Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

• Mya Project (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Mya Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, My name is Dalila Mya and I just created a page for my music project Mya Project - which has been declined right away for some copyright infringement. Since all the material on my page is my own creation, I would like to know what's the problem with my page. Thank you. Mya Project (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

op blocked indef. ltbdl (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• McMi!!ian (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Storm Internet Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am being accused of writing an advertisement for Storm Internet Services. I do not work for Storm Internet Services, it is a notable organization on its own (as notable as any of the organizations here: List of internet service providers in Canada).

I am asking for assistance as I do not know how to adjust this article further in order to not be accused of advertising.

Thank you McMi!!ian (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@McMi!!ian: who has "accused" you, where, and when? All I could find was a comment in the draft saying that it is written in a promotional manner, which it is.

You say this is a "notable organisation", but there is no evidence of that. Notability doesn't mean 'well known locally' or 'one of the biggest in their sector' or even 'household name', etc.; notability means that the subject has been written or talked about in secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McMi!!ian You don't need the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article or page; you just need to place the title in double brackets as I've done here.

Your sources just document the existence of the company and its activities. Wikipedia articles must do more, as DoubleGrazing describes. We don't just want to know that the company exists, we want to know what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about the company as they see it(not as the company itself might see it). 331dot (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Humaira28 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rachele Focardi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I wanted to know why my page was declined?

Humaira28 (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Humaira28: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice (the grey box inside the large pink one), and the accompanying comments. (It could also have been declined for insufficient referencing and/or insufficient inline citations, but wasn't.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Don6655 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Codistan Ventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i write article about this company because this company is famous and top ranked in Pakistan Don6655 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? And I report you for socking. Call it even? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RabiatMuhuch (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rabiat Baysoltanovna Osaeva (Adzhikamalova) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Please help me what exactly i have to add to get my page approved RabiatMuhuch (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RabiatMuhuch: you have to reference the draft, to enable the information to be verified, and to establish the subject's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, finding suitable sources is the first activity in creating an article in English Wikipedia. Writing an article without first finding sources is like building a house without surveying the site or checking local building regulations. Wikipedia isn't interested in what you know (or I know, or any random person on the internet knows) about the subject: it is only interested in what has been published in reliable sources about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello, thank you for your reply. i have lots of articles in internet in Russian, Turkish and English languge. i just dont know how technicaly add it. RabiatMuhuch (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wisni126 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:NEWITY LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was declined because it sounds like an advertisement and possibly does not meet the verifiability requirements. I have used sources that talk about my subject and I and struggling to see where my language sounds like and ad. If someone you highlight some specific things I need to change that would be very helpful. Wisni126 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance "created with a mission to help small businesses access capital." is promotional language. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are useless towards establishing notability(WP:ORG), as are brief mentions or mere documentation of the existence of this company. What is needed are independent reliable sources that give significant coverage of this company, discussing what they see as important/significant/influential about it.

If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID; I've also mentioned this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Also, the purpose of references is to validate information in the article about the subject: references which do not mention the subject are almost always a complete waste of everybody's time. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mpiazza2016 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Christopher Manske (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to confirm that the page, Christopher Manske, was successfully submitted for review on January 31, 2024. Thanks.

Mpiazza2016 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpiazza2016: I can only find this  Courtesy link: User:Mpiazza2016/sandbox. And no, it hasn't been submitted yet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've added the AfC template to your draft; it has a blue 'submit' button which you can use to send it for review when you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just successfully submitted. Thanks for your help! Mpiazza2016 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpiazza2016: yes, successfully submitted now. And I've moved it to the draft space, which is the preferred location for pending drafts; you can find it at Draft:Christopher Manske. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I appreciate your assistance! Mpiazza2016 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashvik08122023 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:T S Nandakumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I just made few edits in this page adding few links and sources. I have submitted it for review. I just wanted to know as how can i improve this article furthermore and if any one would provide me some path or specifics as where in this page should i improve and flaws. it would be much appreciated. Thanks in Advance for your help.

Thank You!

Thank You! Ashvik08122023 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reviewer will provide you with feedback- we don't really do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sockwearer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Herbstellus chango (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How many sources do I need in order to submit an article? I don't know if it was declined because the source was unreliable or because there weren't enough citations in general. I'm just starting with writing Wikipedia pages so I would appreciate advice. Thank you. Sockwearer (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockwearer I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). There is not a specific minimum number of sources, but to pass this process most reviewers look for at least three. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the overwhelming majority of insect stub articles cite only a single source. I suspect that the real issue is (a) format, and (b) context. Those two things are interrelated. I looked at your draft submission, and it had no taxobox. That's a crucial part of the format of any article describing a plant or animal species. But it's hard to draft a proper taxobox for a species when the genus it belongs to has no page - that's missing context. My advice, after over 30,000 edits of these sorts of articles, is to work from the top down. The paper you cited specifies the tribe that Herbstellus belongs to, and that tribe has a WIkipedia article - at Pepsini. Since Herbstellus is not on that page, you need to add it there, and create a redlink. Then you need to create the Herbstellus article itself, and list Herbstellus chango on that page as a redlink, along with the other species in the genus. THEN you have established context, and can create an article for Herbstellus chango at that point. If you're not sure how taxoboxes work, just look at the scripting for a related genus like Cyphononyx and you should be able to figure out how they work. There's a learning curve, but it's not that hard if you follow good examples. Dyanega (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That gives me a really good starting point! Thank you so much for the advice. :) Sockwearer (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sockwearer (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ILovetodraw21940 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gen Alpha-Gen Z Slang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why cant i have help from over people like jeez how rude and hard is it for you to accept on conditions mf? lil bro L rizz im walt rizzney im a rizzard dumbledore so... are you free tonight? cuz i would never buy your love .- Butter NYC Feb 3 9:50 you free tmr? ILovetodraw21940 (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what? ltbdl (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been warned both formally and informally. I have a feeling they're heading for an early block. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lovefortravel (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kirstie Pike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I would love to learn what constitutes as promotional or advertising? I referenced Wikiepedia pages of many other celebrities of similar back grounds and created a framework similar to theirs in order to make sure everything written was within the Wikipedia guidelines. Any recommendations is appreciated! Lovefortravel (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lovefortravel: seriously? This is so promotional, I couldn't get past the lead section – you've managed to include "celebrated" there, twice! Pretty much every sentence includes praise or peacock words. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know! I am new to Wikipedia so wanting to learn the appropriate verbiage to create articles. Will edit promptly and keep this in mind for future pages! Lovefortravel (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lovefortravel: okay. Go for 'boring and factual'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be almost entirely based on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have published about them (good or bad), and not at all on what the subject or their associates say or want to say.

