Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

• Monetbaer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Adam Lynn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to publish this page on Adam Lynn and I think the submission was declined because it appeared that I had a financial stake. I would love help updating/editing this so that it complies with Wikipedia's terms and does not come across as biased. Thanks! Monetbaer (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monetbaer: No, it was declined because you have uncited claims in the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ShrimpInAHotTub (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Asian and American Market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There’s a box around the “Size” section and I don’t know how to remove it ShrimpInAHotTub (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ShrimpInAHotTub I've fixed it for you - there was an extra space before the text, causing it to display as code. I've also cleaned up the references. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ShrimpInAHotTub (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 118.221.204.69 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Methionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamyl...serine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ㅁ 118.221.204.69 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sources were provided in the draft, nor does Google provide any clarification, at least as a discrete, named entity in itself. It just looks like a long sequence of amino acids. Assuming the name itself isn't a joke because of it's length (I would imagine if this were real, the fairly standard abbreviations would be used), sources have to be provided for an article to exist, and nobody that has edited this draft over the last three years have provided any such sourcing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WWWedit (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Farrane Mama: Kenitraʼs Historic Communal Oven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was rejected, and I completely understand and agree with the decision. It read more like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. One of the challenges is that solid, documented sources about communal ovens in Morocco are not readily available, as these traditional facilities are deeply woven into local communities and often lack systematic documentation. However, we have to start somewhere, and in many cases, we must rely on oral histories—accounts from older generations who lived through and witnessed these traditions firsthand. For instance, Farrane Mama is not just a communal oven but a cultural monument, and its story deserves to be documented for future generations. What do you suggest is the best way to go with this one. Thanks. WWWedit (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles here require sources, and there's no way around that, so it'll be nearly impossible to find an article if sources can't be found. If that is the case, I would suggest that if you would like to spread awareness of this sort of thing, writing about it on your own website is a great way to get people to read about it. And if the topic further interests researchers who happen to read your page, perhaps some will produce more written research that will someday be the basis for an article here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm a bigginner Ngiphondims (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific question? If it's about your WP:AUTOBIO, you've provided no sources that come close to establishing that you're notable, in Wikipedia's sense. In fact, it looks like you took a basic template and then ignored half of the template, leaving things like "citation to reliable source, print or e, goes here" and "Important book to know about" in the draft. This draft was rejeccted, meaning that it will not be reconsidered at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ghaloit1983 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Ghaloit1983/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

as i am new to all these and want to contribute to wikipedia, but as i know about my topics and i am well sure for the information i shared about "Asian Education Group". but still the rejections happening again and again. Still i am eagerly exited to know the sugestions and need help to publish my first article successfully. Ghaloit1983 (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaloit1983, your draft has no complete sentences. It tells us almost nothing about the topic. It fails to establish that the topic is notable. It bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. It is more like a business database entry, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If you work for the Asian Education Group, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.

The draft was declined twice and now rejected, this means it will not be considered further. Literally the entire content of the article was "Asian Education Group, Noida, UP, India. Established in November 1986, Owned by Dr. Sandeep Marwah, Founder Film City, Noida, UP, India". Wikipedia is not a directory of things that exist. This is an encyclopedia which has articles that summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable organization or business.

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it isn't the only or even best way someone can contribute. We have millions of articles, most of which need work. It is highly recommended that new users first spend much time to get experience and knowledge of how Wikipedia operates by first editing existing articles in areas that interest them, as well as using the new user tutorial. It's possible to be a succssful editor and never write a single new article. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the valuable inputs, surely i will try to write new articles with keeping these points in mind. Ghaloit1983 (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Talosofficial2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Devjournal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello sir! i need help because i am keep getting rejected what can i do to fix it ? i fixed the part of advert and added Reference Talosofficial2 (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Talosofficial2: you have not been rejected, but your draft has.

I'm afraid your experience is rather typical for people who come to Wikipedia and immediately try to do the most challenging task there is for newcomers: to create a new article. It's like somebody picking up a tennis racket for the first time, and immediately entering a major competition, or having your first violin lesson and trying to give a public recital: not only don't you know how to do it, you probably won't even understand the feedback you get.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

My quick summary of how to create an article:

1. Look for sources which are reliable, independent, and have significant coverage of the subject. Ignore anything written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates. Ignore anything based on a press release or interview with the subject or their associates. Ignore anything which is on social media, forums, wikis (including Wikipedia). Ignore anything self-published, or published by an unknown or vanity press. Ignore anything that does not mention the subject. Ignore anything which does not have at least a few paragraphs about the subject. Ignore anything where those few paragraphs about the subject are obviously copied from the subject's biography or website. See WP:42 for more details.
2. If you do not have at least three sources that meet all those requirements, then give up: you are wasting your time trying to create this article.
3. If you do have three or more sources, then forget everything that you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say. Some of what they say might be trivial and not appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and you can leave those out. But make sure that you don't leave anything out just because you disagree with it.

ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand everything. I fixed all the issues that caused my submission to be rejected. However, I was blocked from resubmitting because:

Submission rejected on 26 November 2024 by KylieTastic (talk):

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Talosofficial2 (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Talosofficial2: that's not a question; was there something you wanted to ask?

But yes, you're right, this draft has been rejected, which means resubmission is no longer possible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah its a question what does it mean with:

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia Talosofficial2 (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Talosofficial2: it means that even after multiple reviews, the draft provides no evidence that the subject is notable, and it will therefore not be considered further. For most subjects notability is evidenced by citing multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, and have provided significant coverage of it. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly a very new venture and it is way too soon for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is for subjects that are already notable, this looks more like an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote. The site does not even have it's own domain just what appears to be a free hosting sub domain. It has six basic blog posts and claims only "23 Developers Already Onboard". As the site links to what appears to be your YouTube channel I am also assuming this is an undeclared Conflict of interest. KylieTastic (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Deathfrog10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Far Cry 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I really want this to be posted Deathfrog10 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you have provided 0 sources despite writing a lot and after three declines. Therefore, it's been rejected and won't be considered any further. Additionally (see also the comments on that draft), its not written in the format that readers would expect. JuniperChill (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, my article was turned down because the listed citations were linked with the topic (Lexercise). However, I don't believe this to be true. I found external, third-party writeups of the topic. Why was this denied? Thanks, Emma Emmasaltbox (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmasaltbox: the sources are blogs and the like, quite possibly sponsored or some form of churnalism. I don't think any of them are fully independent, and they certainly don't come across as particularly reliable. I'd say this was declined correctly.

