Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


April 23[edit]

05:27, 23 April 2024 review of submission by 김낙회[edit]

Submission of this article has been rejected. I would like to know why my draft submission was rejected. I would also like to ask for advice on how to solve this problem. 김낙회 (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@김낙회: as it says in the decline notice (did you read that, by any chance?), the draft is insufficiently referenced, which is to say it is completely unreferenced, since the only alleged reference isn't actually a reference at all. Articles on living people must be comprehensively supported with inline referencing to reliable published sources; see WP:BLP for more info on this, and WP:REFB for advice on referencing. Appropriate referencing is also a requirement for notability, see WP:GNG, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:48, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Kaliper1[edit]

A non-authorised move was done from Draftspace to Mainspace, by User:WC gudang inspirasi , done without the nesecity reviewing processes or done by an authorised reviewer (ie. admin, oth.) (See: history) The same user have done the same act with two other articles. indeed this would be a WP:AFCREVIEW case and thus not valid I assume, so i reverted and move my drafts submition back to Draftspace. Thus for my question is, would this affect my submission? Cheers. Kaliper1 (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaliper1: rest assured, that move or your return move, does not affect the AfC review process or the draft's prospects in any way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well thats good to know,
however my draft assessment still holds the id 'redirect' and the draft isnt appearing in my selected WikiProjects's Draft-Class Pages for review (that is in Architecture, Japan, and Indonesia). Is there a way to fix this? Kaliper1 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking into my draft's source editing to rechange the assesment scale. I then tried to re-add manually to the wikiprojects's drafts list for review. yet I cant seem to find a way to fix this.. I'm hoping its not permanent, is it? Kaliper1 (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaliper1: sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, what "draft assessment", and what "id 'redirect'"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing yes, I mean the assesments here if im not mistaken. When drafts are sent or submitted, its supposed to be a draft class article. Now due to the erroneous move by said user, what supposed to be the draft article becomes a redirect class article. Thus I fear that due to this, it renders the review process harder to do so since in wikiprojects, it would not show up in draft articles if im not wrong? (eg. when searching up the drafts class articles in wikiproject Japan, Indonesia, and Architecture for 'Hirohara' it doesnt appear. it did before the move..)
sorry for my wording. my first language sadly is not english. really sorry! Kaliper1 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I did ask for a review by the Assesment Department however. To change back to draft class. (WP:WPWP/ASSESS) Kaliper1 (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok really sorry for the confusion!
Update: I've managed to re-add my draft to the given wikiprojects after deleting and re-adding the tags. and Now for the Assesment, I think that would change after review process once the draft is accepted. Thus, problem mostly solved!
Terima Kasih! - Kaliper1 (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaliper1: don't worry about the ratings for now, they only become relevant if/when the draft is accepted. (And FWIW, I believe they were at draft class when I looked earlier, and are the same now, so look to be in order.) Yes, in theory adding WikiProject tags to a draft may draw some attention from the projects in question, but in practice this seldom results in anything, and in any case won't affect the draft's passage through the AfC review process. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've warned the user, asking them to stop moving drafts past AfC; turns out this wasn't their first one, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 23 April 2024 review of submission by IRKTC[edit]

May I know the reason for the rejection of the submission due to being a company profile with referenced information? IRKTC (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IRKTC: this draft hasn't been rejected yet, only declined, although it will be rejected if you keep resubmitting without any attempt to improve it.
The reasons for the earlier declines are given in the decline notice, specifically inside the grey boxes.
I believe you are an employee or agent of this company. Please disclose your paid-editing status per the message I've posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IRKTC First, if you work for this company(I note you claim to have personally created the logo, more on that in a second) you are required by the Terms of Use to disclose that, see WP:PAID, and also WP:COI.
Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editors. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they do- we are interested in what others wholly unconnected with the company choose to say about it. This does not include press releases, interviews, announcements of routine business activities, or primary sources. The "vision" section is wholly unencyclopedic and should be removed.
You claim to have personally created the logo of the company- if you did, okay- but I assume that you did so just to upload it to Commons; by doing this you are indicating that you want to make the logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. This would mean that someone could take your company logo, print it on shirts, sell them, and your company would not entitled to any money from the sale of its own logo. If you don't want to do that, or don't have the authority to decide that, you should immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons. Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. That does carry some restrictions, such as not being able to be in drafts- but images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until and if the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and content like "We also cultivate a culture of Trusted Organization to meet the expectations and build confidence among stakeholders, ensuring sustainable growth." is totally inappropriate marketing speak. I'm surprised it hasn't been rejected already. Theroadislong (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IRKTC: All of your sources are unusable. We don't cite stock tickers and everything from the company's website is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I'll also echo my colleagues that this reads more like a brochure aimed at potential investors than a neutrally-written encyclopaedia article aimed at Ubon from Bangkok. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Amirdelv[edit]

How can i improve this article Amirdelv (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirdelv: by addressing the reasons for the decline(s). Your referencing is pretty useless, and fails to both establish notability and verify the draft contents. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you suggest me some sites for movie or tv series reference? where i can search for this series. Amirdelv (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amirdelv: no, I cannot, as I've no knowledge of or interest in Indian television. You should be citing the sources where you got this information from, and if those sources aren't reliable (as is the case here), then we couldn't accept this draft anyway. Which is another way of saying that you should be basing the information on reliable and independent sources, and merely summarising what they have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you choose to create an article on a subject, then your very first task, before you do anything else, should be to find several reliable, independent sources, that treat the subject in some depth - see golden rule for the criteria you should apply to each source.
The reason that this should be your very first task is that if you cannot find such sources, then the subject cannot meet Wikipedia's criteris for notability, and the article will never be acceptable. If this is the case, then every single second that you have spent doing anything on the draft other than looking for sources has been time and effort completely wasted. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amirdelv is a paid editor so the value of that time depends on whether TRK Studios are paying them by the hour. It is definitely wasting the time of multiple reviewers, though. Belbury (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me some time to locate the source. Amirdelv (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 23 April 2024 review of submission by FF184[edit]