It is quite possible that the articles about "other celebrities" that you have found are very poor articles which would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today. See WP: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashgabat 2024 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Turkmenistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am writing to seek your assistance and guidance regarding the evaluation and improvement of a Wikipedia draft that I have been working on.

Upon reviewing the feedback received, it has become apparent that the draft lacks sufficient references to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. To address this concern, I am seeking your assistance in incorporating multiple published sources.

If you could provide assistance in reviewing the draft and suggesting appropriate sources, I would greatly appreciate your input. Additionally, any guidance on how to effectively navigate this process would be highly beneficial.

Thank you very much for considering my request. I look forward to your insights and appreciate your time and expertise in helping improve the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards. Ashgabat 2024 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stop using chatgpt for your comments. ltbdl (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look to me as if you have a single source that meets the conditions in WP:42 that is, places where somebody who has no connection with the CCT, or with the government, has chosen, of their own will, to write at some length about the CCT. ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Errajeevsharmabjp1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Er Rajeev Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i have put reference link. kindly approve this

thnaks Errajeevsharmabjp1 (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has already been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 49.43.230.103 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Disha APP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Its any promotion its an app used by public in Andhra Pradesh can somebody help me in submitting my article 49.43.230.103 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rabbitrace (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Rabbitrace/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i need to put up a biography page, with simple basic content for a lebanese business man and everytime i try to do so the draft gets rapid deletion notice

Rabbitrace (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@rabbitrace: are you being paid for this? if yes, disclose it now. ltbdl (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rabbitrace: that's because Wikipedia is not like LinkedIn where anyone can post their 'profile'. We are an encyclopaedia, and publish articles on subjects which are deemed notable. There was zero evidence of notability, and the sources cited didn't support anything of substance, in your drafts. They were also promotional in both tone and content.

BTW, what is your relationship with this Joseph Chubat? If you're him, please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO for all the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tahaharris (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Template:AfC submission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i am resubmitting an article that was declined and when trying to publish it the following message appears: How do I address this issue please?

No stashed content found for 1194415356/fed5ee84-ae72-11ee-80f9-2cea7f81fe52 Tahaharris (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tahaharris: I'm no expert, but I believe it's a problem with the visual editor, whereby it stores information temporarily in a local stash, which can get deleted or possibly corrupted (?) if the browser is left open for too long or the cache is interfered with. If the stashed content has gone, it may not be recoverable. Or something like that... this is really outside the scope of this help desk, or at least this particular help desk bod. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! Tahaharris (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it has absolutely nothing to do with the content of your submission. It's a purely technical issue. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukvc (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Silicon Roundabout Ventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help creating article I would like assistance with the creation of Draft:Silicon Roundabout Ventures. I followed the outline I found in Amadeus Capital Partners and I believe the references are stronger as they either come from reputable databases not everyone has access to (eg: being one of the registered small regulated investment firms in the UK), or from extended articles covering either the launch and strategy of the firm or the founder and general partner. Ukvc (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukvc Please see Other stuff exists; it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as that too could be problematic and you would be unaware of this. I see some of the same problems in the article you used as with your draft. It is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years- we can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for this company, that needs to be disclosed, please see your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll review your suggestions Ukvc (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information from databases is unlikely to contribute to establishing notability, which is basically about "Is there enough independent reliable published information to base an article on?"

extended articles covering ... the launch and strategy of the firm will be great sources if they are wholly independent: if they come from the company or its founders in any way, including articles based on a press release, then Wikipedia is not interested in them. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Noseallergy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Claudia Morales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have since revised the article on Los Angeles-based interior designer Claudia Morales a few times now. I believe I achieved taking out the "advertising" element in the text and included more citations for her. I am at my wit's end about how to get this article approved. She does not have many citations and much of what she has is from one source, Laguna Beach Magazine. Is this article never going to get approved? Please assist. Thanks. Noseallergy Noseallergy (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no draft for Claudia Morales? Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be at User:Noseallergy/Claudia Morales. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CoryHReynolds (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Nadja Tesich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, after getting my page on the writer, actress and filmmaker Nadja Tesich added to the mainspace last week, I added quite a few new primary and secondary citations, as requested by the Wiki editor who reviewed the page. I did not want to delete the box at the top because I wasn't sure if I'd be penalized -- even though it looks like I am authorized to do it. I am writing to ask about a second comment. Another editor commented that the page "contains content that is written like an advertisement." I am not sure what to do about that one, as all of the text was written originally! Thanks so much for any help you can give! CoryHReynolds (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoryHReynolds: this isn't really an AfC matter any more now that the article has been published, but since you're here: anyone can add or remove maintenance tags, but they should be neither added nor removed without good reason. The 'primary sources' tag can be removed once sufficient secondary sources have been added for it to no longer apply, and the removal can be done by anyone including you. The 'promotional' tag will require some editing of the text, to remove peacock expressions and hyperbole, such as "starring role", "exceptional student", "youthful triumph", etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and articles therefore should be written in a dry, factual manner. (And whether the text was "written originally" [whatever that means, exactly] does not preclude it being promotional in tone, or vice versa.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Very clear. I will remove the peacock expressions. Much appreciated. CoryHReynolds (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• LetsWalkTheDinosaurs (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Philippine Airlines fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why are my edits getting declined? but according to articles they have 76 aircraft? LetsWalkTheDinosaurs (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum to ask about existing articles, you should use the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nzkaioshin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Don Samarasinghe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I have had this page rejected for submission a few times and I would like some feedback/assistance on how to improve it. In particular, I want to know how I might improve the structure, tone and the range of sources to meet notability criteria for an academic.

I believe that the page meets at least one of the eight academic-specific criteria, if it doesn't I'd like to know what would need to be changed. I received some feedback from a user in Teahouse that it is perhaps too soon for this person to have a notable career as he is a Senior Lecturer as opposed to Associate/full Professor. I do notice that most staff at this university (Massey University) that have pages are in higher academic standing.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated - thanks! Nzkaioshin (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nzkaioshin: it's not that one has to be a full tenured professor, let alone holding a named chair or similar, to be a notable academic, but there is a certain correlation between those things, given that one's notability prospects obviously grow along with one's academic career.

There's nothing in this draft that would suggest any obvious WP:NACADEMIC notability (and the sources cited fall short of general WP:GNG notability also), but you said you believe this person does meet at least one criterion of NACADEMIC – which one would that be, and on what basis do you assert it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks. I suppose it just means it's much more difficult to prove notability for academics below a certain standing, even if they are notable in their own way.