What is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came across Lexercise through one of these blogs and have since used their free testing. I do think these third party reviews should not cause a denial of the page based on a guess that they might be connected, especially since there are no affiliate links on the pages or anything that would point to this being the case. Emmasaltbox (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Emmasaltbox: it doesn't matter whether they are independent or not: Blogs almost always fail to be WP:reliable sources, so may not be cited at all, and cannot contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Deathfrog10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Far Cry 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can’t submit anymore please help Deathfrog10 (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathfrog10: that's correct; this draft has been rejected, which means the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathfrog10: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, no matter how often you remove the decline/reject notices. No sources, no article, no debate. (You need to actually cite your sources here.) This article also reads like a press release. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tepojama (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bust of Sylvette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sorry if this is a silly question but can someone tell me if I need to do anything to clean up the formatting of my references or if they're good as-is? Thank you! Tepojama (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they should be formatted in accordance with WP:REFB, instead of just a Bare URL. JuniperChill (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why can’t my page get accepted to the Wikipedia Article? I have sources of pictures, ancient-medieval paintings, ancient-medieval art works, statues, 16th-19th century art works, many cultural relics, historical objects stored in museums, historical clothes stored in museums, modern art works portrayal of the historical past, and many more. I study China-NorthEast Asia History for many years. I will send it in the MiaoFuk Wikipedia. MiaoFuk is a clothing very similar to HanFuk (HanFu on Wikipedia) and it’s also has GiJzoang/QiZhuang clothings (there is a QiZhuang Wikipedia) MiaoFuk is a Chinese clothing style worn by another ethnicity. I have a lot of sources, I will just send it in later. Chinese-NorthEast Asia History is not really taught in the United States and that’s okay because I can send in more works. Wikipedia has a lot of American History compared to any other Worldwide Histories because it’s an American invention. JohnHapi (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnHapi you had six oppotunities to include sources yet you didn't, and the draft was rejected as a result. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for butting here uninvited, but I think I may be able to help out here.

First of all "MiaoFuk" or "Miao Fuk" doesn't appear to a word in English. It appears to be an idiosyncratic transliteration of 苗服 - the coda "k" here would it appear to indicate that it's a transliteration from one of the Yue Chinese family of languages.

What I would suggest is that you start a draft Draft:Miao clothing, starting with text like "Miao clothing is the tradition dress of the Miao people..." and references from reliable sources, not your own personal assertion that "I have sources of pictures, ancient-medieval paintings, ancient-medieval art works, statues, 16th-19th century art works, many cultural relics, historical objects stored in museums, historical clothes stored in museums, modern art works portrayal of the historical past, and many more."

I hope this may assist you. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Otaneka (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Octavia Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My page was declined due to missing footnotes. I'm unsure of how to add the footnotes. Can an experienced editor complete this task? Otaneka (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otaneka: nobody else can really do that for you, at least not without considerable difficulty, because we don't know from which source each piece of information came from. The process is explained at WP:REFB, please see that for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Venugo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Devendra Rajesh Kothe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please merge this page with Devendra Rajesh Kothe new page or already existing subject Venugo (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Venugo: there is no miraculous Merge-a-matic® article merger, it's just a case of manually editing the content to selectively insert information (and references) from one article to another; or, if you like, improving and supplementing one article with information appearing in the other. In any case, this isn't something we do here at the help desk, that's your job (or the job of whoever wishes such merging to be done). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have a project that makes a new topic and I chose to make a new card game that was released 1 year ago UnionArena most of the resources are on the official site I don't know how to find other sites that can Improve my topic which got declined HewRamen (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HewRamen: Wikipedia doesn't publish articles on things that merely exist (with some exceptions, like major geographical features or most species), but rather on things that have been previously covered in the media. Wikipedia articles then (mostly) summarise what media outlets, and more specifically reliable and independent secondary sources, have said. If such sources don't exist, then they cannot be summarised, and a Wikipedia article on the subject cannot be created; this is described as the subject not being "notable" enough for publication. I expect this is what we're dealing with here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Commercialindustrial (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Quintessential (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I’m seeking guidance on how to improve this draft. It has been rejected multiple times for reading like an advertisement.

I have made several attempts to rewrite it with a more neutral tone, but I’m struggling to get it approved. To me, it seems neutral, but I may be missing something. Could anyone point out specific sentences or sections that come across as promotional? I would appreciate your feedback so I can make the necessary edits. Commercialindustrial (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Commercialindustrial: this draft has now been rejected (after multiple earlier declines), and will therefore not be considered further. Hence, there seems little point in analysing it further.

You have stated that you are not being paid to edit on this subject. In that case, could you please describe, in your own words, your relationship with Quintessential? Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I understand that the draft has been rejected multiple times, and I appreciate the concerns raised. My intention with this draft is to provide a factual and encyclopaedic entry for the company, relying on reliable, independent sources that establish its notability.

To clarify, I do not have any connection to the company, nor am I being paid for this submission. My sole aim is to contribute verifiable information about a subject that, in my view, meets Wikipedia’s notability standards due to significant independent coverage in reputable publications and its contributions to the industry. Commercialindustrial (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Commercialindustrial: just to clarify, this draft has not been rejected multiple times; it has been declined multiple times, and rejected once. The difference may seem pedantic, but is actually substantive: decline means that the draft can be resubmitted once the decline reasons have been addressed; rejection means it cannot.

You registered your user account, and as your very first edit created a draft on Quintessential in your sandbox User:Commercialindustrial/sandbox, followed shortly after that by creating the same at Draft:Quintessential (company). To date, your entire edit history has to do with Quintessential. Yet you have no relationship with them. Well okay then, if you say so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification regarding the difference between “declined” and “rejected.” I appreciate your explanation, as it helps me better understand the process and policies.