I want to know what to do to exactly improve the article for publication. Currently all citation of evidence are correct and included. FF184 (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FF184: I couldn't understand when I reviewed this, and still don't understand now, what makes this person notable, ie. on what basis is notability being asserted? You need to show how they meet one of the defined notability standards, either the general WP:GNG or a special one eg. WP:DIRECTOR or WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Charlie[edit]

I'm not really too sure how I can change this for it to be approved. 137.22.176.98 (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Usr TC17[edit]

Good morning, I need help identifying a reliable source. In the first submission, I provided 50 sources, while in the second, I provided less than 10. Could you please provide me with an example of a reliable source from among these? I have many articles and interviews about Tenderstories in film magazines and online newspapers. Could you assist me? Usr TC17 (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usr TC17: I don't think the reviewer was saying that your sources are unreliable, but rather that the draft is not adequately supported by referencing, with much of the content without citations.
If you want to understand what we mean by reliable sources more generally, see WP:RS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ok if the citations from the sources are in Italian but translated in English? Usr TC17 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usr TC17: non-English sources are fine, as long as they otherwise meet the reliability etc. standards.
Having said which, I did wonder why it is that all the sources are in Italian, given that the company is UK-based? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company is UK-based, but its productions take place in Italy for films that are primarily released in the Italian market. Let me know if this is an issue. Usr TC17 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Not a problem, I was just being curious. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 23 April 2024 review of submission by 193.60.60.68[edit]

We're having trouble understanding which sections need reliable sources and which sources aren't considered reliable. Could you provide an example? 193.60.60.68 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we", accounts are strictly single person use. Wikipedia has little interest in unsourced, promotional mission statements, activities and organisation details. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend finding 2 published independent sources that have in-depth coverage of Natural Resources Institute, put them in the article. If you find those and ping me and point them out I'd be happy to help. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Mantascool44[edit]

Can someone make a description of the brand? I am the owner of the NANO GO brand, founder, 100% shareholder and director of NANOGO DETAILING. Mantascool44 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a business directory, so a company is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists. All topics must be notable by Wikipedia's definition to merit inclusion. In the specific case of a company, it must meet the notability criteria for companies and organizations. For this to happen, the company must have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. We have no interest in what a company wishes to say about itself, as this is an inherent conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for an answer. Mantascool44 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 23 April 2024 review of submission by 207.237.186.122[edit]

Helping to clarify edits that need to be made. 207.237.186.122 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display. Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every link you provide for your citations are malformed and point to HTTP 404 errors. The sole exception is to a PR Newswire piece, which is useless for notability as PR Newswire only ever publishes press releases (connexion to subject). Fix your links. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the links myself to assess them (protip: "/amp/title" breaks URLs) the lot of them are worthless.
You need better sources across-the-board. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss Cabrera at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to rigourous editorial oversight, including fact-checking. Without sources that meet those criteria, we can't even discuss having an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 19:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 23 April 2024 review of submission by 45.62.186.1[edit]

Hiii! I'm trying to understand which of the references are why this draft got rejected and why so I know what to change! Thank you! 45.62.186.1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for working on your article. The subject of separate articles needs to meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirement which can be confusing. To meet this it needs to meet either meet the requirements of an applicable special notability guideline (which IMO is not an option for your subject) or meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia's sourcing-based General Notability Guideline. So, roughly speaking, to meet that requirement you need to include two independent published sources (occasionally 1 will do) which cover the topic of your article in depth. So it's not about notability by the common meaning of the term, it's about finding two sources each of which meets all of those criteria. My suggestion is to look for and include those sources. If you are unable to find sources which meet all of those criteria, IMO it's best not to pursue creating a separate article for this subject. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Kaitlynnellis[edit]

I am editing my draft page and want to know what portions need more references. Kaitlynnellis (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaitlynnellis: All of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Fastbean[edit]

I don't understand how these cannot be better sources - they are primary sources - announcements made by the CEO for the most part. Unless a company is large, it's executives in the media, or they somehow capture the zeitgeist, I'm not sure that there is much chance of independent sources that are not derived directly from the company of interest.

For example, here's a news story about the announced closure of Post: https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2024/04/22/post-social-platform/

That news story quotes the Post post that I used as a reference. Is this somehow a more reliable source? fastbean (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastbean Wikipedia may not base articles upon primary sources. Wikipedia is dependent upon secondary sources.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
We have no interest in what the CEO says about Post News. We need to know what is said by others about it. Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:55, 23 April 2024 review of submission by NWUCU[edit]

Hello, could you provide examples of what primary sources are examples of reliable sources? I do believe that this article makes it clear that the subject has had a notable impact on the field of study, which should satisfy the academic-specific criteria at least in part. I am looking for ways to meaningfully strengthen the article before resubmission. Thank you! NWUCU (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NWUCU: Have you read WP:NACADEMIC? (Academics have a somewhat different standard since the vast majority of them, if they're properly doing their jobs, don't make the headlines.) The page explains how best to prove its various prongs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 24[edit]

07:24, 24 April 2024 review of submission by Elina Lovtsova[edit]

Good afternoon, please tell us in more detail what the reason for the refusal was, were links to independent sources such as The Mail & Guardian provided, or were not enough sources provided? Elina Lovtsova (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is us? User accounts are strictly for single person use. You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elina Lovtsova The sources don't just have to be independent, they must provide significant coverage of the subject, describing how they see the company as important/significant/influential- what we call the definition of a notable company. That your company has a "brand ambassador" is not significant coverage- that is a routine business activity. You have no sources with significant coverage of your company, they just serve to document its existence and activities. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 24 April 2024 review of submission by Marco Novecento33[edit]