The only criteria that I think realistically applies is the first, but can I ask what would amount to a "significant impact" in this case, and what number of independent, reliable sources would help quantify this? I only ask because it can be quite subjective to determine. According to the specific criteria notes, it mentions the academic having authored highly cited work - in this person's case, he's had 40 citations across 14 documents according to Scopus. Is that a relatively low number? Nzkaioshin (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nzkaioshin: academics "below a certain standing", as you put it, usually need to rely on the WP:GNG general notability guideline (which applies to most subjects on Wikipedia; the NACADEMIC one is among a few exceptions to this) to establish their notability; in other words, they need to show significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Whether this is easier or more difficult, I'm not sure – arguably easier, if such sources exist, but impossible if they don't.

The "significant impact" is explained in the criteria notes, as you will have discovered already. Whichever of the points a–i you wish to rely on, we need evidence to back that up. Point a, level of citations, is often (rightly or wrongly) equated to the h-index metric alone, but that's quite a simplistic view, and in any case can be misleading as citability depends on many factors – one person's h-index of 15 may actually be high for their domain, another's 30 may be low. Anyway, this person's h-index of (per Scopus) does seem very low to me, and I wouldn't think that would suffice as evidence of satisfying point 1.a of the guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2603:7000:E300:271D:CE7:6397:C2F7:2DC8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ornais (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This should be published. 2603:7000:E300:271D:CE7:6397:C2F7:2DC8 (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 195.137.183.2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Joel Illerhag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I am not sure, if this draft has been forgotten, of if I just should be more patient? :)

Regards, Anna 195.137.183.2 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was reviewed and declined on 25 November, and has not been resubmitted since, so nothing is happening with it at the moment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thank you. 195.137.183.2 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you're AnnaStoneG, please remember to log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I just did that. I also saw that I must have submitted the article, perhaps another draft (?), on the 7'th of December. Perhaps I have just submitted the same changes for the second time.

Is that bad to do? AnnaStoneG (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AnnaStoneG: I can only see the one draft. You did edit it on Dec 7, in quite a major way.

And to answer your question, yes it would be 'bad' to create multiple drafts on the same subject, as that causes all sorts of problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I am might be understanding it now. I was confused of the "publish" versus "resubmit". Now I have submitted it again. And hopefully I have only been submitting the same draft. I think that is the case. Thank you so much for your heltp. It is really appreciated :) AnnaStoneG (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know when it is better to use citations and when is is better to use direct links? I have just edited so that direct links are only Wiki articles, and citations are all external links. Is that a good idea? AnnaStoneG (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AnnaStoneG: that's correct. There should be no inline external links in the body text. In fact, with the exception of one (optional) external link in the (optional) infobox, there should be no links pointing to external (non-Wikipedia) sources anywhere before the footnotes in the 'References' section. Only internal links (aka. 'wikilinks') pointing to other Wikipedia articles are allowed in the body text. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you. Then I still have some work to do 😅 I need to remove all external links ALSO from the lower sections and make a references sections where I have them all. Really informative - thank you. AnnaStoneG (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or no actually. It is probably good as it is now. AnnaStoneG (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AnnaStoneG: the problem now is that most of the content is unreferenced, with all the referencing coming only in the 'Exhibitions' and later sections. In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have been mixing citations and links: Citations MUST be there, links can NOT be in the body of the text. Still learning… AnnaStoneG (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank agaaaaain. AnnaStoneG (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right – inline citations required (or at least very much preferred), inline external links not allowed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aand the citations are back in! Is it bad that citations are repeated in the lower sections? Should I just delete those or is it better that evere statement is supported every time mentioned? AnnaStoneG (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AnnaStoneG: not sure what you mean by 'lower sections'?

If you mean multiple (ie. 'repeated') citations of the same source in the 'References' section, then ideally you would avoid these by using named references (see WP:NAMEDREFS), but it's not a cardinal sin if you don't.

If you mean repeating sources, which are already used for referencing, by also listing them in the various appendices ('External links', 'Further reading', etc. sections), then no, you strictly speaking shouldn't do that, although it is quite common to see it done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you :) By “lower sections” I mean the sections from “Exhibitions” and down. For instance especially in the sections “Exhibitions” and “Awards” I have a lot (of the same citations as in “Biography”. I think my issue is the first you described, so I will look in to “named references”. Thanks again again. AnnaStoneG (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to skip the Named References. It is really hard to understand what to do at my humble level. As soon as code pops up I am having a hard time... Thanks for the tip anyway. Then I just have to hope that usind the same ref twice without naming is "not a cardinal sin" ;) AnnaStoneG (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lizzy0213 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Linqing Lion Cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

About resources If the draft I create does not have reliable information on the Internet, but the content is recognized in daily life. Which method can I use to create this related article? Thank you so much. Lizzy0213 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzy0213: before I categorically say that you do need reliable sources to back up any article, can you be a bit more specific, please – what do you mean by "recognized in daily life"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answers. 'recognized in daily life' I mean this fact may be well known, but lacks professional verification yet. I want to submit the articular about a kind of cat(this kind named 'Linqing lion cat', I did not find reliable recourses in English. Lizzy0213 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzy0213: I certainly wouldn't know what a Linqing lion cat is, but then I'm no expert on lions or (other) cats. Then again, most readers probably won't be, either.

There's an essay that you may find helpful in this context: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Forgot to say that sources don't need to be online, or in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK,thanks so much, it's very useful. Lizzy0213 (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• יאַנקל (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jerzy Kubina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I have two reliable secondary source citations in my article, and wonder if there is a minimum needed in order to consider the artist "notable."

