one of the decline notices (remember, the ones you deleted?) gives details of the decline reasons; I also added comment to point to the notability guideline you needed to comply with (but you deleted that, as well). So once more: your draft is completely unreferenced, and therefore presents no evidence that the subject is notable. And given that the vast majority of schools are in fact not notable, it is virtually a given that this subject can not be included in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


You have tell what i need to do, but it was not done, why why are doing like that, please explain simply me what I have to do and I am an indian Trishanthreddy (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new thread with every post, just add to this existing section. What we are saying is there is nothing you can do. You keep emphasizing you're Indian for some reason- whether you're Indian or Russian or South African is not relevant. Please reread my earlier post and follow the advice. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Felixjordanbind

[edit]

Why was this declined? 

Felixjordanbind (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Felixjordanbind: Almost all of your sources are merely listings or content-free profiles, none of which would be a viable source (too sparse). https://www.clydeco.com/en/people/d/nadia-darwazeh?section=profile is written by her employer (connexion to subject) and https://www.breakingthrough.de/portraet-nadia-darwazeh is an interview (connexion to subject). This draft falls under the auspices of the general sanctions in the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, and you have not met the 500 edit+30-day threshold. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Kamalı Zeybek

[edit]

Please Submit Ok Kamalı Zeybek (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamalı Zeybek: We do not accept unsourced, content-free "articles". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:06, 14 December 2024 review of submission by WitchYouAllShallLove

[edit]

I have re wroten this article and put refrences i need someone to EXACLY tell me whats wrong with it NOW. im super confused 

WitchYouAllShallLove (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WitchYouAllShallLove, your unreferenced draft violates the Neutral point of view because it pushes a pro-witchcraft point of view. It fails Verifiability and violates the No original research policy. It bears no resemblance to an acceptable Wikipedia article. It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read What Wikipedia is not. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung A04

[edit]

Hello, please, please accept it, I won't do it again. Why are you doing this? I swear, don't do this. Accept it, I won't do it again. Kamalı Zeybek (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamalı Zeybek: Your repeated pleas to accept a draft that is not ready for main space is disruptive. You have been advised what needs to be done on Hammersoft’s talk page to fix the draft so it can be accepted. Until that happens, nothing will be done. cyberdog958Talk 20:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:35, 14 December 2024 review of submission by StarDate108

[edit]

Hi, my submission was declined because it was improperly sourced. The thing is that it is a translation from these Japanese articles: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%96%A2%E5%B1%B1%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E3%83%8D%E3%83%AB https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%96%A2%E5%B1%B1%E5%B3%A0 I selected sources from them that seemed relevant. Unfortunately I don't have access to any other sources than these. Is it possible to get the article approved anyway? I understand that in general it is not an excuse that the sources on the original pages are subpar, but in this case I belive that they still are satisfactory. StarDate108 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StarDate108 Put simply, no. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StarDate108 When you translate articles, or parts thereof, please use {{TRanslated page}}. I have done this for you here on the talk page.
Now you have had time to digest the simple message ^^^^, please seek further references for the draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:06, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Swmpz

[edit]

The draft got rejected for notoriety, could I get some clarification on what specific grounds, and what my next steps would be? Swmpz (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's "notability", not "notoriety"(which has a more negative connotation). As told by reviewers, you have not shown that your game is notable. Rejection typically is the end of the line for a draft, but if you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you must first appeal to the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:33, 14 December 2024 review of submission by Jag612red

[edit]

I want someone to review my article. Jag612red (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jag612red, you have to wait for a review just like everyone else. Why do you think that a separate article is needed when we already have Greensboro Complex? Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just decided to make something that stays on the topic of the coliseum Jag612red (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

[edit]

03:16, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Nehasrm2518

[edit]

please share advice Nehasrm2518 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehasrm2518: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:13, 15 December 2024 review of submission by WistahHoney508

[edit]

Question about needed edits for approval Hello,

My draft article for Caitlin McCarthy was recently rejected: https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Draft:Caitlin_McCarthy. Is there anything that I can add to help the approval process? The subject has many articles about her, as listed on her website www.caitlinmccarthy.com/press.

Thank you so much! WistahHoney508 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WistahHoney508: your draft was declined (not rejected) because in the reviewer's assessment the sources cited do not establish notability. I won't go through all 31 (!) of them, but a quick scan finds a few user-generated sources (not considered reliable), and also a few where the link is merely pointing to a website home page, suggesting that the linked URL may not necessarily support information in this draft. If, as you say, this person's own website contains useful media coverage, you can cite them here; just make sure to cite the actual media, not her website. Also, note that such coverage must be in-depth, and about her, not written by her or with her commenting on things (such as interviews).
I must also point out that this draft is poorly referenced, with most paragraphs without a single citation. This is unacceptable in articles on living people, which have particularly strict referencing requirements. You must make sure that every material statement, and especially anything potentially contentious, any direct quotations, as well as all private personal and family details, are clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources (that actually verify them, per my earlier point), or else removed.
In fact, there is so much unreferenced content, eg. in the entire 'Early Life' section, that I need to ask where does all this information come from – do you have some sort of real-life relationship with this person? If so, that must be disclosed. I will post advice on this on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WistahHoney508 I fixed your post so the header links to your draft, you had what I think you thought was a header where the title of your draft should be. The whole url is not needed when linking to another Wikipedia page. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm new to this and learning. Appreciate your help! WistahHoney508 (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found info about early life from interviews and her mother's obituary. I don't have a real-life relationship with Caitlin McCarthy. I'm new to Wiki and learning, so I appreciate any and all advice on how to make this acceptable. I can go back and link to the actual articles with this information. Thank you! WistahHoney508 (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Pineapplebunbun