I have prepared the draft, but it is not approved because there are not enough reliable sources, but I mentioned the only one I can provide (the official page of The Italian ministry), as it was done for the Italian wiki page on the same wine. What should I do to have my draft approved? Marco Novecento33 (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Novecento33 The Italian Wikipedia is a different and separate project from the English Wikipedia; each version has its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. If there are no more sources available, this topic would not merit an article here at this time. If it is considered to be acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia, I suggest that you focus your efforts there; there is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the premier Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 24 April 2024 review of submission by Insomnik[edit]

i want this to be public Insomnik (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Insomnik: okay, well, it won't be, because it has been rejected and will therefore not be considered any further. Sorry. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:30, 24 April 2024 review of submission by Xa45b[edit]

How can I write this article in a neutral way. And help me in sentence improvement Xa45b (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any alternative ? Xa45b (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xa45b: have you previously edited under different accounts, such as Nittin Das? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no sir, I do not any alternate account Xa45b (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you work for this company? 331dot (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am a college student. I am just interested in private military company like sadat and blackwater. I just interested in military related topic. Xa45b (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you gain some more experience by editing existing articles before attempting to write a new one. You may also want to use the new user tutorial as well. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so willing to extend good faith after looking into this. Draft has been tagged G4 (XfD: WP:Articles for deletion/Reliance Global Corporate Security), and I'm hearing a lot of quacking from Xa45b - enough that I've asked for the redirect to be XCP'd since he's already hijacked it once and will likely be autoconfirmed in a couple days' time barring administrator intervention. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:07, 24 April 2024 review of submission by Rosanna321[edit]

Need to know why it was declined specifically, how is it not posted as a Wikipedia article? Rosanna321 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's written in the style of an essay giving the views of the writer, not as a neutral encyclopedia article summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the topic. I'd suggest that you edit the article about the IGRC if it has any missing information. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosanna321: This draft falls into a contentious topic (post-1978 Iranian politics), as would any edits about the IGRC. Be extremely careful. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 07:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 25[edit]

00:24, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Student7y335[edit]

I am curious as to why this has been rejected as it meets the requirements for noteworthiness. The page now has over 21 independent primary references. The fund itself is significantly larger in terms of Assets Under Management than dozens of other funds listed on Wikipedia, many of which have less than 5 references.

Many less notable firms with far fewer references are found here Category:Venture capital firms of the United States

For example: Many pages have not even raised any money, or have raised less than $20 million. Bedrock has $2 billion in assets under management.

Please revisit and consider publishing, or provide more detailed guidance. Should I continue adding references? Student7y335 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student7y335 Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles that themselves could be problematic has no bearing on your draft. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. 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.
Your sources all describe the routine activities of the company, or are interviews with staff, which does not establish notability. Please see the advice left by reviewers. That the company has a lot of assets is completely irrelevant in terms of notability, unless independent reliable sources discuss the significance of that fact. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that....The subject of separate articles needs to meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirement which can be confusing. For this case it needs to meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia's sourcing-based General Notability Guideline. So, roughly speaking, to meet that requirement you need to include two independent published sources which cover the topic of your article in depth. So it's not about notability by the common meaning of the term, it's about finding two sources each of which meets all of those criteria. My suggestion is to look for and include those sources. If you are unable to find sources which meet all of those criteria, IMO it's best not to pursue creating a separate article for this subject. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:33, 25 April 2024 review of submission by RygelD[edit]

I was translating an article (for the first time), however, all that I was translating was data from a source that was updated since the original French article was written. Am I supposed to update the original article before doing this one? RygelD (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RygelD: in short, no. There is no obligation on you to update the French article. Nor is there a requirement that the corresponding article in each language version of Wikipedia is equally current, or that they present the exact same information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 25 April 2024 review of submission by RajiKL[edit]

I am writing the Wiki page for Panjab Radio but it has been rejected. It is a simple edit to state what the organisation is and how it is broadcasting in the UK. It is in a neutral viewpoint and not contradicting the Wiki rules. Where am i going wrong? RajiKL (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RajiKL: it isn't enough to show that this organisation exists, we need to see why it is worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. We determine that by looking for evidence of notability, which in simple terms means that the subject has been covered in multiple secondary sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have edited the page with references and formatting. Please take a look. RajiKL (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RajiKL The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.
You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? I see that you claim to have personally created the logo of the radio station- be aware that by doing so and uploading it to Commons you have made it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start a new thread with every comment, just add to your earlier one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should not just state what the organization does. They should summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about it and what makes it notable as Wikipedia defines a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Alexhoffman2304[edit]

I would like to know which sources from our reference list are considered unreliable. Alexhoffman2304 (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexhoffman2304: this draft wasn't declined for unreliable sources, but rather for lack of evidence of notability (which among other things requires sources to be reliable, but there is much more to it than that). None of the sources cited meets the WP:GNG standard required for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I will find better sources to show notability. Alexhoffman2304 (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 25 April 2024 review of submission by 174.76.113.10[edit]

i cant see word 174.76.113.10 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are asking here, but the draft has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Arnavgochuswami[edit]

hi Arnavgochuswami (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you have a question about your draft that was rejected? 331dot (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnavgochuswami:: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 25 April 2024 review of submission by 143.58.185.214[edit]

Hi there,

My article was deleted with no clear explanation. I was told to provide more references, but upon checking I no longer have access to add the references. Could you please help?