Regarding my account activity, you are correct that my edits have focused on this draft. This is because I registered my account specifically to contribute information about this topic I believe is deserving of an encyclopaedic entry. While my editing experience is limited, I am eager to learn and improve to ensure my contributions align with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you again for your time and assistance. Commercialindustrial (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're just wondering how you came to edit about this topic- you didn't pick it at random to edit about. Do you intend to edit about other topics? 331dot (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to edit other topics as well. Since I live in the neighbourhood of this topic, I chose to contribute to it because I believe it is deserving of an encyclopaedic entry. Commercialindustrial (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Maumau1978 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Automad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear help desk team,

I would like to provide better source for my draft on Automad. Therefore I have the two following questions:

1. Is it ok to use references in other languages. In example having an article written in English that references a webpage written in German? 2. I can see that articles about related subjects in the same space provide a similar set of sources such as the pages of Drupal, Bolt, CMSimple, Grav, Made-Simple, just to name a few. More can be found here in the PHP section. What is the main difference here and how can I improve my article to be notable?

Thank you in advance and all the best! Maumau1978 (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References do not need to be in English, as long as they meet all other requirements for being reliable sources. It's not a good idea to use any random article as a model or example, as those too could be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of others that themselves may be inappropriate. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been examined by the community. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 118.69.188.172 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:InteliSys Aviation System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you advise what I should do improve this article and meet Wikipedia standards? 118.69.188.172 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback. Please see the messages left by the previous reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kwame lemuel (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:KWEKU SMOKE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

my project was deniad Kwame lemuel (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwame lemuel your poorly-formatted draft was declined, meaning you can still improve it and resubmit. The formatting seems to be Markdown - did you copy this from somewhere? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• YamunaIRE (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Art 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why does this page have to be speedy deleted? YamunaIRE (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's AI-generated spam, @YamunaIRE. qcne (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WIKI.THEMASTER (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Florida Online Basic Driver Improvement Course (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm creating a page to explain the benefits of taking online traffic school, trying to understand the approval process WIKI.THEMASTER (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WIKI.THEMASTER, Wikipedia doesn't host AI-generated essays or how-to guides. Wikipedia articles are summaries of independent reliable secondary sources. qcne (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WIKI.THEMASTER: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't accept AI-generated text anywhere on Wikipedia due to its inability to stay on-topic and its tendency to make things up out of whole cloth to support whatever arguments the prompt demands. We also do not accept essays or other forms of original research no matter if it is written by a human or an AI chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 70.23.62.81 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gloria Sabra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am a manager for musician Gloria Sabra. Please either approve the page for musician Gloria Sabra, or re-edit to have it approved. You can check that Gloria is a musician and her music is available on major music streaming platforms. Thank you. 70.23.62.81 (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, the draft was rejected (not just declined) on 8 November, as not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia.

Secondly, if you are her manager, then you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor. This is a requirement of its terms of service.

Thirdly, Wikipedia is not social media or a listing service. It is not enough that Sabra is a musician or that her music is available. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and any article about her should be based almost 100% on what people wholly unconnected with her have chosen to publish about her in reliably published sources, nothing else. Your draft, even after three declines, cites not one reliable source, and therefore makes no claim that she meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability. ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mackmahak (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Radhika Gupta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

can you help me to understand what Wikipedia can carry...as per the guidelines we have added the content Mackmahak (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackmahak: I'm not sure what you're asking, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sujitbus (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sujit Kumar Mishra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Admin, The edit text for my biography has been declined. So I want to know how I can Fixed the issue. Sujitbus (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sujitbus: there is insufficient evidence of notability; you need to show how you are notable by either the WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACTOR standard.

Also, articles on living people require inline citations. Please see WP:REFB for advice.

Finally, if this is about you, please read and understand our autobiography policy WP:AUTOBIO. In short, autobiographies are very strongly discouraged. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

Yes It's my autobiography. inline citations is missing on my bio page. So I'll update on same. and I'm fulfill of notability I have articles and I'm award winner Author including actor who's worked on Indian TV shows and some notable movies. Sujitbus (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest that you read WP:PROUD. There are good reasons to not want an article about yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tizzythewhale (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sachin Jakhar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

any suggestions for this article to get accepted in wiki Tizzythewhale (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizzythewhale: this draft was rejected (months ago) for lack of evidence of notability. If you wish to appeal the rejection, you need to take your case to the rejecting reviewer, with evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• AviKluger (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Feedforward Interview (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My Draft was rejected: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner." I am interested in improving the Draft so it might be accepted in the future. Yet, I did not understand the comments. For example, it says, "Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources," while my Draft contains 27 peer-reviewed journal articles as secondary resources. What am I missing here? Could you please direct me to existing entries considered exemplary in this domain so they can serve as a model for improving my Draft? AviKluger (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AviKluger: This reads more like a research paper about the method, mixed with an instruction manual on how to do it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano thank you very much for this helpful clarification. Could you please suggest a few model entries in related fields so I can attempt to revise my entry successfully? Avi AviKluger (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wertk (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Islamabad Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do agree with the "not sufficient content" as this article requires more info & citations but "Submission should be merged into an existing article" with Arrest_of_Imran_Khan is not ideal because that event happened in 9 May 2023. The indiscriminate killing of civilians by security forces in Islamabad happened on 26 Nov 2024 with at "least" confirmed deaths of 17 individuals as per the Guardian newspaper. Event of this magnitude deserve its own page and we have many such examples on wikipedia. Perhaps the name could be changed to less charged language like '26 November Incident'. Wertk (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wertk: okay... so what is your question? This draft has been resubmitted (without any improvement, which is never a good idea, although I can see some edits were made after that), so you will get a new review sooner or later.