[edit]

What sources are missing for this page? Will media coverages help or by adding an external IMDb link? Thank you. Pineapplebunbun (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pineapplebunbun: we need to see sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM guideline for notability. Pre-release publicity is not enough, as it's just part of the producer's marketing ramp-up, and we will not be used as a channel for that. In practice, unreleased films are hardly ever notable, so you probably need to wait a couple of months until this has been released and hopefully received some reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you for your reply. It's helpful. Pineapplebunbun (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:43, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Trishanthreddy

[edit]

How can I upload my article, I changed it 50 times but no use, and I am new joined member, please help me and accept my submission please please, I am unable to understand what you wrote. Trishanthreddy (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trishanthreddy: you cannot; it has been rejected, both versions, and that's the end of the road. As I said on your talk page, you need to find some other topic to write about, as we cannot keep reviewing this over and over again. Please drop this now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trishanthreddy: can you please confirm that you have read what I've written on your talk page at User_talk:Trishanthreddy#Advice? I'm asking because your behaviour suggests otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Join Africa

[edit]

Pls sir I need your assistance to guide me on how to be a better editor,teach me how to edit it in a proper way,I want to learn,I will be the happiest man on earth if I know how to edit with Wikipedia Join Africa (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say what specific help you are seeking. I can say that you have not shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician or a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. You may wish to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 15 December 2024 review of submission by User DEV 18

[edit]

My this page got rejected User DEV 18 (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need the "Draft:" portion when linking to your draft, I fixed this for you. Your draft was declined, not rejected, rejected would mean that you could not submit it again. Declined means you can. You have resubmitted it, and the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F0:DF:CAFA:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

My school has given me project to write a article on wikipedia about Our school, if I fail this test they don't give me good grades please accept this page or I'm gonna fail. 2409:40F0:DF:CAFA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't responsible for assignments you have been given. Our only interest is in if our criteria is being met. I'm sorry your teacher has put you in a difficult position, but they have given you a poor assignment. Your teacher should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials to learn how to design lessons that do not put their students in a difficult position. Please show your teacher this message. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has already been blocked. Blocks apply to you as a person, not your account, and you should appeal it instead of editing while logged out. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...as indeed I already told them.
I was trying to AGF by issuing only a short block to calm things down, but they seem determined to prove me wrong, more's the pity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 93.161.72.99

[edit]

Had William Owen been composer to the hymn: "Lo, he comes with clouds descending"? 93.161.72.99 (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the policies linked to therein. You need to format your references so they appear in line next to the text they support. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:33, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Fckthewar

[edit]

I don't know why it got rejected. Fckthewar (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fckthewar: because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media platform for some fictional clan war fancruft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Steyncham

[edit]

I feel really helpless about this : an article being resubmitted after taking into account remarks from a previous reviewer has been declined with arguments that are at least difficult to make sense of, at worst biased or unfair: -"does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article" : this is woefully unspecific,and plainly wrong for what concens this article -the article would not be neutral : the secondary sources being quoted in the first version where mostly positive, but this was not the ressult of cherry-picking, these are the only ones I found. I have added new references that provide a contrarian viepoint, but they are about ecomodernism in general rather than about WePlanet in particular -"should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources" : this is the most grossly unfair comment : there are 22 references in this draft, mostly from very well-known media such as the Guardian "avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." WHERE are there such terms???