Many thanks, Nicola 143.58.185.214 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nicola,
Your draft was deleted as it was unambiguous advertising or promotion. Please note that Wikipedia prohibits any kind of promotion. We are an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not a venue to advertise a subject.
You can request your draft to be temporarily undeleted at WP:REFUND if you want to work on it further, but please keep the above rule in mind.
Please read What Wikipedia Is Not before you proceed, though.
Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Jeremiah97478[edit]

I am asking for the deleiton of this page, thank you. Jeremiah97478 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:33, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Aazir111[edit]

Cool Aazir111 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aazir111: that's not a question, and your draft isn't much of a draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 25 April 2024 review of submission by Clay2004[edit]

I need to find some good sources. What are some good places to look for non in-universe material? Clay2004 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clay2004: it seems you're going about this the wrong way. You shouldn't write what you know about a subject, and then try to find sources to back up what you've said. You need to start by first finding a few (3+) sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria, and write your draft by summarising what they've said, citing each source against the information it has provided. This gives you appropriate content and necessary references, along with proof of notability all in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 26[edit]

01:23, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Boingit[edit]

Hi, I submitted this draft early, assuming that since the queue is months long, I could work on it for a few days improving references before anyone looked at it. I was surprised when I was warned that it could be deleted after hitting publish just the 2nd or 3rd time. Am I doing something wrong to work this way? I expect to be complete and ready for review in a few days. I believe drafts may be improved up to the time they're reviewed. Thanks! Boingit (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boingit: just to make sure we're using the same terminology, when you're working on a draft and have made your edits, you click on the 'publish changes' button, which saves your edits. (It's only called 'publish' rather than 'save' to make the point that your edits will be publicly visible to everyone on the internet.) You can keep doing this as many times and for as long as you like.
When you feel that the draft is ready for publication, you click on the '(re)submit' button, which puts it into the pool of pending drafts, and a reviewer will at some point pick it up and assess it. You should obviously only submit your draft when you think it's ready, because the review can happen at any time, sometimes in a space of minutes, sometimes weeks or even months. (The system is not a 'queue', put rather a 'pool', as drafts are not reviewed in any particular order.)
Hope that makes sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, @DoubleGrazing, I think I get it now. I'll keep polishing and publishing but won't re-submit until I've gotten it where I want it and answered all concerns. Boingit (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:08, 26 April 2024 review of submission by MusicSoundsGoodAgency[edit]

Need help with Citations. I read through the rules and have added some but I want to make sure this gets approved first before applying again. Looking for any help as this is my first article! MusicSoundsGoodAgency (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MusicSoundsGoodAgency: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, you will need to submit your draft to get it reviewed. That said, I can tell you already now that it will be declined, as there is far too much unreferenced information. Articles on living people must be comprehensively referenced, with every material statement, anything potentially contentious and all private personal details clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. And speaking of reliable sources, a WordPress blog is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable, and Last.fm is actually deprecated and must not be cited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:33, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 175.139.211.236[edit]

PLEASE REVIEW AGAIN 175.139.211.236 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:16, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 140.141.4.72[edit]

I am not sure as to why my article was rejected. 140.141.4.72 (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't rejected as such, but rather declined on the basis that an article on that subject already exists at General Zionists. Your draft was replaced with a redirect to that article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy"[edit]

hello, I'm seeking help due to my article being declined for reliable sources. I'm also new to creating. Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy" (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy": your draft is entirely unreferenced. Even if you 'know' this information to be true (seeing as you're writing about yourself), we can only accept information backed up by reliable published sources.
And speaking of writing about yourself, don't. See WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, and WP:YESPROMO for some of the many, many reasons why not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:35, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Antwan123123[edit]

finished corrections Antwan123123 (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antwan123123: okay, no need to announce it here, just resubmit the draft when you're ready... as indeed you have done.
I can tell you straight away, though, that it is insufficiently referenced, with a lot of unsupported biographical detail. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, and need inline citations to reliable published sources to support pretty much every statement you make. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 102.90.42.133[edit]

Is this draft notable yet? 102.90.42.133 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Please do not resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Manveerdulay[edit]

What do I need to add/edit in order for this page to get approved? Manveerdulay (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected this back in November for it's totally inappropriate tone. If you have substantially changed the draft to cut out all the inappropriate text, let me know on my User Talk Page and I will have another look @Manveerdulay Qcne (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes the tone totally inappropriate? Manveerdulay (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your properly rejected draft is a hagiography packed full of praise for the subject. It is an obvious and glaring violation of the Neutral point of view, which is a mandatory core content policy. It is utterly unacceptable for this encyclopedia, and you have been told to drop the matter. Please do so now. Cullen328 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read your own draft and also read our guidelines at WP:NPOV? I will extract the totally inappropriate sentences and words for you:
- renowned
- boasting
- artistic voyage
- extraordinary contributions
- profoundly shaped by her lively perspective on existence and her affinity
- discover delight in every instance, regarding each day as an occasion for jubilation
- literary endeavors
- immense joy in engaging with the splendor of the natural world via contemplative strolls and the contemplation of meandering clouds
- she channels her artistic inventiveness into abstract paintings, providing a display of her diverse skills
- odyssey
- diverse nations
- pivotal juncture
- evoked deep distress within her, simultaneously fortifying her bond with her cultural legacy
- She is highly regarded as an accomplished author, poet, and painter
- dedicated to fostering understanding among different faiths
- commitment to public service
- dedication to her faith
- recognized as a valuable resource
- impart the genuine essence
- heartfelt trans-creation of the teachings and grandeur of the Gurus reflects her genuine love and commitment
- eagerly anticipated narrative
- profound connection with Sikhi
- heartwarming experience
- comforting words and delightful illustrations
- loving and reassuring perspective on siblinghood
- beautifully portrays
- enriching their understanding
- playful approach
- embrace its endearing story and cultural richness
- beautifully illustrated chapters
- esteemed storyteller
- profound message of Guru Nanak
- appealing to readers of all ages
- deeply intrigued
- heartwarming tale
- cherishes the innocent and tender moments
- cherished ceremony of Dastar Bandi
- seamless blend of English and Panjabi
- captivating story and warm illustrations
- delight boys and girls
- entertaining and engaging manner
- Readers are often captivated by
- The book gracefully emphasizes
- esteemed institutions such as Yale
To be blunt, the draft needs a complete re-write. It is currently designed to promote Inni Kaur and ellict emotions from the reader; this is prohibited on Wikipedia. @Manveerdulay Qcne (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I will apologise, @Manveerdulay, for not answering your question on your User Talk Page back on the 09 November. I was not notified of your question there. Hopefully my answer above answers it. Qcne (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 2.87.17.180[edit]