If you haven't already done so, you may want to review our guideline on notability of events, at WP:EVENT. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a news outlet, just because an event has occurred doesn't necessarily mean that we should have an article on it. (Note, I'm not saying that we should not have an article on this particular event, just making a general point.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the reviewers have gotten it wrong, you are free to move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself(though it's not a good idea unless you have experience in having articles accepted, which you don't). This process is (usually) voluntary. You would be taking the risk, though, that it would get nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be declined since we already have an article on this, and this falls into a contentious topic anyway. New users should stay as far away from contentious topics as possible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anonpriest (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Azar Habib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft was declined because of it's resources. I would assistance on finding other resources if any and if possible to mention why the resources I provided were not adequate. Anonpriest (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonpriest: to be more precise, this draft was declined because it does not demonstrate notability, which, indeed, is usually a problem with the sources. You should be writing this by summarising what reliable and independent sources have said about the subject, and then citing those sources as its references. Assuming that's what you have done, then it could be that the subject really isn't notable enough. In any case, we don't do the research for you, that's very much your job as the draft author. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I received message from Laiba Fareed stating that against 1000$ she will approve my article and will maintain it for the next 8 months. I see this as a potential scam but as long as this is my first article in Wikipedia I am not sure if this is just a scam or this is some agent working for Wikipedia and trying to win some extra cash for work which is usually free. Strange aspect of the conversation was that the conversation happened in WhatsApp not in the Wikipedia website (as normally happened till now). Could you please provide me with some information and also check what is the status of my draft because I think that I am pretty close to approval and she knows it (if she really is a moderator for Wikipedia) and just before publishing the article she tries to earn extra money. I am open to hear your opinion and I hope that soon my article will be approved :)

Best Regards, Lstr1 (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lstr1, that is a scam and unfortunately a common one. Wikipedia will never ask for money in exchange for editing services.

Please immediately follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning and report the user to the Wikimedia Foundation. qcne (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lstr1: I've no idea who Laida Fareed is, but you're right, this is almost certainly a scam; see WP:SCAM for advice on dealing with it. And do not pay any money, there's a high chance you won't get anything for it, nor get it back. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the fast response. I will definitely report this lady. Lstr1 (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Epiphytehsu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Taiwan champion trees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need an advice for how did the article "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Epiphytehsu (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• IlikeCubepidia (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • How to open chromebook while holding a full glass of water containing cocunut juice? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reader,

I trust this message finds you well. As part of my ongoing efforts to craft a comprehensive and highly informative tutorial, I am focusing on the nuanced task of opening a Chromebook while simultaneously holding a full glass of coconut juice. It would be nice if you gave me any tips or improvments for next time because my article got rejected which i could not understand why. IlikeCubepidia (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vandalise Wikipedia, @IlikeCubepidia, which is what your draft was. You may be blocked from editing if you vandalise further. qcne (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IlikeCubepidia: I've deleted your draft (such as it was), as it clearly had nothing to do with our objective of building an encyclopaedia. Please find a different platform for your tutorials. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry and did not have any intent to vandilize wikipedia but its just very hard to find things to write about that someone else hasnt written about these days. IlikeCubepidia (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IlikeCubepidia: there are countless ways to contribute here, besides creating new articles. In fact, new users would be well advised to contribute in just about any other way, before attempting to write their first article. I will post some suggestions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IlikeCubepidia Check out Special:Homepage which includes suggested edits to existing articles which would be a really good place to start. qcne (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Purnarthapms (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rahul Rathi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wish to know in detail why the request was declined. Moreover, this is the page of a renowned Indian Entrepreneur. In the reference section, all the key references have been provided pertaining to the person. Request you to kindly review the same. Purnarthapms (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Purnarthapms: because it was purely promotional, with no evidence of notability.

And you clearly have a conflict of interest, which must be disclosed without delay. I've already posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no undisclosed payment. I am an employee of this company and I have posted the information of my owner. Kindly explain how this can be an undisclosed payment. I have also included all the credible references for you to ensure the correctness of the content. Do let me know what else do you need. Purnarthapms (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you are an employee, it is mandatory that you make a declaration on your User Page. Follow the instructions at WP:PAID immediately. qcne (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Purnarthapms: your very next edit should be to disclose your paid-editing status, before you find yourself blocked.

And please don't open a new thread with each comment, just add to this thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have upaded the user page as per the guidelines. Request you to kindly help me publish the draft again. Purnarthapms (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Purnarthapms. Unfortunately your username is against policy and you will need to change it.

As for Draft:Rahul Rathi, I see no indication that this person meets our strict notability criteria. The draft is also written in an inappropriate way for an encyclopaedia. Therefore the draft will not be published.

Have a read of Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any further questions. qcne (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mayommugezi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mayom Mayom Atem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to know what is missing on my article? Mayommugezi (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that Mayom meets our special notability criteria, @Mayommugezi. You can find the criteria at WP:NPEOPLE. qcne (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 102.85.58.140 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Spyda MC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alimansi Wanzu Ainomugisha well known as Spyda Mc is a Ugandan hip hop rapper, Mc, and Events Host.

Spyda Mc was born in 1986 Alimansi Wanzu Ainomugisha. He started his music career in early 90s as a Underground Rapper until 2000s and he put his music career on hold to teacher Rap in the Slums of Kampala and outside the country. In 2024 he changed to Afro Beats and released songs like Abantu Mukisa. He released his breakthrough through song "Abantu Mukisa" in 2024 and he was nominated in several awards across the country. Spyda Mc was the first African to do the song cover of Dear Mama by Tupac Shakur. 102.85.58.140 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and after it has been rejected, you do not resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S Parvez islam (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MD Parvez Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My life line P.S Parvez islam (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, your draft needs to be in English. If you would prefer to contribute in Hindi, please go to the Hindi Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P.S Parvez islam: that's not a question, did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P.S Parvez islam: do not do that again, you are already getting quite close to a block even without spamming this help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My life line P.S Parvez islam (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? qcne (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashok76yadav (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Ashok76yadav/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello sir way you are rejected my artical Ashok76yadav (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashok76yadav: This draft has been rejected as the product of an AI chatbot and will not be considered further unless rewritten by yourself without using the AI. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashok76yadav AI generated promotional spam, which is prohibited. qcne (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Edward200211 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Edward Speller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What is wrong with the page Edward200211 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @Edward200211, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and doesn't host biographic articles about non-notable Youtubers. qcne (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You state this but there are plenty of much less notable people on Wikipedia. Understood that it's an encyclopedia - TheReactionKing (Edward Speller) is known, gathered over 4 Million views across YouTube alone. 12,000,000 if we include all channels. Over, 50,000 subscribers if we add all channels. Theres people on Wiki with just a date of birth and place of birth. This is certainly more notable than a lot of Wiki pages. I request it's accepted. Edward200211 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do go ahead and provide three strong reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage of Edward. qcne (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward200211 Wikipedia contains many sub-par articles. They usually date from the Wild West days of Wikipedia. Times have changed. There is only so much time we have to clear them out. If you would like to tell us about a few then we will look at them individually. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like my draft accepted. I believe 50,000 collective subs as well as 12,000,000 consolidated views is worthy enough of a Wikipedia page. Even more recent pages have less information and popularity than this. Not just "wild west days" of Wikipedia. Edward200211 (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward200211 With respect, your desire to have what appears to be your autobiography accepted has no value here. The only thing which has value is references which pass WP:42. There is much work to do. Please do that work, then the rejecting reviewer may consider reversing their rejection. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viewcounts do not contribute to notability, @Edward200211. As I've stated, give me some strong reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage and I will assess. qcne (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adityaksingh409 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alfaaz Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