When I resubmit, can I have the assurance that the article would be reviewed by another reviewer?? Steyncham (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:WePlanet. I'll correct your link in a moment.
@Steyncham You have, however, created a magazine article, not a Wikipedia article. It contains glowing prose drawing conclusions. Please see WP:NOR. The article appears to me to be a brochure, an advertisement. And that means whole sentences of peacockery need to be eliminated. We require flat, neutral, dull-but-worthy prose, not advertorial.
It's a best practice not to review a draft a second time by the same reviewer, but there are exceptions to this. Have you raised your concerns with Tavantius directly? That should be your first action when not understanding a review. How can anyone else guess what was in their mind? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did raise all these issues with User:tavantius first thing, but did not get a reply Steyncham (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, but again WHERE do you see "whole sentences of peacockery"?? Such a demeaning comment would require being more specific Steyncham (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the reviewer but "Organizations affiliated with WePlanet claim, according to their websites, to differ from the more technocentrist tendencies of ecomodernism and to be human-centered and grassroots-oriented, with a strong emphasis on fulfilling the needs of developing countries and preserving practices rooted in traditional cultures, in a sustainable and consensual way. "
Im not the most experienced editor on wikipedia but this counts as peacockery or at least too promotional Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean he ain't wrong on the "formal tone" thing
sounds like some promotional ad Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steyncham: Note, first of all, that the reviewer comment was "not written in a formal tone", which is different from "written like an advertisement". The draft is not written like an advert. There are promotional bits, however; for instance "Advocating the benefits of technical progress for the environment, WePlanet is spearheading a trend that is gaining popularity among a new generation of green activists in northern Europe" – according to whom is WePlanet spearheading this trend, and according to whom is that a trend that is becoming more popular? The source used to support the claim is this Guardian article, but when there is an evaluative comment or claim in a Wikipedia article, it is not enough to provide a citation marker – the claim has to be attributed as well. Wikipedia can't make evaluative claims in its own voice.
It is also important to rely as little as possible on primary sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organisation says about itself, but in what other, independent and reliable sources have said about the org. Organisations often produce press releases which are (by definition) primary sources, and which are often reprinted in several places. This source and this source are two copies of the same press release. Only one instance could be used as a source, and only for limited purposes – see WP:PRIMARY for information about what primary sources can be used for. --bonadea contributions talk 17:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 15 December 2024 review of submission by EmsterUze

[edit]

I cannot find any sources to the article EmsterUze (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the sources, the article was rejected because it seems you are just testing how to create article, of which your sandbox is available for that. Also, Article about Wikipedia exist already. Tesleemah (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 15 December 2024 review of submission by EmsterUze

[edit]

What are credible sources for UNIS Technology? EmsterUze (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just add some sources at least, your draft has no sources at all Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see reliable sources for more information as to what is considered a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

[edit]

What will happen to my draft if i don't edit it in a while? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After 6 months, it will be deleted however you can retrieve it Tesleemah (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Pbioilp

[edit]

i didnt understand why my draft was declined, i would love to understand why so i can fix it Draft:Wang Ke (Singer) Pbioilp (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbioilp: this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. The sources are insufficient for establishing general notability per WP:GNG, and there is nothing in the draft to suggest the subject would satisfy WP:MUSICBIO either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Suryapadma1

[edit]

please help writing this page this is the original telugu wiki page with sufficient links https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%AC%E0%B1%8A%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%8B%E0%B0%9C%E0%B1%81_%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE

can somebody with more editing skills do the needful kindly Suryapadma1 (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That a topic is acceptable on another Wikipedia does not necessarily mean it is acceptable on this one. Please see the message left by the reviewer. Note that the phrase "do the needful" is often considered rude outside of India. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Theguyfromermesinde

[edit]

Is because My draft kept on being rejected Theguyfromermesinde (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is completely unsourced. You failed to add sources so it was rejected. If you have sources, please see Referencing for beginners to learn how to add them. You can then ask the reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 54rt678

[edit]

I think that William Trump is notable because he is a big face in fighting disability stigma and he says a lot about the personality of Donald Trump 54rt678 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@54rt678: the subject is notable, if multiple (3+) reliable and independent secondary sources have provided significant coverage of him. Being a "big face" (whatever that means) etc. doesn't come into it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
multiple (3+) reliable and independent secondary sources have provided significant coverage of him 54rt678 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, cite them then, and base the article on what they say only. ColinFine (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 156.34.173.206

[edit]

Why did it get rejected? 

156.34.173.206 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well it didn't before but now it does 54rt678 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but if you're talking about your article I think that it is not notable 54rt678 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? Wikiwhatwhatbob (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 15 December 2024 review of submission by Wikiwhatwhatbob

[edit]

Why was it rejected and now I can’t resubmit it:( Wikiwhatwhatbob (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected because "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.". It just seems to be your unsourced musings, not a summary of what independent reliable sources say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:50, 15 December 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:D8:D574:F97C:2B25:9F2D:FF97

[edit]

Why,can't you see the source I shared and the source in Google Books is not there and I can only get the source on google .if you don't believe you can check on wikipedia (SPECIAL OPERATIONS TEAM) and in the operation.you can see the operation 2001:D08:D8:D574:F97C:2B25:9F2D:FF97 (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think any of us understood your question. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

[edit]

04:01, 16 December 2024 review of submission by Allewikiwriter

[edit]

I would appreciate some assitance with my article submission. It keeps getting rejected even though I edit the content, added multiple sources of references and still cannot be submitted. 