Hello,

I need specific information of HOW I'm able to make this article go live. The references I added are legit interviews of the band and everything in the article is based on facts being online. Is it that I added the references wrong or the actual references are assumed to be invalid?

Please let me know step by step what I have to fix!

Thank you in advance, Anestis Nine 2.87.17.180 (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anestis Nine Remember to log in when posting. Interviews contribute nothing to notability, as an interview is not an independent source. Any article about this band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Please see the advice left by the reviewer(specifically that all external links in the body of the text be removed). If you need help with referencing, see Referencing for beginners.
Do you have a particular need to have this article be "live"? 331dot (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand, but includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media. What are the particular needs to have an article live? It's a biography and reliable information about a band and current status of them. I already changed references and added more and specific links for everything in the article. Anestis Nine (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anestis Nine I will ask more directly- do you work for or are otherwise associated with this band? 331dot (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that has nothing to do with the article. Anestis Nine (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with it- if you work for them, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. If you are just associated with them, you must make a conflict of interest disclosure.
You have embarked on the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- write a new article- and having a conflict of interest/paid relationship makes it even harder. Wikipedia is not a place for a band to tell the world about itself(either directly or through a representative). We want to know what others say about them and how they meet the definition of a notable band. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you personally take this image with your own camera as you are claiming? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I just read the links you shared and I understood (mostly) how it should work and what is wrong in it.
I guess my information are not enough (For example that one photo is not with my camera but a friends so that should be clearly referenced) on it. Also I didn't knew that if you have any Association with the reffered-to is something invalid for Wikipedia) Anestis Nine (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So one of the next edits you make should be to make the needed disclosure on your user page(User:Anestis Nine).
If you are saying you took the image with your friend's camera, that's okay. What really matters is who the photographer was- mentioning the camera just serves to emphasize that.
Let's try it this way. What are the three(and only three, please) best sources you have that provide significant coverage of this band and are not interviews, press releases, mere announcements, brief mentions, or primary sources? 331dot (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I completely understand that. Nothing difficult to refer as is not an unknown person or else.
I think there are only interviews (which contribute nothing to notability) and articles with QA interaction with the band. Or articles that an author took information personally from the band or uploaded media (such music, or video music etc.) or social events(such us live shows / tours etc) that have being refereed from online magazines or articles/ authors.
Is any of the above suitable for the 3 sources you need? Anestis Nine (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to more specific sources(the actual news stories or what have you) but that's okay; interviews do not contribute to notability as it is by definition the subject speaking about themselves, which is not an independent source. Documentation of events or of the existence of the band's music(like music videos) in an of itself does not contribute to notability because that is not significant coverage.
You refer to "articles that an author took information personally from the band or uploaded media"; if these authors chose on their own to write about the band, and discuss how it meets the definition of a notable band, that could work, but we would need to know specifically what those sources are.
I might suggest that you examine some articles about bands/musicians(The Beatles, Metallica, Fleetwood Mac, Billy Joel, etc.) to get an idea of what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:23, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Boingit[edit]

Hi Folks, I created this draft article after reading a biography of the subject and being astonished he didn't have a wikipedia entry. It seems someone had created one but it was low-quality and was deleted. I resurrected some of the text, threw lots out, created some new, and provided many references (I'm working on more now). I have not yet cited the bio that I read that started me off, and as @Notcharizard has noted, there is no ref for where his "overall story" comes from. What's the best way to do that? Should I say in the beginning that he was the subject of a biography and simply cite the book there? Boingit (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boingit: Yes. We accept offline cites as readily as we accept online ones, provided you give us enough information that we could look the information up in a library that has a copy of the book. (We need, at minimum: Book title, author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, and either the ISBN or OCLC number.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 26 April 2024 review of submission by James Middieton[edit]

I couldn't find a reason why my Article was declined, I am wondering why. I also added some more info too. James Middieton (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@James Middieton really? You can see no reason why your draft was (correctly) rejected? None at all? Does it look like an encyclopaedic article to you? Qcne (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James Middieton: We don't accept what amounts to stories. We're an encyclopaedia project, and we (and our readers) have no use for inspirational stories like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:45, 26 April 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. ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Jmparthage[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering why my submission was rejected. This is a popular music YouTuber (over 300,000 subscribers), who also has created a very popular piece of music software (DecentSampler). It seems odd that neither they nor the software they created has a page. It says the references don't show significant coverage, but I provided 9 articles, all of which are about different projects, software, and videos that Hilowitz has worked on. The articles are by independent authors and publications. The rejection also states that the biography reads more like an advertisement. On the contrary, I actually think it's actually pretty scant as I stuck only to facts directly mentioned in the articles. I'm hoping this entry will get the ball rolling and more people will be able to fill in details as they become available. Jmparthage (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
The number of subscribers is not relevant, as that is not in the notability criteria. You did a nice job of telling what he does, but not what makes him notable according to independent reliable sources. Who considers him influential? What is his influence? Do others emulate him? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. That's an interesting challenge. I frequently see his work mentioned in Youtube videos made by other creators in the "music Youtube" space, but I'm not sure how to provide that as evidence of notoriety? Jmparthage (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, not "notoriety"(which has a more negative connotation). YouTube is itself not generally acceptable as a source, because anyone can post anything there without editorial oversight and fact checking. You'll need things like news reports or professional critiques/reviews of his work that describe what makes him important as a YouTuber. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the software makes him notable, it doesn't yet have an article. Probably he could be mentioned in such an article, but not a standalone one. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Mfmq67[edit]