Please note that this entry is part of a larger endeavor to create knowledge about Polish-Jewish artists and cultural workers who have not received sufficient recognition. יאַנקל (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a specific minimum number, but to pass this process most reviewers look for at least three sources to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Council of Ministers (Kurdistan Region) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! My question is why was my draft cancelled? The references are from government website. RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@rîzgarîkurdîstan: government websites count as primary sources and don't count to notability. ltbdl (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an entirely correct statement. However, this draft was not declined for lack of notability, but for lack of reliable sources. So it could be a case of correct decline, but for an incorrect reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t understand? Isn’t government websites reliable source? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if I resubmit will they accept the draft or it will be taken down again? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RîzgarîKurdîstan: the point ltbdl was making, and I was concurring with, is that for notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, we need to see coverage in secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.). Primary sources, no matter how reliable, are not enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the only problems are the citations and references and if I add news or TV sources will it be accepted? And is Facebook source reliable? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you add news sources that should be okay. No, Facebook isn't reliable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PhilKnight! I did what you said but it got canceled again and someone by the name of ‘’Pbirtti’’ cancelled it with a stop sign and he reverted my edits by calling it (pre-socket puppetry) can I know what’s going on? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Paola-D99 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gisella Marengo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i cannot understand the problem with this submission. i used as main source Gisella Marengo IMDb profile. this website is the most reliable for entertainment workers where all info and projects are indicated. my info came from a reliable source but the draft has not been approved. coudl you please explain me better the problem? thanks Paola-D99 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia Terms because it is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this actress to summarize. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MaxDevlin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Why Do the Heathen Rage? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there! I wrote an article on a newly-published unfinished novel by the American author Flannery O'Connor. It was denied. I added more examples of "coverage" in the Reception section. The guidelines on the notability of books states that the book's "author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." This is certainly true for Flannery O'Connor, the first post-war female writer enshrined in the Library of America, the winner of the National Book Award in 1972, and the subject of many books, scholarly articles, and films. This is my first ever article, so I want to learn what I've done wrong. I'm a great fan of Wikipedia--thanks! MaxDevlin (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link- we don't need the whole url, just the actual title. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The connections section is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that notability is not inherited: it's possible to have a notable book by a non-notable author and vice versa. (I'm not saying that is the case here: I haven't looked. I'm just warning against making that assumption) ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Westbrook1980 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Martin "Marty" Allen Mizrahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not fully understanding what is wrong? any idea of what else is needed? Westbrook1980 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Westbrook1980: two things:

1. The sources do not prove that the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. The standard they would need to satisfy is the WP:GNG general notability one.

2. As this is an article on a living person, you must cite your sources inline, against the information they support; now you've piled all your citations to the end, so it's not clear which source supports what statement, and how much of it remains unsupported. See WP:REFB / WP:ILC for advice.

-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rojja1996 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vivek Basnet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kindly help as some users have declined the page and i want help Rojja1996 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rojja1996 I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. You seem to have a connection with this person as you took a picture of them and they posed for you. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. What help is it that you are seeking? Please see the advice left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it’s not like that. I don’t have any connection and doesn’t have received any payment. How to make it look more valid. Kindly help. Rojja1996 (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you personally take the picture of him? Have you seen the advice left by the reviewer? They told what it is that you need to do. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I took it from the source of that reality show. With his consent Rojja1996 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He can't give consent to using an image of the show, it's not his to give. This means that you must declare a conflict of interest as you communicated with him, and you must immediately request deletion of the image from Commons as you are falsely claiming it as your work.

Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images may wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your suggestion what can I do to look more relevant? Rojja1996 (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is almost completely unsourced, and the sources you give are not appropriate for establishing notability. You have gone about this backwards. You should first gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage and then summarize them. These sources cannot be interviews, press releases, announcements, or brief mentions. Once the image is removed and a deletion request made, and you declare a conflict of interest, please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sukhi vale (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mahroos siddiquee Nadim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please help me for create mahroos siddiquee Nadim article Sukhi vale (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the advice left by reviewers. Social media is not an acceptable source. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Musicworkflowacademy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Musicworkflowacademy/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

Please publish my page for DJ Omar Meho

Thank you. Looking forward to working with you. Please keep me in mind for all future opportunties.

Kind Regards,

Omar Meho Musicworkflowacademy (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT a venue for promoting your business, try Linked in instead. Theroadislong (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of your sources is independent of Meno. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 69.118.230.235 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wide Right II (Buffalo Bills) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article seems notable, even if not for the play, and it seems that the comment about the article being restructured wasn’t listened to. I know this is an OSE argument, but Lunatic Lateral is leaning towards keep at the AFD and I fail to see how this is less relevant. Yes, it is too soon to determine a lasting impact, however that means no article should be created at the time. I don’t see how the article could possibly be merged effectively into 2023-24 NFL playoffs without bloating the section. Even if the field goal isn’t notable, the viewership record is. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Origamikuren (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Luckie Strike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I am working on an entry for a band. The band's active years were in the late 90s/early 00s--before they were able to establish a significant digital footprint, which makes citations difficult. At this time, my greatest concern is that I am the primary author. What is the best way to include additional contributors to the page while it is still in a review mode? Is this something I should promote in a public manner? Not many people I know who were fans of the band have experience with contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for your advice. Origamikuren (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not required to be online, only that they be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. In this case, you will need to establish that they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band.

You are free to invite others to edit the draft. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can have every fan the band ever had contributing, but unless they find reliable, independent, published sources, they won't make a blind bit of difference. Your own, and their own, knowledge and memories are not acceptable unless supported by a reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WV Veritas (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

My draft was rejected and not sure why. The information I submitted was essentially the same as what wa on the following page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloat-Horn-Rossell_House WV Veritas (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WV Veritas! One thing to keep in mind is that not all articles are created equal - and many, many older articles are not up to the current standards. The article you have used as a base was created in 2011 and is only a stub; I think it would probably be declined (as yours has been) if it were created today. Have a look at the Featured Articles and Good Articles listed in the Historic Houses Task Force page for the kind of article you should be basing yours on.

What you probably need to look for at this point is independent, reliable secondary sources - articles in newspapers/magazines/etc that are about this house, for example. The National Register you are relying on is a primary source and is not useful for Wikipedia.

However, I do see there's an awful lot of citations in the National Register application you have cited! Starting on page 9, many articles from what look like potentially reliable sources are cited. If you can track down those articles, use information from them in the draft, and cite them properly, you may well have a notable subject on your hands. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and all suggestions. This is very helpful information. WV Veritas (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Petrișor Mihail Ivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I have added more information to the article in order to prove it is notable. May it be analyzed again? Thank you! Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Petrișor Mihail Ivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I have updated a draft I made. Could you please take a look? I have done more research since it was rejected and I've added more information and sources

I feel like it is worth reconsidering.
Thank you for your time!  Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64: this draft has been rejected for lack of notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Beeleafinme (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Akuchi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help to write the article in a formal tone Beeleafinme (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeleafinme: no, we don't get involved in editing or co-creating drafts here at the help desk; that is entirely your job as the draft author, or you may ask for help at one of the relevant Wikiprojects if you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on Wiki get approved but creation of a page for a user gets either rejected or declined. I feel it's cool If ask for helping hand on some of my articles Beeleafinme (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's not cool. ltbdl (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beeleafinme What is your connection with Akuchi? You must have one since you took a picture of him and he posed for you.