it's my request to approve my page for an punjabi singer 'Alfaaz" Adityaksingh409 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityaksingh409: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityaksingh409 totally unreferenced and will not go forward 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Orange sticker (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Connor Ratliff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I submitted this draft for review as I was aware there was already a redirect. Now I have discovered that in the redirect's history there was already a full article, so I have restored this. How can I withdraw this draft from the review queue? Orange sticker (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orange sticker  Done. I removed the request for review. if you wish for the draft to be deleted please just blank the page, or reply here and sometime will handle that for you 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll blank it when I've checked if any of the references can be used on the other article. Orange sticker (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Killianordono (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Killian Ordono (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i had to submit multiples times because of people making changes but it is the right requirement for a page. Killianordono (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Killianordono: None of your sources are usable (the only one that isn't an online storefront or social media is Genius), and even if they were they aren't properly cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

properly cited? as in what how do you do that and i didnt know any sources because i myself is making it about me so there really isnt any sources its the actual person who knows themselves the most writing the article. Killianordono (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Killianordono: I linked Help:Referencing for beginners above. As to the actual person who knows themselves the most we absolutely cannot rely on "just trust me bro", especially if the person asserting that is the subject themselves. We are looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to fact-checking and other editorial processes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ive fixed the article can it be submitted now? Killianordono (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because all of your sources are still unusable (as they're the same ones dismissed before) and you still haven't actually properly cited them. (Those angry red notes are malformed cites.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thehistorianisaac (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:7th Marine Brigade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How long does a draft need to be for the submission to be accepted? I translated an article from chinese wikipedia but the draft is pretty short compared to some other AfC submissions because tonnes of info related to it are classified Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: Length isn't relevant, compliance with English Wikipedia's sourcing/notability requirements is. Straight translations generally don't work for this reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Divya Ramadoss (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vimala Rani Britto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I dont understand why my article is getting rejected. it is not promotion angle, i strongly feel the article is not an advertisement of the person.kindly help. Divya Ramadoss (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Divya Ramadoss: The article does a lot of editorialising, and is filled with as much buzzwords as your average badly-written article on a company. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I will revise the article to remove any promotional language and ensure it is neutral and fact-based, supported by reliable, third-party sources. The subject is notable for its contributions to the society, with coverage in reputable publications like economic times. Please let me know if there are additional specific changes needed to meet Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate your guidance. Divya Ramadoss (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Ramadoss You took a picture of Mrs. Britto and she posed for you. You also were apparently at a wedding that she attended. Please describe your connection to her. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I have no personal or professional connection to Mrs. Britto. The photo was taken with her consent during a photoshoot for an interview for Galatta Media. My intention is solely to contribute verifiable and neutral content about her based on publicly available, reliable sources. Please let me know if further clarification is needed. Divya Ramadoss (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Divya Ramadoss: that doesn't really answer the question that was posed. From the photos alone, it would seem that you keep bumping into the subject, and taking photos of her, which would suggest some sort relationship. Or else you didn't take these photos, and cannot therefore claim them as your own work. Could you please clarify? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aesthemii (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Story Of Pearl Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how do i fix my draft article to it could pass the review? what more reference do i need ? what more do i include? Aesthemii (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesthemii first of all, you need to properly format the references using inline citations, instead of dumping them at the bottom of the draft. You also need more reliable sources. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Intenselatte (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jobo Gamer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

not sure what i need to add to make it sufficient Intenselatte (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately nothing, @Intenselatte, as I see nothing that makes this person meet our Wikipedia:Notability criteria. qcne (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intenselatte What is your connection with this person, as you took a picture of them? 331dot (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaron Bradley10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aaron Bradley (Voice Actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Approval For Aaron Bradley Page. Aaron Bradley10 (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bradley10 You will need to resubmit the draft for review for it to be considered, which you should only do if you have addressed the concerns of the last reviewer. Note that writing about yourself, while not absolutely forbidden, is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. We don't want to know what you say about yourself, only what independent reliable sources choose to say about you. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page, you say you have been paid by Aaron Bradley- if you are not him, you must change your username immediately, please do so via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Veer27Gupta (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ISKCON Ujjain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was creating a new page about ISKCON UJJAIN but something is missing there which makes it declining again and again I'm unable to understand what changes should be done to make it accepted Veer27Gupta (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Veer27Gupta: the draft is unreferenced, and only lists the subject's own website as sources. No subject can establish its own notability; we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can I provide reference of wikipedia and resources other than only using their website will make the article publishable, or I have to do some more changes Veer27Gupta (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Veer27Gupta: since you ask, yes, you will probably need to rewrite much of this. Wikipedia articles mostly summarise what independent and reliable sources have previously published about a subject. So you need to start by finding such sources, summarising them (in your own words – no copypasting!), and citing each source against the information it has provided. That will give you the appropriate content, required referencing, and the necessary evidence of notability. You may then supplement this with small amount of factual and non-contentious information from primary sources such as the subject's website, but the draft should be predominantly based on third party sources, not on what you know about this subject or what the subject wants to tell the world about itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thehistorianisaac (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:7th Marine Brigade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received a comment in my talk page which claimed that my draft had been "created" but when i tried to search it turns out it was not an article yet. May i ask what is going on? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: I think it's someone playing games. I'll go have a word with them... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Zoe Sharma (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Era Joshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because even after providing for reliable references my article is rejected and now I can't resubmit it since the option has been disabled. Zoe Sharma (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoe Sharma: that is correct, this draft has been rejected, because after multiple reviews there is no meaningful referencing, and even less any evidence of notability. That's is the end of the road for this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through the references that I have provided, they are meaningful as well as reliable. Zoe Sharma (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoe Sharma: they are not meanintful, they are completely meaningless; they aren't even proper references, just websites. References are meant to support information in the draft. These just point to the home pages of random websites. And they are not cited anywhere in the text, merely piled on at the bottom. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned 2 such references which are mentioned in the text. However they were also rejected. Zoe Sharma (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoe Sharma: there are no references "mentioned in the text". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoe Sharma: You have a one-sentence "draft" which makes no mention of any outlets, and your sources are all website homepages, rather than articles on those domains as we require. We're not going to spend hours hunting down the articles you're trying to cite because you're not inclined to do the work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the one rejecting the draft, I should perhaps be clear about this: I searched both Hindustan Times and Washington Post for mentions of Era Joshi, but there was nothing. Also, the draft text is copied straight from Joshi's own website (which has no other info). It's rather obvious that Era Joshi is simply not notable. Maybe she will become notable in the future, but not yet. --bonadea contributions talk 21:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bibi Raheela (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Digitonz: Digital Marketing and Development Solutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear I hope this message finds you well. I recently submitted an article about my company, Digitonz, but it was unfortunately rejected. I understand there may be areas for improvement, and I would appreciate your guidance on how I can enhance the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