My submission was declined and I am having trouble trying to fix the issues with it. Do you have any recommendations on what I can do ? Mfmq67 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did a nice job telling about what he does, but not what makes him a notable person. Many people give to charities and found businesses; is there something particular about him that makes him stand out among the 8 billion humans on this planet? 331dot (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfmq67: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of your sources are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Baileyirelan[edit]

Hi there, I would like to know a few specific reasons why this article was rejected. I do believe it has sufficient third-party sources discussing it, and that is the only reason I can find that it was declined. Thanks in advance. Baileyirelan (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baileyirelan Do you have a conflict of interest or are a paid editor with regards to this subject?
The draft was rejected for the exact reason stated- the subject is not sufficiently notable. You only wrote about the routine business activities of the company; this does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok that is good to know. To be notable enough, what coverage do I need to link rather than the routine business activities? Baileyirelan (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a conflict of interest or are a paid editor with regards to this subject?
You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic- coverage that goes beyond merely telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, how it meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:11, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Tronmajesteetiline[edit]

How do I make it publishable Tronmajesteetiline (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't publish vandalism. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Iamjakhar[edit]

how to rewrite? Iamjakhar (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid no rewrite is possible, the draft has now been deleted as promotion. Wikipedia is not for telling about yourself, please read the Autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 26 April 2024 review of submission by CrSb0001[edit]

Reason that the page was declined says that it needs multiple resources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject.

So do I need to add references that meet all 4 criteria, or could I include multiple references for one particular thing that overall meet all 4 criteria altogether?

CrSb0001 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each reference needs to meet those criteria; what you describe would be original research. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to 331dot's point, note that talking about "adding references" indicates that you have written the article BACKWARDS (as most people do who try to create an article without first learning about crucial ideas like notability and reliable sources). First find your sources (and check that each one meets the criteria in 42); then, if you have found the sources, forget anything you may know about the subject and write a summary of what the sources say. Otherwise you risk disappointment, frustration, and wasting a lot of your effort. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:57, 26 April 2024 review of submission by IIlIlIl[edit]

What needs done to this to get it approved? IIlIlIl (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pennington Family IIlIlIl (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:02, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Johnnydeadline[edit]

I need to know how I can appeal a rejection to a higher authority. I have removed the offending sources and recast the proposed Wiki with new sources, but admins are relying on an error when rejecting this Wiki. They keep telling me that this Wiki is based on Forbes.com sources. But it is not. The content I cite is published in Forbes MagazineWikipedia (WP:FORBESCON) is confusing Forbes Magazine with Forbes.com. It is incorrectly disallowing all stories related to Forbes because Forbes.com publishes some sponsored content. First, Forbes.com is NOT all sponsored content. Some of it is, and some of it is not. Other stories are exact replicas of what appears in the magazine, Forbes. For some reason, wikipedia is disallowing anything that is published that references Forbes. I am sourcing Forbes magazine, not Forbes.com. The Forbes Magazine content is produced and edited by journalists, not by advertisers and marketers. I would like to appeal that this content be allowed as a source. Can you help me? Wikipedia needs to changes its notes related to Forbes and Forbes.com since the people who are disallowing Forbes content do not understand the difference. Thank you, JohnnyDeadline Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Johnnydeadline (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
There is no "higher authority" here. First, you should raise your concerns with the reviewers. If they are misinterpreting guidelines, then we can discuss that here. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnnydeadline: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
The issue becomes very clear when you look at the list above - your sources are all unusable for one reason or another, mostly because they are written by him, treat him as background noise only capable of one-liners, or completely forget he exists. The decline looks very proper here, especially given our stricter sourcing standards for content about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:52, 26 April 2024 review of submission by All Write by Me[edit]

Hi there,

Respectfully asking for a more specific explanation of why this article does not meet the notability and/or other requirements. Mr. Miller has been featured, not just mentioned, in several independent publications which I took the time to cite. Is there anything I can change to gain a better chance of the article's acceptance? Thanks in advance, your help is very much appreciated. All Write by Me (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Write by Me I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). Much of the draft is unsourced, and the sources you do have aren't appropriate; Philanthropy impact is based on an interview with him, so is not independent. You did a nice job writing about his career and philanthropy, but not summarizing what makes him a notable person. If it's his philanthropy, we need sources that discuss that and say what his influence is. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 27[edit]

08:14, 27 April 2024 review of submission by 1.233.206.93[edit]

Hello! Would like to kindly ask for assistance for creating this page for Nikita Bondarenko. He is a verified author who got published in the largest and most reputable book store chain in all of Korea. The sources used int he article are reliable, alongside sources from leading newspapers in Sri Lanka and Russia about Nikita Bondarenko (individually). However, I still keep getting rejected... 1.233.206.93 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft wasn't rejected (which would mean resubmission is not possible), only declined. It was declined because there is no evidence of notability presented in the draft. And I suspect, for someone who has written (presumably?) only one book, and a very recent one at that, such evidence of notability simply does not exist. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. Remember to log in when posting.
Please describe your connection with this author, as you claim, by saying it is your own personal work, to have taken a very professional looking image of him.
That a particular retailer carries his book does not make him a notable author- please review the definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 27 April 2024 review of submission by Steelbird1967[edit]