Allewikiwriter (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allewikiwriter, friendly notice that the word "rejected" has a special meaning in this area. The word in articles for creation usually defines drafts that cannot be resubmitted. You can still submit the article, as your draft was declined, not rejected.
For the draft itself, it seems that you have drastically changed the draft.
  • Personally, I think the bold texts for the chairman and the brands (and many more) are not really appropriate.
  • You removed the external link (in the external link section) to the official website, was there any reason for this?
  • "The brand has since expanded its presence in Malaysia and to the broader Southeast Asia region." This sentence is either unsourced or the source is unclear as it is separated from other texts.
I may have missed some issues, but these are the stuff I have found.
ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:45, 16 December 2024 review of submission by Summerfieldnotion

[edit]

because source links everything is real and avaoble on google there's no point of rehjection Summerfieldnotion (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerfieldnotion: FYI, I've moved your draft to the simpler title of  Courtesy link: Draft:Robin Almeida
This draft cites no useful sources, and therefore fails even the most basic verifiability and notability requirements, and quite possibly much else besides. To say that sources are available somewhere out there in the wilds of internet is no good, we need to see those (reliable and independent) sources actually cited in this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 16 December 2024 review of submission by Austin desouza

[edit]

Hi,

I need assistance regarding the editors comments. My draft was rejected with the following comment "Article has been deleted up to 6 times already, However looking beyond that the creator has undisclosed COI as the image uploaded on the article was also also uploaded by the creator a day prior to creating an account on Wikipedia. Kindly declare a COI and let's see how it goes. See WP:COI for further reading" . Regarding the article being deleted six times, i do not understand how this is possible as I have submitted this article only once. Furthermore, I do not have any conflict of interest. I have referenced one of my papers in the article as an example of this modelling technique being used in the energy domain. As such I am not aware of any other article doing this in energy domain except for the authors themselves. Furthermore, I do not really understand the image being uploaded the day before. Yes I did upload the image a day prior because I needed some way to reference the image in the article and the only viable way of doing was that to upload the image. We would really appreciate further assistance on the topic.

Best regards, Austin 

Austin desouza (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well when I say rejected I mean delted. Austin desouza (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austin desouza: it is true that an article on this subject has been created and deleted before, many years ago. That shouldn't, per se, stand in the way of this draft, though, as this is clearly not identical to the most recent deleted version at least (I've not looked at the earlier ones). I also don't quite know where the COI issue arises, although I do think there is a potential copyright problem with the images. That's about all I can say for now; I'm pinging the reviewer Courtesy ping: Tesleemah for comments. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect COI seeing that the images were uploaded by the author while creating the article. Also I declined the article seeing that the one of the references is related to the author as they have confirmed here Tesleemah (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tesleemah: I'm not sure I get either point, TBH. Perhaps you can help me understand – what are you saying is wrong with uploading an image while creating the draft?
As for citing one's own work, yes, it's true that (per WP:SELFCITE) if this is done excessively, or to introduce a non-neutral POV, then that can be problematic. But I can't see how that could be the case here, given that only one of the 19 sources is authored by the draft creator.
Note that I'm not trying to argue that the draft should have been accepted (I've not looked at it in any detail, so can't comment), only that I don't quite understand the decline rationale here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing
Most part of the article needs citation and not only did the author uploaded the image when creating this article but see their comment. Let me bring it here Uploaded a work by Jaap Hrodijn from The author emailed me his work to upload it to wikimedia commons with UploadWizard
The owner of the image asked them to share it on wikicommon around the time they created this article, is that really a coincidence? If I get it all wrong then the author can resubmit while another reviewer accept it this time around. Tesleemah (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding that they created a Wikipedia account a day prior to creating this article. I'm not trying to be too privy but they seem to be connected with the article Tesleemah (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing@Tesleemah Thank you for your time and effort in resolving these issues. I asked Prof. Jaap Grodijn if I could upload his work to wiki commons and he sent me his work. And yes I created the account a day prior because that seemed the only viable way to embed the image in the article. And yes I professionally know Prof Grodijn and other peers who do research in the area of business modelling. I believe Prof Grodijn has made a valuable contributions to field and his contribution deserves to be on wikipedia just like the Business model canvas - Wikipedia. Austin desouza (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why you need to declare COI Tesleemah (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing@Tesleemah I want to clarify that I am in no way affiliated with Prof. Grodijn or his research group. We are two independent researchers who happen to conduct research in the same field and are familiar with each other's work, which is common in our area of study. However, we have not collaborated in the past, nor are we collaborating on any ongoing projects. Therefore, I am unsure of the basis for the perceived potential conflict of interest. Austin desouza (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also I am in no way affiliated with the university which employs prof Gordijn which further illustrates that I have no COI 87.212.209.23 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what you say, I don't think you have a COI, nor do I think we have any other issue here, but I respect Tesleemah's view which clearly differs from mine. Would be good if other reviewer(s) could weigh in on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:06, 16 December 2024 review of submission by Adluvbasketball

[edit]