The main problem you have is that less the tone than he doesn't seem to meet the definition of a notable musician or more broadly a notable person; the sources you provided are all mere announcements of his activities, not significant coverage of him that goes into detail about his significance/importance/influence. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of his management team, and as a writer and editor on Wikipedia, I verified that he does not have a page. I requested a picture from his media team; however, the picture was not taken by me. I obtained permission from his management team to use that specific picture.

I want to clarify that I did not accept any gift or money for creating a page for him. My motivation is purely for enjoyment and to gain familiarity with Wikipedia. If you review my edits on this platform, you'll observe that I primarily edit pages for artists, particularly those from Nigeria, aiming to provide more comprehensive details about them. Beeleafinme (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are falsely claiming the image as your own personal work, which puts this entire project in jeopardy. If the image was released to you with a license allowing for reuse for any purpose with attribution, you need to return to Commons and edit the image page to indicate that. It can't just be an email saying "yeah you can use it".

As you have communicated with this musician's representatives, you have a (unpaid) conflict of interest that you need to disclose; articles are typically written without any involvement from the subject(or their representatives). 331dot (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 81.207.9.178 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A photograph has been posted with wrong photo credits. It was me that took that photo. Please change it. And it is not for free use! I will just allow the use of it on this page. Too van Velzen 81.207.9.178 (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was published several months ago, and is therefore no longer an AfC matter; hence, this is not the right support forum. In any case, we have no way of knowing who owns the proprietary rights to that image. If you wish to dispute the basis on which it was uploaded, please either contact the editor who uploaded it, and/or go to the Commons and take the necessary action there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:U.S. Route 83 in South Dakota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm needing help to add more sources. Since US 83 is extremely rural in South Dakota, it's hard for me to find any citations that I can add to my draft. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoobThreePointOh: well where did all the info in the draft come from? Those are your sources, and they're what you need to cite. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to find those sources online, but to me, it seems pretty scarce. I'm not sure. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoobThreePointOh: I don't understand. Did you have some sources in front of you and summarise them? Or did you write everything based on your own knowledge? Or how did you go about composing this draft? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found some sources online, but for the most part, when I put them in, one of the declining reviewers said there needs to be a source for each paragraph in the route description, and I was really dumbfounded. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeromefeldman (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:"Scientific Mystery" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can not get back to editing my draft "scientific mystery" Jeromefeldman

Jeromefeldman (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft such as it is, can be found here Draft:"Scientific Mystery". Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also access your draft through your contribution history. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wentwort12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kirtlington Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to dedicate a page to Kirtlington Park.

At the moment Kirtlington Park was redirected to Kirtlington parish, I think it's better to separate it Wentwort12 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wentwort12: okay... what's your question? Your first draft was deleted as a copyvio, the second attempt is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for the second attempt to be reviewed and then so undo the redirect.

I need help if that happen since idk how to undo the redirect Wentwort12 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wentwort12: ah, okay, got it.

If the draft is accepted, the reviewer will request for the redir to be speedied to make way for the article.

The review will take place in due course. Please be patient, we currently have 1,500+ pending drafts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wentwort12, the lead section of your draft says that this house is about half a mile east of the village, but it does not tell the reader which village that is. Cullen328 (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 41.145.193.132 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Prince Estifanos matewos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to understand why the wiki declin the application of his imperial highness prince Estifanos matewos and want to re sumit 41.145.193.132 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to tell you as you haven't actually linked to such a draft, and it isn't associated with your IP address. If you have an account, log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yevrowl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Australian Defence (chess) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings all! I ask for help in saving this article on chess theory. This opening is extremely rare and accordingly there is very little information on it... Yevrowl (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yevrow. When you write accordingly there is very little information on it, that means that the topic is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. What is required are references to several independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arun0022 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thandel 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have submitted the article and it has been rejected. Can u please give me an advice that how can I publish the article? Arun0022 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arun0022, your draft is overtly promotional and has been rejected. Please read WP:TOOSOON. Cullen328 (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.. what's the further step I should take? Arun0022 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arun0022: there is no further step to take, rejection means the end of the road, for now at least. As the TOOSOON point has been made already, this subject may become notable in the future, at which point you can return to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MarkO2274 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:4th Health Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting information behind the rejection of my article MarkO2274 (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MarkO2274, an acceptable Wikipedia article requires references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. None of your sources meet that standard. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jebimathew (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zachariah Severios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please inform, what are the changes required in this page? Jebimathew (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers left you messages telling you exactly what is needed on the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ShamshanKali (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Shailendra Pandey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May I know why this was declined and when I am going to create next, what precautions, I have to take. Please guide me. ShamshanKali (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source so cannot be used to establish any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Francisi1990 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Francisi1990/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Uyes Francisi1990 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is blank, do you have a question? Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FashionableSavage (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sustainable Apparel Coalition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the latest draft rejection, the reviewer said: "Most of these sources appear to be press releases or recycled press releases." The majority, if not all, the sources are reporting from staff reporters at reputable publications. Can you offer guidance?

FashionableSavage (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FashionableSavage: this draft hasn't been rejected, only declined, meaning you're welcome to resubmit once you've addressed the decline reason(s).