Please Help me Editing This Draft Steelbird1967 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbird1967 I've added the submission template so you can submit it when ready; what help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i submit it to afc its under review till that can you tell me if there is any correction in this draft ? Steelbird1967 (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steelbird1967 You incorrectly placed it in the "Wikipedia" namespace, which is for policy pages, not articles. To submit it, you need to click the "submit your draft for review" button. Unless you have extensive experience having drafts accepted, you should allow the process to play out and not move it yourself.
You will also need to clarify the copyright of the image you uploaded to Commons. Unless you took it yourself or can show it was released with a copyright compatible with Wikipedia's(allowing for reuse for any purpose with attribution), you shouldn't have uploaded it. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Can You do it please ? i need your guidance to get started with this Steelbird1967 (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't clarify the copyright for you. If you aren't able to do that you should just request deletion of the image. Images are not necessary for the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 27 April 2024 review of submission by Gravitas temporale[edit]

simple: does Gravitas temporale get a notification, when this question dialog box is answered.😪 Gravitas temporale (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gravitas temporale: Your draft was declined because it appears to be more of an editing test than an attempt to write a draft. (And for the record, I can't assess your one source; it tells me I need to enable JavaScript even after I've temporarily disabled my scriptblocker and uBlock Origin. Even if I could, one source cannot by itself support an article.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your educated answer will not go unnoticed or lost. With such depth, the world is again in good hands. I will endeavor to write some source code on the 8 Automorphic Pascal positions, and why only "J1", can be found to perfectly express said, "prime mover", before using your buttons further.😇🫡😌0_o Gravitas temporale (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gravitas temporale: If you're using AI to write your responces, stop it. Your last reply verges on a non-sequitur. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. not really. although it surely engages the intellect. something i could apologize for, since it is so very simple, but also since even the extremely astute have a difficult effort keeping up, perhaps it's wiser to explain some small details, and write up the necessary table style with a 17px padding, later, as i go.🙂 EXPLAINING:
a pascal triangle can point up or down or to the left or to the right. but it can also be formed from the upper left, the upper right, the lower left, the lower right, corners [8 positions]. and if we are forming a Halkus Yarna in 45 "10 × 10" product boxes [using table style], and adding the 10 backbone product boxes [which are all the boxes that contain squares, and naturally cognitive developing], we sum a base of 55 boxes, for which i have charted, but only 54 to my credit, since an ancestor of mine, a certain Fibonacci who during his time was known as Leonard of Pisa, will quite expectantly receive credit for the original product table of 12×12, from the 12th century.
THAT SAID.
The "J1" can be seen clearly, due to the capital letters [upper case] forming to the left, and "J1", in the lower left.🙄 so if it's all the same to you, just know that this is nothing new from my side. and that on an intellectual ground, any remote peers have yet to be found in over 60 years.
In fact, perhaps i'll need to start a wiki tree of my own, gaining large handfuls of sponsers, just to get my story out there.😇til the next time, mr. Couriano, 再见.😳0_o Gravitas temporale (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 27 April 2024 review of submission by 2A00:23C5:5229:E501:8CB7:B994:D2CD:CF62[edit]

Unsure about reason this submission was declined: I would like to request further guidance so that I can improve the article. 2A00:23C5:5229:E501:8CB7:B994:D2CD:CF62 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
This looks like a case of chaff choking the wheat. Get rid of the poorer sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:02, 27 April 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:8:5CB7:A696:E3D4:3023:D753[edit]

Could you please provide more context or details about the rejection? 2409:40F4:8:5CB7:A696:E3D4:3023:D753 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, not an enyclopaedia article.
An article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject, nothing more. Your thoughts, beliefs, opinions (like mine, or any other random person's on the internet) do not belong there. ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 27 April 2024 review of submission by Wearefromjersey[edit]

Hi! Hope you can help answering my question - after submitting this draft, I got the below note: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." Not really sure what I'm doing wrong since all the info I'm citing is coming from these media sites and can be verified. Am I citing it incorrectly? Not sure what I need to change, any help and advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks so much! Wearefromjersey (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of your citations are to interviews. 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) 21:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 27 April 2024 review of submission by AdamsFunOfficial[edit]

ADVICE PLEASE GIVE ME SOME AdamsFunOfficial (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at your first article.
Writing an article (which is hard, for inexperienced editors) starts by finding places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write at length about it and been published in reliable sources.
Then if you have found some such sources, forget everything that you personally know about the subject, and everything said or written by the subject or its associates, and write a summary of what those independent sources say, citing them.
If you can't find several such sources, then the topic is almost certainly not notable according to the definition that Wikipedia uses, and no article on it will be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 27 April 2024 review of submission by 74.12.81.63[edit]

‪Concern regarding User:Jthomxav/sandbox‬". My page is declined. Could you pls help me publish the page 74.12.81.63 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Please see the advice left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your sandbox article is not properly referenced. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do so and WP:Biographies of living persons for why we have to be very strict about how sources are referenced. As to your sources themselves...
Your sourcing is better than we usually see around here; your best sources being the Galatea Resurrection zine review and the Asian-Canadian Observer (disregarding the ProQuest source as I can't say anything about it). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:31, 27 April 2024 review of submission by Hannoscholtz[edit]

I have written an article on Alex Counts, founder of Grameen foundation, author of several books on microfinance and social entrepreneurship, teaching philantrophy and social entrepreneurship at UMD.