Hey can you help me correct the mistakes, I don't wont to keep making mistakes and I would like to get the article approved. Please give me some example or can you help me correct the mistakes in the article to get it approved? Adluvbasketball (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection with the Association? You claim to have personally created its logo and personally hold the copyright to it. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 16 December 2024 review of submission by Ayachi Shivam

[edit]

I want to add my brand on wikipedia. Ayachi Shivam (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; we don't want you doing that. Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell about themselves. See WP:PROMO and WP:YESPROMO, as well as WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 16 December 2024 review of submission by Slim8029

[edit]

Looking for clarification. My cousin did a general internet search and found an earlier version of my draft article. I assumed that the article would not be found on the internet until reviewed by Wikipedia editors. Am I incorrect in this assumption? Thanks. Slim8029 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did they find this? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Andy's question. I notice that EveryodyWiki (which is unconnected to Wikipedia, but copies information from it, as anybody may) has an article Michael Shapiro (journalist), which says it is from Wikipedia. Since I can't find any evidence that there has ever been such an article in Wikipedia, I suspect that this is copied from an earlier version of the draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably https://en.everybodywiki.com/Michael_Shapiro_(journalist), copied from draft: on 6 March 2024‎ Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to respond to you but am getting blocked because of the blacklisted website. Slim8029 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My cousin did not send me the link where she found the draft article. It was definitely an earlier version but I'm not sure which one.
But I'm still puzzled. Since the article is not reviewed and still in draft form, why would anyone be able to access it? Doesn't Wikipedia shelter draft material from public access? Slim8029 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:27, 16 December 2024 review of submission by 174.64.103.22

[edit]

My perfectly fine draft just got rejected. I'm just wondering why because it's my school and I need it on Wikipedia for publication. 174.64.103.22 (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, your draft is far from perfectly fine. It's unsourced and almost filled with random facts. Nothing ever needs to be on Wikipedia. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Successfully writing a Wikipedia article is much harder than most people suppose, and we have a lot of restrictions on what articles we accept. Schools rarely meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and unless you can show that your school does meet such criteria, you are wasting your time trying to create an article. In any case, an article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have published about the school, not what you happen to know or what your school says or wants to say. ColinFine (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

[edit]

01:14, 17 December 2024 review of submission by CloudyYT

[edit]

Why was my page rejected? CloudyYT (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:How to Stop Bleeding
@CloudyYT, this isn't Wikihow; we only have encyclopedic articles about notable topics, not life hacks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks! CloudyYT (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:08, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 2603:8001:6940:2100:2180:7F:3DF3:1C9C

[edit]

help me cite scorces please 2603:8001:6940:2100:2180:7F:3DF3:1C9C (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

besides this has so many rumours this must be real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6940:2100:2180:7F:3DF3:1C9C (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not have articles about unsubstantiated rumors with no sources about something that may or may not exist yet. Until there are reliable sources that can verify the existence of such a product, or even the announcement of such a product, there will be no article about it because it is WP:TOOSOON for such an article to be written. cyberdog958Talk 07:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are scorces to cite alredy, and Draft:PlayStation 6 has scorces 2603:8001:6940:2100:84FC:1204:54D0:4DD8 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I made it much better.2603:8001:6940:2100:84FC:1204:54D0:4DD8 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources, now's the time. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for what? 2603:8001:6940:2100:84FC:1204:54D0:4DD8 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said, for what?2603:8001:6940:2100:6985:378D:533D:4982 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources, tell us what they are. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not operatge off rumours, predictions, and innuendo. We need sources explicitly discussing the Switch's successor in concrete terms, whatever name it may be released under. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but it looks perfectly fine. 2603:8001:6940:2100:BB1F:907C:7F61:CA21 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you think so means that you don't yet understand Wikipedia policies. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your only "good" source is the Polygon article, and even then that's almost entirely speculative in nature and thus useless as a source. It doesn't "look perfectly fine"; it looks like you're throwing darts at a picture on the wall while blindfolded and standing on a rotating turntable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well part of that polygon article connects to the "anouncced items" section of the draft making the citation kinda useful. 2603:8001:6940:2100:BC77:1C6D:706B:1BF9 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you have a functional crystal ball. Mine only shows "THIS SOURCE SUCKS, BEAVIS". As I said, the Polygon source is the only one approaching acceptable (one source by itself cannot support an article regardless of its quality) and most of it is literally just speculating on the Switch's successor, which makes it practically worthless as a source as a result. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:11, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Belk3377

[edit]

Why was my article not accepted?