It is true that most of the sources are primary, including some that explicitly refer to announcements made by the organisation, suggestin that they are indeed based on press releases etc. The first two are possibly the best in this respect, although given that they are the same author at the same publication, they only really count as a single source. Most organisations and advocacy groups are pretty good at getting their message out, and business/trade/sector publications have notoriously low news thresholds and will often accept content put out by such organisations without much editorial input or filtering. The WP:ORGCRIT guideline expressly sets the bar quite high to counter precisely this sort of publicity management. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is helpful! Will take a closer look. FashionableSavage (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lightskinxmarii (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Lightskinxmarii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Was not published. Why? Lightskinxmarii (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page" Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 79.125.181.73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Association for Community Colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is rejected because of improper sourcing. Is the problem that the sources are not any longer visible? (The older articles from European newspapers are not any more available online). Does this make the sources unreliable/ not verifiable in "Wikipedia-logic" ? 79.125.181.73 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources are fine, but you should provide detail (date, publisher, author, stuff like that) so we can identify and verify as much as we can that the source exists and generally discusses the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorwenes (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dishonour (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some of the festivals that the film received awards at have websites that do not have archives of those years, but the festivals' social media pages have the image references of the film's awards. Although Facebook/Instagram are qualified as "not reliable", would using those links be accepted in this instance? Sorwenes (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorwenes: if social media are the only sources available, then I guess it's better to cite them than not to cite anything, but you can expect pushback every step of the way. Especially if you're relying on social media citations to establish notability, you will struggle. As a bare minimum, you need to ensure that you only cite 'official' social media channels of the awards or awarding organisations. You may also make a note on the article talk page explaining why you've cited such sources. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DoubleGrazing :) Would it help to have both the organization's official website (which does not have older award pages) along with the social media page (which do) as references? I will also leave a note on the talk page to explain the rational, thank you again for the advice! Sorwenes (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorwenes: in short, no. References should support content in the draft/article, otherwise they're not really references. And just pointing to a website's home page will cause more confusion than clarification, and sooner or later someone will probably just remove such citations anyway. That's my take on this, at any rate; someone else may come along to offer more educated advice! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 4Corry11 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Timberhawk: Ride of Prey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting you to proof look at the article again. I looked at every credible source you accept and those 3 are what i could find fitting. If you find the subject not fitting for inclusion then why are Roller Coasters like Adrenaline peak fit for inclusion? 4Corry11 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4Corry11: this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and even the additional source doesn't change that. We would need to see significant coverage of the ride in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for your point about other rides: among Wikipedia's nearly seven million articles, there are thousands and thousands of seriously substandard ones, many of which were written in the early days before we were as careful about standards. Ideally they would be improved or deleted, but this being a volunteer project, people work on what they choose. But we evaluate new article submissions against our current standards, not against existing substandard articles. If you would like to improve the articles you refer to, or nominate them for deletion if suitable sources exist, you would be very welcome. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aurrabhatnagarbadoni99 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aurra Bhatnagar Badoni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my page declined Aurrabhatnagarbadoni99 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aurrabhatnagarbadoni99: this draft was declined for the reason given in the decline notice (the grey box inside the large pink one) and the accompanying comment. Namely, there is no evidence that the subject is notable

Also, please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why you should not be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jawliner (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abdullah Khurram Niazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I will create the major points now you will complete the tone because we want to create a Wikipedia that is more knowledgeable and I am now just adding more sources on the page, and I am also adding sources from the govt or other news articles Jawliner (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jawliner: okay... I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jawliner. Vast swathes of your draft are entirely unreferenced, which violates the core content policy Verifiability. You are writing your draft backwards. See WP:BACKWARDS. Providing references to significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent sources should always come first on Wikipedia. The role of the Wikipedia editor is simply to summarize what reliable sources say - no more and no less. If you write anything that is not verified by your references to reliable sources, then you are making a mistake and should remove all of that content. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• HelloSPK (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Prashanth Prakash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As Prashanth is a notable person I have added citations to support his notability - I would like to understand what else can I do to make this article better and get it approved. HelloSPK (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HelloSPK: there have been no improvements to this draft since it was declined a week ago. You need to address the decline reason by providing sources that prove notability, then resubmit for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 110.224.214.135 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dr. Mohammed Abdul Razzaq Al-Zobaie Al-Shammari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article has been rejected inspite of citing sources. 110.224.214.135 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected- rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

None of the sources you have offered are appropriate for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Smadur1997 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Water Trucks Are Needed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How to cite my sources clearly?. Smadur1997 (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smadur1997 Sources are not the issue. Your draft was rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not social media to tell people where to obtain clean water or to demand clean water. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot admin.--Smadur1997 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use actual social media to tell people about where to get clean water, or to contact government officials or companies to demand access to it. I wish you luck- but you shouldn't be doing this here. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when your earlier user account gets blocked, you don't just register a new one and continue where you left off. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Council of Ministers (Kurdistan Region) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello dear Pbirtti, I’ve asked some administrators and they said if I add news channels or book or tvs as references the draft would be accepted, and you rejected it can I know why? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to address a particular user, you should do so on their user talk page, in this case User talk:Pbritti. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• IonaFyne (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Colin William fforde Wyatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been working on my draft article and have the resubmission date in mind. Please can you tell me what happens if it is declined again and I am given further advice on improving my article. How long will I have to improve and resubmit? I am taking advice given previously and excluding illustrations until a later date. This is so that I can work separately on understanding how to do that properly. I also am checking choice of illustrations and copyright details. Thank you. IonaFyne (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IonaFyne: if by "How long will I have to improve and resubmit?" you mean how many times can you resubmit, then there is no fixed number – as long as you keep making meaningful progress and don't offend against any of the cardinal rules (copyright violations, attack pages, etc.) then you will have several reviews before anyone will even think of rejecting the draft outright.

And if you mean how long can you keep the draft as a draft, then again there is no time limit as such. If you (or any other human) don't edit the draft for six months, it will be deleted, but you will get a warning a month before that happens. In theory at least, if you keep making an edit every five or so months, the draft will remain more or less indefinitely. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is a prompt reply and most helpful. IonaFyne (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• TampaChad (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Joseph Dituri, Ph.D. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My first entry was declined for this Wiki page and I'm a little unsure how to make improvements to resubmit. Can you explain the reasons why it was declined in more detail? TampaChad (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every substantive fact about a living person needs a source; you have several unsourced parts. If the information is sourced to sources already existing elsewhere in the article, you need to apply those references directly to the sourced information; see Referencing for Beginners to learn about this. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FCZOE (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cleovis and Arwilda Whiteside (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My request for submission was declined and I am trying to figure out what about my references is not right. The note about references said that they should be in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. So how are my references not one of these? Or could someone provide examples of types of articles that fit that criteria so that I know what to look for? The articles I chose are all of what I could find on the internet about them but I think it's important enough to make a wiki article if multiple news stations covered them. FCZOE (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FCZOE: the first two sources are essentially interviews, which are not independent as they are the subjects talking about themselves. The last source is a primary one, which doesn't contribute towards notability. The one remaining source is alone not enough. (That's my reading of it, at any rate, based on a quick scan.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how being the longest-married couple in some particular region at some particular time is in any way "important": I would say it falls under WP:BLP1E. ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think if I just make a page about Arkansas' Longest married couple then that will be better? Because that is an event that happens every year and the couple is recognized every year. The Whitesides just happen to hold the title right now. FCZOE (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FCZOE: if that event has been covered by multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and (this bit is important) if the coverage has been at a general level, ie. the event as a concept, rather than simply annual updates on whoever was recognised that year, then it may be possible to have an article on it. (I do think it is quite a curious subject, so I offer no comment on whether we should have an article on it, just saying that under those circumstances we conceivably could.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppopopop (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Creepypastas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i like creating storys Oppopopop (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to do that somewhere else. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mmehdiza (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mohammad Hassan Peerhossaini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there,

Although all the required locations were cited, I am uncertain why I am still receiving this message.