I have been working in this field since 2014 and registered my company in 2024. I want to ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines, and I am open to any suggestions or support you can provide in making the necessary improvements.

Could you please advise on what changes I need to make to improve the article? Any help in pointing out specific areas for revision would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Bibi Roheel Sarhandi Founder, Digitonz Bibi Raheela (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves. See WP:COI as well. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jhrtvunbyhhf (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DinoGold4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

im A FAMOUS roblox playwe Jhrtvunbyhhf (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. That doesn't make you notable though. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jhrtvunbyhhf (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DinoGold4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm a roblox plauer, @Dinogold4 i need help, now green avater Jhrtvunbyhhf (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhrtvunbyhhf You were already told no. Being a "famous" Roblox player does not make you notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Not to mention the undeclared WP:COI. Sandcat555 (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rosebabysu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dai Ying (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can anyone help me check whether the draft I submitted can be passed? I have revised it many times. Thank you very much. Rosebabysu (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosebabysu That is what the next review will tell you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to pull the plug on this draft, the sources simply aren't there, and to somehow magic notability out of thin air is a big ask. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sujithsubash (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bṛhattrayī Ratna Award or Bṛhattrayī Ratna Puraskar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The information provided is genuine and it is of importance. The references given are also from reliable sources including research journals published by the government departments. Declaration of conflict of Interest: The Arya Vaidya Pharmacy (Coimbatore) Limited was the parent company of my previous employer. But this has nothing to do with the entry nor I am receving any payments from them for doing this entry. Sujithsubash (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sujithsubash: whether a journal of research in a pseudoscience can be truly reliable is debatable, I guess, but regardless of that, most of the draft content is unreferenced. We need to see where the information comes from, so that it can be verified and assessed.

The draft is also overly promotional, with peacocky terms like "prestigious" and "most esteemed", and expressions like "epitomises the pinnacle of intellectual achievement" and "remarkable contributions to the field, particularly in uplifting Ayurveda". Your job is merely to describe the subject, not to praise or 'sell' it in any way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazingthe aspect of 'psedoscience' is very subjective and that is not the content here. These are the journals published by the Government of India and not by any 'psedo-body' or 'psedo-authors'. Those expressions like 'epitomises the pinnacle of intellectual acheivement' and 'remarkable contributions to the field, particularly in uplifting Ayurveda' was translation of what the award is by the National Daily in Malayalam. If that is the problem can you help me how can this be reworded. It was not my words and there is no item being 'sold' here. This award also is not available for 'purchase'. Disclosure: The awarding body was parent company of my previous employer and information in this is verifyable. I am not being paid for making this article. Please help to sort this constructively. Sujithsubash (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sujithsubash: if those peacocky expressions were direct quotations, then they must be indicated as such with quotation marks, and supported with clear inline citations to the sources where they originated. Which was very much part of my point (and that of the reviewer): inadequate referencing makes it impossible for the reader to know where most of this information is coming from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me to understand how a print only newpaper article should be referred here? It is pure ignorance of how to do. If you can guide to some reference on this referencing of print newspapers, please guide. Thank you, in advance. Sujithsubash (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sujithsubash: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Examples explains this in some detail, and you can use the template Cite news for the citation itself – scroll down to "Usage", copy a template, and enter the information about the article you are citing. --bonadea contributions talk 12:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ridgeman12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Remi the dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This isn’t a fake Wikipedia for no reason, there actually is a streamer named Trod who has a dog named Remi. This is not a fake character. Ridgeman12 (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ridgeman12: sure. I have a dog, too. She's not a fake character, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thenfactor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rick Beerhorst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need assistance please as I have written a wholly unbiased, not promoting the artist and the 50 sources included within the Rick Beerhorst page are tested as independent of the artist, having done over a week's work of research on testing those sources. John Yau Art critic who has independently written of Rick Beerhorst the painter for 35 years, has been included with the article to give the article Wikipedia tested impartiality. Can someone please review the prejudice that is being given to this article, in order to have the painter substantiated and placed within Wikipedia which is his rightful place. Thenfactor (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

55 sources is a lot, @Thenfactor. You have some major Wikipedia:Citation overkill - does the first line really need nine sources!?

I don't think many volunteer reviewers are going to want to go into 55 sources to assess each, so give us three and only three of the strongest sources you have, to make the job for the reviewer easier. Each of the three sources should meet this criteria of being independent, significant coverage, and from reliable places. qcne (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking on board on these advices and I thank you very much for your input. Thenfactor (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I need help in editing my article GwnftLight (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GwnftLight, the draft has now been rejected and so will not be considered further. qcne (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm finding it difficult to create a new article GwnftLight (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GwnftLight: are you trying to create another draft on the same subject? Because that wouldn't be a good idea. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I tried editing based on the comments received but the submission was not responsive GwnftLight (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GwnftLight: this subject is clearly not notable, there is no point in creating another draft on it. Please find another subject to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also finding it difficult to create a new draft on another subject entirely GwnftLight (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It kept redirecting me to the rejected draft GwnftLight (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GwnftLight: you can create a subpage in your personal space, you just have to give it a unique name, like User:GwnftLight/sandbox2 or User:GwnftLight/newdraft, etc.