I have a master's degree in journalism from one of the best schools in the US and I've worked for many years as a researcher and archivist. I see every valid reason as to why Khaled should have a wikipedia page. I'm not a bot or a troll, just because my account is recent shouldn't discount me from making this page. This is also an extremely newsworthy time to make this page on the day of his passing and it can't afford to wait 30 days. Belk3377 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belk3377, this is not a news site. Your credentials hold no sway over the policies of the encyclopedia. There is no deadline if they are notable today then they will be notable tomorrow or they truly weren't notable. Now with all that being said these contentious subjects have these protections for a reason and for someone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and such we have found to easier to maintain these protections. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Belk3377: Given the extreme disruption in re the Arab-Israeli conflict that has warranted extremely draconian measures on top of a contentious topic designation in an effort to kerb it, I would strongly advise you to take ColinFine's advice below and work on areas of the encyclopaedia that are as far away from the conflict as possible, so that you can actually learn how Wikipedia works instead of becoming yet another victim in a long-running partisan warzone on Wikipedia. Areas under contentious topic designations do not suffer fools. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. Even if you are an experienced journalist, writing for Wikipedia is very very different from journalism. It's also rather different from academic writing. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the header(it was backwards) and removed the url(not needed). 331dot (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 213.230.120.215

[edit]

Hello, I would like to ask for advice for this page about myself. I want ot publish it mainly because of the universities I am applying to and for the future use. I'll always update my info in this page if I'd publish it. Thanks for consideration. Hope to hear from you about weaknesses of this page. 213.230.120.215 (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia on notable topics. Until several reliable sources have written about you, you are not considered notable enough for Wikipedia. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, assuming you are Mirzayev07, please read what I posted to your user page. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Summerfieldnotion

[edit]

because I feel the person I am writing about has enough data on internet to be on wikipedia and I would like to request to approve it Summerfieldnotion (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerfieldnotion you had several chances to fix the issues and instesd you ignored the advice in the decline notices and continued to submit without improvement. If you read through the actual requirements and learn how to write an actual encyclopedia article with proper sources, you may be able to appeal to the reviewers to be allowed to resubmit. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the sources are places where people who are wholly unconnected with Almeida have chosen to publish significant coverage of him in places with a reputation for a strong editorial policy, then no. See WP:notability and WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:10, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295

[edit]

The draft is exactly that, a draft, a stub that is intended to be worked on.

My understanding was that remaining in Draft allowed an article to be worked on in this way, before any request for publication.

Your reviewer's comment "This seems to be a cut and paste mess of a press release or something." is just plain bullshit. Fine if you don't know who the person is bugt keep your ignorance to yourself.

This makes me think not only should I stop using Wikipedia, given the piss weak editorial standards your reviewer displays, but I should stop contributing financially, too.

Really, I had expected better of Wikipedia.

Tell me I'm wrong. 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295 (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks aren't gonna help your case. When you submitted the draft, it signaled that you thought it was ready for review. A decline isn't final, and you can still continue working on it, this time without submitting it prematurely. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your question – why a completely unreferenced, clearly unfinished draft was not accepted for publication? That's exactly why.
Whether you wish to continue using Wikipedia is entirely up to you. Whether you fund Wikimedia Foundation or not, ditto.
Keep the insults and foul language to yourself, though. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. The reviewer's comment was unjustified, ignorant and insulting. And deliberately so. I've managed editors, writers and publishers over 40 years, and that response is unjustified. If they were my employee, I would sack them.
How is someone supposed to put an article in draft for further development without pushing the Publish button? I wasn't requesting publication as is, I was putting a draft article in polace for further work.
How am I supposed to do that?
As for the intemperate language, control ypour reviewers' insults and you won't cop it. 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295 (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel bad for the editors you managed. "Publish" doesn't automatically submit the draft, you have to click a button to do that, and you did. The only person making insults is you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft wasn't reviewed because you "pushed the publish button", it was reviewed because you pushed the submit button. 'Submit', as in you submitted the draft for pre-publication review. If you don't want your drafts to be reviewed, don't submit them for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, it's still as clear as mud. No wonder Wikipedia is begging for help. Good luck! 2001:8003:3B41:9500:20D7:40E3:C6EB:7295 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you donate to the Foundation or not is up to you- we editors don't see the money and have no way to confirm whether anyone has donated or not due to privacy. This is the time of year that the Foundation does a fundraising push, although their finances are stable at present.
This process is not for submitting stubs. Articles do not need to be complete to pass this process, but they do need to meet basic standards. If you want to create a stub(which does run the risk that deletion processes may be applied to it) you'll need to first create an account and then get autoconfirmed. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting a draft without any references is completely unacceptable. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about a subject, and very little else. Start with the sources, then when you've got them, forget all you know about the subject, and write a summary of what the sources say. Any other approach is at best difficult, and likely a waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:12, 17 December 2024 review of submission by David mullangi Ma

[edit]

I want to get acceptance of the above article David mullangi Ma (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David mullangi Ma the subject is not notable and has been rejected. The draft will not be considered further. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @David mullangi Ma. I'm afraid that most high schools do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so no article about them is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Joe John Michael

[edit]

Hi Joe John Michael (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe John Michael: do you have a question in mind you'd like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes My Film Draft Page Thirteen Heroes film Good No Bad Done Joe John Michael (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe John Michael: your draft is blank, apart from the infobox, and has no sources. It is pointless to keep submitting it, as it clearly isn't ready for publication.
Also, could you please stop posting the same stuff in pages where it doesn't belong. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 17 December 2024 review of submission by RenewQuantum