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

Any information would be sincerely appreciated. Mmehdiza (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmehdiza: the problem, as I see it at least (I'm pinging Scope creep who draftified the article, in case they have a different take on this), is that some of the references don't actually support the draft contents. For example:

• Ref #3 is cited against the statement "He is also a distinguished professor emeritus at the Astro-Particle & Cosmology (APC) Lab of the Université de Paris Cité, France." However, the source is merely a phone book, which says nothing about his position.
• Ref #7 appears to support the statement "Professor Peerhossaini was director of Laboratoire de Thermique et Énergie of the University of Nantes", but the source is just a profile page for the laboratory, and doesn't even mention Peerhossaini.
• Similarly, ref #9 comes after the statement that "[he was] Délégué Scientifique at the High Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (Hcerés)", but the citation only points to the home page of the Hcéres website, with again no mention of Peerhossaini.

Note, I'm not saying that the entire websites in question make no mention of Peerhossaini, only that the URLs your referencing points to don't. You need to point to the specific content that actually supports what you're saying.

Finally on a separate point, you must disclose your conflict of interest regarding this subject before editing further. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Laith.11999 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dheyaa al-saad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello my friends, can you help me improve this draft and make it perfect and complete because I'm facing a problem and I can't solve it. Thank you all. Laith.11999 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This forum isn't for soliciting co-editors. Perfection is not expected, but you are the best person to improve the draft you want to see placed in the encyclopedia. You say "Dhiyaa has also become an important voice in the literary community" but don't say how. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Uzungol1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2022–23 Haverfordwest County A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please could you advise as articles of similar nature have been published with less sources than this. What will you require to get this over the line please? Uzungol1 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uzungol1: never mind other articles, we don't assess drafts by reference to existing articles, but instead by reference to applicable guidelines. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Flantru (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ispmanager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! What can we fix to make the article notable? Flantru (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flantru: nothing; your draft has been rejected (after no fewer than nine earlier declines, I might add) for lack of notability, and will therefore not be considered further. Notability either exists or it doesn't; you cannot fathom it out of thin air with any amount of editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RT Pathik (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:RT Pathik/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you help me to fix my page RT Pathik (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RT Pathik: your sandbox was speedily deleted, twice, and your question has already been answered at the Teahouse, twice. Anything else? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ritabrata88 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Classic Drivers Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need assistance to publish this article. I have tried to edit the article as per the advices and points mentioned by each and every editor who has reviewed the article so far. It is yet to be fitting so I seek assistance to do the needful. Please help me. Ritabrata88 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-scripted the article after carefully studying similar well-versed articles and wiki guidelines. I request for a re-evaluation of the article as it stands now. I hope its suitable. Please advice. Ritabrata88 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritabrata88: please don't start a new section with each comment, just add to your earlier one.

The only way to appeal a rejected draft is to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. (If they don't respond after a reasonable time, you may then come back here.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazingThank you for the advice and sorry for the inconvenience caused. will do as you said. Ritabrata88 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising even after a re-write. Wikipedia cannot source itself and The Times of India is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lizzzie.lane (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Esther-Mireya Tejeda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

my submission has been declined multiple times for lack of significant coverage and secondary sources. But we have many sources and coverage. Unsure how to move it forward. Lizzzie.lane (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzzie.lane: who is 'we', in "we have many sources"?

Also, what is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the word "we" suggests that you work for this person or their company Please read WP:PAID and WP:COI.

None of your sources are significant coverage of this person and what makes them notable. The awards do not contribute to notability as they do not merit articles themselves (like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzzie.lane: having "many sources and coverage" may, or may not, be what is required. Per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Each source that you rely on to establish notability has to meet every aspect of that standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SparkleOtter (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Molly Jean Edwards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I made a page and I'm wondering why it was declined. I would love some help. Thanks! SparkleOtter (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, like many new editors, you have embarked on the challenging task of creating a new article before you have learnt very much about how Wikipedia works.

My earnest advice to you, as I usually give to new editors, is to forget about Draft:Molly Jean Edwards for several months, while you make improvements to some of our six million existing articles, and learn about Wikipedia policies, particularly verifiability, reliable sources. neutral point of view, and notability. Then read your first article, and I suggest looking at BACKWARDS too.

Large parts of your draft are unsourced (where did you get the information? If it was from a reliable source, cite it; if it wasn't then it does not belong in the article). Parts of it use peacock words.

On a quick look, I cannot see a single source which meets the triple criterion of being reliable, independent, and in-depth coverage of her (see WP:42): nearly all of your sources should meet those criteria. Many of the citations are worthless - a citation which does not even mention the subject of the article is a waste of your time and every reviewer's time.

One final point: when a new editor immediately starts trying to create two articles on closely related subjectgs, and works on nothing else whatsoever, this immediately raises the question of conflict of interest. What is your relationship with Edwards? ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SparkleOtter (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Molly Jean Edwards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, what can I do to get my draft approved? SparkleOtter (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SparkleOtter First, you can disclose your connection to her(as you took a picture of her and she posed for you). Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID.

You havs several unsourced areas, and yet have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her showing how she meets either the narrow definition of a notable musician or the broader notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vajkimzeej (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Windows 12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

??? Vajkimzeej (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors like this have no place on Wikipedia, Vajkimzeej. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cause windows 12 is…

way soon Vajkimzeej (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until several people wholly unconnected with Microsoft have written at length about Windows 12 and been published in reliable sources, Wikipedia will have absolutely no interest in Windows 12. See WP:Crystal ball. ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am writing about a notable producer who has recorded songs for some notable people who has a wikipedia page and has won awards the people he has worked for has sources, what can i do to get this page approved. "Icon240$%" (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Promotional account, already blocked at Wikinews [1]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:GODSTIME Martins Jatto

@"Icon240$%": you have to demonstrate that the subject is notable, which so far you're very far from doing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SriSahi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Disha APP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

pls review my article , I added sources SriSahi (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SriSahi: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. If sources demonstrating notability have come to light which weren't taken into account earlier, you may make your case to the reviewer who rejected this, but that seems rather pointless given that of the two new sources added one is Google app store and the other returns a 404 error. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 41.190.14.106 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hafiz Bayero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It keeps saying; This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please I need help to get thus UP. 41.190.14.106 (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected a long ago, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nerdofhistory (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fareed Nawaz Jung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

having trouble submitting it, the wiki is about a noble aristocrat writter Nerdofhistory (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nerdofhistory: the reason why you can't submit it is that it has been rejected and resubmission is no longer possible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• JossChristian (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Data Protection and Risk Mitigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am looking for some advice as to help get this article published but also, to learn more about how these articles are to be submitted and how their content will help the community reading them. The article has been written in accordance to Wiki preferences and remains informative, neutral, with reliable and impartial resources. JossChristian (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JossChristian, I have undone my rejection as you have removed the Datagrail references. Qcne (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK great, thank you. JossChristian (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• PA4C101 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are 34 citations here from many third party news and government sources.