Or you can go to WP:YFA and use the article creation wizard there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks GwnftLight (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brazbiog (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Carlos Ernesto Guestrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my first article. I'd appreciate any feedback to improve the current draft. Brazbiog (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brazbiog: you've submitted the draft, so you will get feedback (of sorts) when a reviewer gets around to assessing it. Superficial glance suggests everything looks okay. Can't say more than that, as we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That makes sense, sorry for overstepping. Brazbiog (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brazbiog: no problem at all, no harm in asking. ;) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hupmapskhpugas 70.15.62.238 (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as nonsense. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jazzman6500 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Society of St. John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article rejected, assistance requested I recently submitted this article but it was rejected. Any help please:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Society_of_St._John Jazzman6500 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzman6500 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Please review the decline message, and the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Deerfield-Hearst (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Horse Abuse in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why is it being rejected? Deerfield-Hearst (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the reviewer but just by looking at it it is obviously not notable and seems to be extremely biased and opnion based. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS ColinFine (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 3DTAILEDMUSIC (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Angry Demon Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft was again rejected. What am I doing wrong and what can I add/change? 3DTAILEDMUSIC (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3DTAILEDMUSIC it has been declined not rejected, meaning there is still room for improvement. You need more source about the company specifically, not their games. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @3DTAILEDMUSIC. You need to make sure that (nearly) all your sources meet the triple criteria in WP:42, that is, they are:

• published by a reputable publisher
• in no way connected to the subject or their associates
• containing significant coverage of the subject of the article.

ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Entersorce (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ill Manili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This needs to be published ASAP IT IS RELEVANT Entersorce (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entire article is biased, unsourced and not notable. The submission has been rejected and likely would not be considered. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Entersorce (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ill Manili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I re-edited the entire thing made it more comprehensive and less promotional. Please review it. Entersorce (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Entersorce it's still completely unsourced and not notable at all. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entersorce, unreferenced biographies of living people are forbidden by policy on Wikipedia. Try submitting some policy compliant content instead. Cullen328 (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 175.157.84.85 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pcx1 Present (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Give Me an advice to edit this, This topic has wide coverage and this artist is verified person. This artist has google knowledge panel, Youtube official artist channel, verified spotify, boomplay, tiktok, musixmatch etc. And has lot of article about this artist on peliplat, issuewire, medium etc.

I'm not a sock puppet, I just need to inform that, this artist is eligible for wikiarticle. 175.157.84.85 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is: don't edit it. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in the draft is reliable or independent. Having Google knowledge panels, Youtube channels, or accounts/channels/pages at spotify, musicmatch, boomplay, other streaming websites or social media websites is irrelevant, since those things don't show any notability, and can't be used as aources in Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insane ? What do you mean those are not reliable sources ? What are reliable sources for a musician to be posted on Wikipedia ?? Daupdaup (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daupdaup: No, I'm not. By "none of the sources is reliable", I mean that the sources do not meet the criteria for acceptability that the Wikipedia community has agreed on. Reliable sources for musicians are the same type of sources that are reliable for other topics. WP:RS and WP:MUSICBIO has more information. --bonadea contributions talk 20:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thehistorianisaac (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:7th Marine Brigade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was recently declined due to referencing issues. I tried to contact the reviewer via talk page but I got no response and after some time it was archived. May I ask where i can improve my draft? Considering the little amount of info i could find, i would consider it pretty good already. P.S.: The article for the 7th marine brigade exists on chinese wikipedia(https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E8%A7%A3%E6%94%BE%E5%86%9B%E6%B5%B7%E5%86%9B%E9%99%86%E6%88%98%E9%98%9F%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%83%E6%97%85), I am purely translating it and adding more info Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: aside from the referencing issue, your draft has the related but separate problem of insufficient evidence of notability, given that the sources are almost all primary and/or associated with the Chinese government.

The fact that an article on this subject exists in zh.wiki is irrelevant. Each language version is a separate project with its own policies and requirements. AFAIK, the en.wiki requirements are the most onerous, therefore it often happens that when translating from other versions, the sources need to be supplemented to meet our standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is sort of inevitable that most sources are primary and/or associated with the chinese goverment in some way, however i don't really see a problem with that so far as i can still find more sources

As for evidence of notability, I think it is notable enough to have a wikipedia article about it. It is relatively famous within mainland china for such a special forces unit and additionally it has been involved in operations in the gulf of aden and is considerably notable compared to some existing articles(e.g. the Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade or the USS LCI(L)-326).(or maybe i have interpreted evidence of notability as something completely separate) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thehistorianisaac, when Wikipedia says "notable" we don't mean "famous" or "well known". Notable by our definition can be thought to mean "noted in multiple reliable secondary sources". More info at Wikipedia:Notability. qcne (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I kinda already had the feeling that evidence of notability is a completely separate thing from notability guidelines. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, the AfC process is voluntary (as long as you don't have a conflict of interest in this subject and aren't under any restrictions which would prevent you from creating articles), and therefore you're free to move this into the main article space yourself, if you disagree with the review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for some more info, what kind of sources would be considered reliable secondary sources?

Most of the stuff i could find online were either primary sources or secondary sources citing the primary source. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are what is being looked for.....assuming that the source has performed fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources citing the primary source are perfectly fine, so long as they aren't just blindly copy-pasting it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Edouglasww (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Late Cambrian (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm trying to add more references to this page so that it will be accepted to Wikipedia but Wiki has changed how to add citations/references and I don't quite understand how to add links/citations to new stuff that's been added. The old system involved putting the citiation/reference code in the piece, now it's just a five or six letter "code" with the info in the reflist at the bottom. Can't find anything explaining the changes. Edouglasww (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Daupdaup (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Laurent Fourbeur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why did it got rejected ?

Laurent Fourbeur is a living person with references that are directly sent to his YouTube Channel.

I need answers.

Laurent Fourbeur's Manager. Daupdaup (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Daupdaup. You wrote a spam draft, @Daupdaup, and I have rejected it as it's pure promotion which is prohibited on Wikipedia. There is no indication that Laurent passes our notability criteria for musicians.

As Laurent's manager, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Service to declare this conflict of interest: please immediately follow the instructions at both WP:PAID and WP:COI.