[edit]

I looked at the Wikipedia:Inline citation page again and removed anything that I could not source. Is this okay now or am I missing something? RenewQuantum (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed everything I could and I will resubmit. To the best of my knowledge, there are not any citations missing any more. RenewQuantum (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another point on the rejection: "14:22, 17 December 2024 Avgeekamfot talk contribs 7,495 bytes +85 Declining submission: ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements (AFCH)"
This person has died over 20 years ago, this is not a BLP. RenewQuantum (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Tpinon76

[edit]

Hi, I've done my best to simplify the entry. Can someone please inform me of what part specifically is a red flag that I can correct? I've tried to make the entry as bland as possible to be sure it is factual and not appear aggrandizing. Thanks in advance for any help possible. Tpinon76 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tpinon76 The COI notice you placed on the draft should go on your user page. What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?
Large sections of the draft are unsourced(especially the personal section). The names of minor children(any children, really) should not be in the article unless the children merit articles themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 17 December 2024 review of submission by MR Bang Jago

[edit]

Hello, if I may know what should be changed to comply with Wikipedia guidelines? MR Bang Jago (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, it has been rejected. This person is not notable. See the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 17 December 2024 review of submission by 2A06:4944:18F8:E500:68B3:102:4DB6:82EC

[edit]

I have twice had a draft Wikipedia article rejected because it is “not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopaedia article”. In my view, the text as it stands is fairly neutral - in any case, I can’t identify in what way the draft is not in the desired style.

How do I proceed? 2A06:4944:18F8:E500:68B3:102:4DB6:82EC (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 17 December 2024 review of submission by MR Bang Jago

[edit]

Excuse me, if I may know the references, why? In Indonesia, all references are accurate and all media are independent and fully supervised by the Press Council in the country of Indonesia, the quotes from every article that appears in this media have also been verified by the Press Council before being published to the public. MR Bang Jago (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MR Bang Jago: this draft wasn't rejected for verifiability reasons, but notability. There isn't sufficient evidence that the subject is notable enough to justify inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, in my opinion if it's about popularity I don't think it's necessary because his work has been nominated for film awards, and all of that has accurate evidence and through the Indonesian government as well, is my opinion not enough? MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MR Bang Jago: it isn't about popularity, it's about notability, as defined in the Wikipedia context. You would need to show that this person satisfies either the general WP:GNG or one of the special (WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NMUSICIAN, etc.) notability guidelines. Your or my opinion doesn't even come into it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you are right, but I quoted from GNG that if you are famous, you must have a lot of independent news coverage, while he often gets independent news coverage in Indonesia, and in Indonesia the media is also verified and actual by the Press Council, so how could the media I attached not be independent. MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I also quoted from WP NAuthor, regarding creative professionals. according to number 3, he has received award nominations regarding very strict films organized by the Indonesian and Australian governments and independent media coverage in Indonesia, so if this should be able to appear on Wikipedia. MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the main issue, as has already been said. You haven't demonstrated notability. Please review the criteria DoubleGrazing informed you of and tell us which criteria they meet. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I also quoted from WP NAuthor, regarding creative professionals. according to number 3, he has received award nominations regarding very strict films organized by the Indonesian and Australian governments and independent media coverage in Indonesia, so if this should be able to appear on Wikipedia. MR Bang Jago (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number 3 of WP:NAUTHOR doesn't mention anything about award nominations. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that author I mentioned the movie, but after I checked earlier I found a more suitable one that is in WP NAuthor, namely the "Any Biography" section, I think it fulfills the category in number 1 that has received awards and nominations. and has contributed to the local government through his film. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I think it has met the criteria of 'Any Biography' which is nominated for an award, especially since this is an award from the bilateral relations between the two countries Indo - Australia. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MR Bang Jago: the WP:FILMMAKER guideline does not explicitly mention awards as a criterion. In any case, the IWAFF awards do not appear to be notable enough to establish notability for their recipients, if that's what is being asserted here. And from the draft it seems that this person hasn't even won the award in question, they've only been nominated?
Fundamentally, someone who only started their filmmaking career this year, and who has only released one film, is highly unlikely to be notable, short of actually winning a Golden Globe or Oscar. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm okay MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and I ask for help, if for example the writing tone is still not appropriate, please correct it because I am confused about the formal writing tone in question, I have tried as much as possible to write in a formal language style, I ask the management to tidy up the writing style, thank you for your attention. MR Bang Jago (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
being nominated for a non notable award doesn't make them notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, even being nominated for a notable award doesn't grant notability in and of itself. If there were a critical mass of nominations for one's whole body of work, sure, but one nomination isn't enough to judge notability regardless of the prestige of the award. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Plausethereal

[edit]