The article was considered promotional and deleted within minutes, while I was still writing on the talk page why I consider this person to be worthy of a WIkipedia page. Since being deleted in entirety, it is not longer possible to access the work I have done.

I still think that Counts is worthy an entry, but are of course not willing to waste my effort a second time. What can I do? Hannoscholtz (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannoscholtz You created an article directly; this board is intended for drafts in the submission process. You may want the more general help desk. To answer you, though, your article was completely unsourced. Every substantive fact about a living person needs a source, per WP:BLP. The only references you had were to Counts' own work. Any article about him needs to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You said he is notable for his work in microfinance and poverty reduction but don't say who considers him so or why. You are welcome to submit a new draft via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannoscholtz, adding to 331dot's excellent advice, any unsourced statement about a living person that is on the public-facing pages of Wikipedia gets removed extremely fast (as you have unfortunately discovered). It is in fact required for editors to do so, since the privacy of living people is paramount. On the other hand, if you work on your page in the draft space, you will have time to source everything without danger of deletion. I also think you might be able to retrieve your work via WP:RFU if you request to have it draftified. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:46, 27 April 2024 review of submission by Lawrencehlevens[edit]

How can I upload photographic content to Will H. Dixon's profile? Lawrencehlevens (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrencehlevens We don't have profiles here, we have articles. Photos are not relevant to the draft submission process, which only considers the text and sources. You should just concentrate on getting the draft accepted first, you can then worry about images. If you're still interested in learning about the process, see WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see referencing for beginners to learn how to write in line references. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I hesitated in creating an article/profile whatever term you are happy with. I am not an editor or professional writer. If anyone is interested in correcting this essay by all means go ahead. It's too cumbersome and technically difficult for the average individuals. Feel free to edit. I really didn't like your tone in your response.
Kindly, Lawrencehlevens (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrencehlevens I apologize, I intended no poor tone; just trying to be clear and help try to get you on the same page/mindset. Many people who use the term "profile" are here for other purposes than writing an encyclopedia. Writing a new article is the most difficult thing to do here, and getting some experience by editing existing articles and using the new user tutorial can help immensely. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrencehlevens I'm afraid I have tagged the draft for speedy deletion it is a blatant copyright violation of https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/143687702/william-h-dixon Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you establish the page, instead of criticizing. You certainly didn't offer to help. Have at it. Lawrencehlevens (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't write an article about your topic for you. It's up to you to gather the independent reliable sources that give this man significant coverage, showing how he meets the definition of a notable person, and to summarize them in an article. As I indicated, this is the hardest thing to attempt on Wikipedia. If you want to do it I would suggest that you first do as I indicated earlier, to gain the knowledge needed first. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 28[edit]

14:04, 28 April 2024 review of submission by Tiwari Richa[edit]

i need assistance in understanding what exact needs to be changed if its about citations these all are reliable citations if there is something wrong in the way it ha been put give me an example how to write it Tiwari Richa (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiwari Richa: I take it you mean  Courtesy link: User:Tiwari Richa/sandbox? It was declined because it isn't appropriately referenced. We require inline citations to reliable published sources supporting pretty much everything in articles on living people. You have external links, not citations, and they are all piled together on the bottom where they support nothing.
Also, as pointed out separately on your talk page, you should not be writing about yourself, or promoting anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Linkedin.com and The Times of India are not reliable sources so cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted now as self-promo. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 28 April 2024 review of submission by Gkennish[edit]

How do I get this acknowledged? Gkennish (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been acknowledged and rejected, there is nothing there to make a viable article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gkennish: We don't generally have articles on neologisms that have recently been coined. You need to provide sources that show it's been used by multiple people to mean the same thing in order for us to even discuss having an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:45, 28 April 2024 review of submission by Np1608[edit]

i would like to know why my article page was declined Np1608 (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It tells you in the two grey boxes "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read WP:What Wikipedia is not for more information." and blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Np1608, in other words, writing about yourself is not allowed here. From your edits, it's showing. See also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 28 April 2024 review of submission by Ziggleluff[edit]

Hi, I recently created a draft of a non-existing page about the singer-songwriter Hayley Reardon. I am new to editing on Wikipedia so there are some things that I still need to understand. Anyway, I submitted the draft and it was declined for publication due to the following reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I used newspapers and magazines that talk about her music and some also includes interviews. Anyway, I stil do not understand what type of additional sources I need to add for a chance of submitting an article successfully.

I would really appreciate help in this matter.

Kind regards,

Ziggleluff Ziggleluff (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ziggleluff the first three sources are mostly interviews/based on what she says so considered primary sources and not independent. Atwood Magazine accepts "pitches" and their About us page states they "strive to create a collective of artistic visionaries" and so forth so does not appear to be a reliable independent source and same with Patoo. The Boston Music Awards is not a major award so not useful for indicating notability but fine to state she was nominated. Please see WP:NMUSIC along with WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for some examples of acceptable sources. S0091 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you are having a very common experience of new editors who rush into trying to create an article before they have spent time learning the skills they need. I always advise people to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles and learning about core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources and notability before trying it.
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. It follows that articles which are mostly based on interviews or press releases are of little value in supporting an article. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 28 April 2024 review of submission by PK.Hanafiyya[edit]

in which categories will more reliable sources be needed? PK.Hanafiyya (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Salafi Publications (SPubs) has zero independent sources and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 28 April 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. ColinFine (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

= 23:40:18, 28 April 2024 review of submission by 2601:201:8000:5BB0:B134:DB4E:95ED:1D60[edit]

Hello,

I was wondering what can the issue be fix on this draft article since it was decline of last year. I was wondering what’s there need to be improve for it to be accepted as a article. I did add new info and parts of this year of this subject. 2601:201:8000:5BB0:B134:DB4E:95ED:1D60 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 29[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1221288304"