The Wiki editor who denied this article gave a model article example of a similar organization which had only 4 citations, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Independent_Colleges_and_Universities_in_Massachusetts

Why is a good article being rejected without cause? Thanks for your help. PA4C101 (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PA4C101, the draft has not been rejected - only declined - and you have re-submitted it and it is waiting for review? Qcne (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PA4C101: firstly, this draft is pending another review, so it's not clear why you're here advocating for it. You will get a verdict when a reviewer picks it up and runs the proverbial ruler over it.

Secondly, I posted several weeks ago on your talk page a conflict-of-interest (COI) query. Could you please finally respond to it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sources, a large number of citations proves nothing, in and of itself. Three solid sources may be enough to establish notability, while 33 flaky ones aren't. If you wish to help the next reviewer, you may highlight the 3-5 sources which you feel are strongest in terms of satisfying the WP:ORG requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CareerCollegeGroup (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Medix College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to get my work listed on Wikipedia, how can I get this submitted so it can be listed? CareerCollegeGroup (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CareerCollegeGroup: this draft has been deleted as promotional, and you seem to be blocked. I'd say the prospects are not looking good... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 82.7.16.167 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:No MoreLight666 creepypasta explained (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What misinformation is on this i atucally saw it can you tell me how its misinformation? 82.7.16.167 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? At what point did you think that was a bona fide encyclopaedia article? Don't do it again. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• GailBev (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Emmanuel Kamberov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, the article has been rejected for a lack of notability. You can look back at the talk message history, so I won't repeat that here. The person who reviewed it is focused on the number of citations and publications. Due to the extensive and significant impact of Dr Kamberov's invention on humanity and the estimated 8 million healthy babies born as a result, I think the notability speaks for itself. I understand there are certain criteria for being accepted as a new Wikipedia page, but there are times when you have to consider the bigger picture and its impact. I think he deserves to have recognition of this invention.

I can include this information on the talk page for the article, but I wanted to go a different route first to see what you have to say. If needed, is there a higher level of editor we can run this past? Thank you, Gail GailBev (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GailBev I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" with it. There are no "higher levels of editors". I can't say anything beyond what the reviewers have said. Wikipedia is not a place to honor someone or recognize work- the need to do so does not outweigh guidelines. If you feel that policies have been misapplied here, please tell how. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the link. I realized it after I posted that it wasn't directing to the draft page. I realize it's not the place to honor someone to recognize their work. It seems that this is a highly significant invention and as inventor that speaks to the notability. I will add this to the talk page as well. GailBev (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NazianzusGoat (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Todd Robinson (music engineer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page I was creating was denied by Asparagus for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." I'm not sure what further sources are needed. I said the music engineer won Grammys and cited the official Grammy website. The reviewer also said, "Grammy win establishes notability, but I'd like to see a few more sources about other things so he can pass WP:GNG." What further support is needed? What other things needs citation? NazianzusGoat (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that you need more citations for what you have(though the personal section is unsourced); you need more information, cited to something other than the Grammys website. Winning a Grammy makes him notable, but any article about him needs to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about him- we don't just want to know what the Recording Academy says. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rokkandi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:All the Pretty Sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm looking for clarification on the rejection of this article. The comment left by the reviewer noted the plot section was unsourced, but the Wikipedia style manual specifies that "plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." Based on the draft, is this the only issue with the article? Rokkandi (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rokkandi: no, this draft was declined (not 'rejected', which is a terminal option) for lack of notability. The comment about the plot being unreferenced was additional, and not the decline reason. (And yes, you are correct, that the plot does not require inline citations.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Banjoanne (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Feathered Pipe Ranch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am curious about when my re-submitted draft might be reviewed. I have worked to make adjustments, including adding a COI disclosure, that the person helping me with this first-time-for-me submission, but have not heard anything since 25 January. Thank you. Banjoanne (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banjoanne As noted on your draft, "This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,657 pending submissions waiting for review." I see your note on the draft, you should make a disclosure on your user page(see WP:COI for instructions). 331dot (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just at a quick glance, your draft just describes the existence of the Ranch and its offerings- it doesn't summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the Ranch, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Interviews with Ranch personnel are not an independent source and do not contribute to notability. Most of your sources seem to be description of the offerings of the Ranch in a journal. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2409:40F4:A4:D818:9C5D:E5FF:FE06:37D5 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vignesh Sivajayam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What things need this article. Please tell something to make this article live. 2409:40F4:A4:D818:9C5D:E5FF:FE06:37D5 (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more to be done, the draft has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nabeeha Virk (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shriya Lohia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to add this article to Wikipedia. Tell me how can I do that? Nabeeha Virk (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, the draft has been rejected. You have also failed to make the required disclosures. See your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 6gs3ds (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Formidable Vegetable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I'm writing an article and trying to make edits that were requested. There are a lot of citations and I'd like to edit them a few at a time, not sit for hours at a time. The comment says that if it's submitted with the without the requested changes that it may be deleted. However, I made a bunch of changes that it appears didn't save. I thought these things sort of saved in real time when editing but that doesn't look like that happened. I don't want to get it deleted but I don't see a save button that isn't a publish button. What am I missing? Thanks for your help.

6gs3ds (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@6gs3ds: when you've made edits, you need to click on the 'publish' button, which saves them. (The 'publish' doesn't mean the draft gets published in the main encyclopaedia, only that the changes are published as a new version of the draft. Yes, it's a bit misleading.) You can keep doing that as many times and for as long as you like. It's only when you click on the blue 'resubmit' button that you are sending the draft for another review. Does that help clarify things? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Wish I'd realized that or that it was going to reload at some point during the past week and not save my changes. Uhg. 6gs3ds (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• M.Nauman123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Khaie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'm a new Wikipedia user and I'm interested in reading and editing the Pakistani Television related articles. i just want to Create a new article on this page but the This is already created and rejected. Can i ask you advice for this Draft Creation and moving this to the Wikipedia Articles. And i also want to say that this draft was already created so i didn't make a new draft article. Please make some discussion on this draft or allow me to create a new article for the same name. Thank you 👏 M.Nauman123 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Skylynx2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Insalata Pomodoro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I having a hard time understanding why this article is not being accepted. I see other food articles on wikipedia with similar references and some without any. Please aide me in finding a way to publish this. Thank you. Skylynx2 (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]