How can I publish this draft so when I create a link to the sandbox it will immediately be seen because I'm not seeing any publishing button and I have created a link but when the page was opened using the link, it was said that no article was in my sandbox. Have I already published this article and also I do not want to resubmit it for review Plausethereal (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and welcome. As a result of the draft article being moved to its current title, the sandbox page is currently a redirect to the draft. You are free to remove the redirect from the sandbox page and otherwise edit it as you wish.
As for feedback on the draft, the cenotaph memorializing the crash of ADC Airlines Flight 086 is already mentioned in that article--I can't see that the cenotaph itself is sufficiently notable to merit an article independently from the one on the crash. Hope this helps. Feel free to clarify your question or ask further ones. Thanks, and happy editing. --Finngall talk 18:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 17 December 2024 review of submission by MajorbucksYT

[edit]

How Do I Add Good References (The Mimic does not necessarily have good articles about it. It's mainly featured in "Best Horror Games to play Roblox") However, it has 1 billion views and is one of the most popular games on the Roblox platform, thanks to its utilization of Japanese culture, being very unique. MajorbucksYT (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many views it has, if there are no independent reliable sources to summarize in an article, there cannot be an article. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what would you consider a reliable source, like I need a brief summary.MajorbucksYT (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new thread with every post, just edit this existing section. For games, sources usually reviews written by professional reviewers/critics, or sources detailing the development of the game(see Super Mario Galaxy). You say "The Mimic is renowned for its exceptional graphics" but have no source for this claim. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:55, 17 December 2024 review of submission by Jaygopal Mandal 1969

[edit]

I want to know regarding uploaded my articles, which wrote in Bengali scripts. There was no provocation regarding religion. My all articles about analysis of literature. Please allow to upload and get a chance for review. Thanks. Jaygopal Mandal 1969 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, drafts need to be in English. You may submit Bengali drafts to the Bengali Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaygopal Mandal 1969: Courtesy link: Bengali Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

[edit]

04:15, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Slim8029

[edit]

I am adding more references. How to I get them to add to the end of the existing list? The "cite" process is inserting them at the beginning. Thanks. Slim8029 (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slim8029: You don't add references to the "references" section; instead you add them in-line within the text itself, using ref tags. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:11, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Truffles771

[edit]

whats wrong in my draft? Truffles771 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Truffles771: One source by itself cannot support an article no matter how good it is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:29, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Olowu Righteous

[edit]

Can I recreate a new sandbox? Or is it possible to edit it, write entirely new, different content, and resubmit it? Olowu Righteous (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are writing about the same subject, you should edit the existing draft and ask the reviewer who rejected it to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Quedeveraux

[edit]
I've made edits , provided sources and references yet my article hasn't been accepted . I don't understand why . I request clarification  Quedeveraux (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quedeveraux: this draft cites one primary source, and therefore provides zero evidence that the subject is notable. Which is unsurprising, given that the album this draft is about won't be released for another several weeks.
It's also confusing how the article title suggests this is about the person Dominique M, but the content is written as if it's about the album. You need to decide which is the actual subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:46, 18 December 2024 review of submission by The tricolor

[edit]

I think this language is significant because the most viewed youtube video of the language is more popular than the most viewed youtube video of Sambahsa, which has a wikipedia page on it. Please tell me more about why you decided to reject the draft. The tricolor (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tricolor Wikipedia is not for things that are created one day. You have no independent reliable sources that discuss this constructed language, sources like news reports, books, analysis by language experts, things like that. If you just want to tell the world about this language, you should use social media or other website with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then I decide to give up about it The tricolor (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 18 December 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F

[edit]

Zipedia was not yet released. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zipedia was launched in 2025 the imaginary encyclopedia, This website is currently protected for imagination. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zipedia is a website with imaginary things but its currently protected also to prevent vandalism or other. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is Zipedia right? what is? 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to protect this article draft as extended confirmed immediately. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:685F:1414:3B5D:D88F (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't happen on this project page, the correct location is WP:RFPP. There's no evidence of vandalism and the topic does not fall under our standard EC topics so it is unlikely to be protected. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Notonlywords

[edit]

I am told the sources are not reliable and am unclear why not. Thanks a lot. Notonlywords (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Notonlywords: the sources are all primary, and close to the subject, so they are effectively verifying themselves. Also, sections of the draft are unreferenced.
A bigger problem is that the sources (again because they are primary) cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 18 December 2024 review of submission by NizuNazmuldhak

[edit]

Why is my article being rejected repeatedly? NizuNazmuldhak (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NizuNazmuldhak: because it is purely promotional, and provides no evidence whatsoever that the subject is notable. And despite several earlier deletions, you haven't improved on this front at all, therefore the title is being protected to prevent further versions being created. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 18 December 2024 review of submission by Sufia Hasan

[edit]

What is the problem/ 

Sufia Hasan (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Yasir Arafat Rahim is not a notable person, that all 46 sources in the draft are unreliable (and almost all of them are copies of the same self-published source), and that Wikipedia is not a platform for hoax content. --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1263784638"