Don't demand answers from volunteer reviewers. qcne (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ajvloon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tus (protocol) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there! I recently submitted a new article for the Tus open protocol for resumable uploads. Tus is an open-source internet communications protocol that is seeing considerable industry use and is currently also in the process of being included in the official HTTP protocol, which serves as the foundation for the world wide web.

I was disappointed to see my submission declined and I am now looking for some assistance to help make sure it will be accepted in the next review.

The first reason the article was declined seems clear to me: I need to find even more independent and reputable sources to support the information in the article. I thought it was already sufficiently annotated, but apparently not.

The second reason the article was declined is not clear to me.

My question then:

Which part of the article submission is considered to be `neologism'? And how do I fix this?

Ajvloon (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link, the whole url is not used. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Was trying to find out how to fix it myself :) Ajvloon (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajvloon: The subject itself seems to be considered a neologism by the reviewer, which doesn't seem to make sense here, I agree. You're writing about something tangible (a computer protocol), rather than a term definition. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Thanks. I feared that might be the case. So how do I deal with this potential reason for denial once I am ready to resubmit the article for review? Ajvloon (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Reading Beans who can hopefully explain their reasoning. qcne (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to uncheck the neologism tag. There are unsourced statements there hence the decline for having unverified information. Could I have been wrong. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks for taking the time. So, once I hunt down and add more independent, reliable sources for the unverified claims, I'm good to go for a resubmit? Ajvloon (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BusMapper (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:James F. Conahan Intermodal Transportation Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please explain why this draft is not valid for submission. BusMapper (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

But Why ? Sukdev Mahapatra (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukdev Mahapatra: We are not a host for personal webpages. We also do not cite social media, and sources connected to the subject themselves do not help for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

please aproved this article because this person is Need to article pannel Sukdev Mahapatra (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukdev Mahapatra Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not social media like LinkedIn. Has your school told you to create this article? qcne (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CallMe BurntToast (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bazerk (Makane) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have never made a wiki before and i need someone to help me make it look nice and add info i didn't even think to add. CallMe BurntToast (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CallMe BurntToast We're not here to be co-editors, just to offer advice. One does not make a "wiki"(an entire website, composed of articles, of which Wikipedia is but one example), one makes a Wikipedia article. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that new users first gain experience and knowledge by first spending much time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, as well as to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.

The vast majority of "YouTubers" do not merit Wikipedia articles, as they are not often written about in independent reliable sources. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that are notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why was my article about my artist that I manage deleted? Azcult (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Azcult. You wrote a purely promotional draft which is prohibited on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Spam. It was deleted for that reason.

As the artists' manager, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Service to declare this conflict of interest: please immediately follow the instructions at both WP:PAID and WP:COI. qcne (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tyriopp (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bryce Adams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

comment was AI generated spam? how is that so? elaborate on that please and im open to advice

Tyriopp (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyriopp, ChatGPT and other AIs/LLMs write drafts with certain details that human-written drafts usually don't have. Your draft shows signs of being written by AI. We don't generally elaborate on what those signs are because people might use that information to try to sneak AI-generated drafts into Wikipedia without anyone noticing, and there can be major problems with AI-generated articles - things like hallucinated references, for example. StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia regardless of any AI or ChatGPT use or maybe because of it? Theroadislong (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephanietheva (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Help Me Understand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received this messaage: 'Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted.' does this mean I can not try to rewrite the article again?

Also I received this rejection reason: 'This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.' does this mean the person I was trying to do an article about isn't popular enough?

How can I get a wikipedia page for the person I am trying to create for? What makes someone notable enough? Stephanietheva (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The linked article is an article, not a draft, and it was published in 2023. I'm guessing you meant Draft:Ivy Cohen.

My opinion about this draft - it has no inline citations, which has a specific guide. The tone of the article is quite promotional. This page may help with that. Looking at the 4 sources, all of them seem weak. The first three of them are not independent, and the last one does not really help with notability. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Stephanietheva. Yes, "rejected" means that this draft cannot go any further.

Notability in Wikipedia has a special meaning, which is different from popularity (and from fame, importance, influence, and all the other conventional meanings). It mostly means that there is enough independent reliably published material about the subject to base an article on, remembering 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.

If you cannot find suitable sources (each of which should meet all three criteria in WP:42) then the subject is probably not notable, and you should not waste any more time on this attempt. (And if the rejecting reviewer says that they are not sufficiently notable, you can generally reckon that they have gone looking for sources and not found them).

If you can find sources that demonstrate notability, then you should approach the rejecting reviewer directly, citing those sources, and asking them to reconsider. But please do not bother them unless you have solid evidence that Cohen meets the criteria.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• DebugDruid (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cranbourne West Secondary College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am writing to see if I can receive a response regarding an archived ticket that I have logged with HelpDesk: 04:38, 7 November 2024 review of submission by DebugDruid

I already added a response to this archived ticket however I have realized that I may not get a response, therefore I'm logging a new ticket.

In regards to the archived ticket, I was given the feedback that I should improve the Wikipedia page in regards to the Notability and WP:GNG policies. As the draft submission was rejected due to not meeting these policies.

As per the feedback, I have made changes to the draft and have added sources which cover the topic, hopefully complying with the WP:GNG and Notability policies. Could you please let me know if these polices are met now and if it would be suitable for me to go ahead and submit it. Any further feedback is much appreciated as it would assist in updating the draft even further!

Thank you in advance! DebugDruid (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might have wanted to directly discuss with the reviewer who rejected your draft (@Shadow311 in this case) first. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DebugDruid: Submit the draft for review – that's how you request feedback on notability. The draft has not been rejected (which would mean that you couldn't resubmit it), only declined, which means that you have the option ti resubmit. Your fellow editors who volunteer as reviewers don't do pre-reviews at this help board. --bonadea contributions talk 06:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ORISEXP (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nicholas Bowman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Community! I hope I find you doing well. I created a Wikipedia page yesterday and the submission was declined. Is there any natural cause for this? ORISEXP (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORISEXP Please see the message left at the top of your draft by the reviewer, and also read the policies linked to therein. I would ask you what your connection is to this musician, as you appear to have taken a photo of him in his vehicle. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

i was rejected and i want to fix the problem Seblmnal (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seblmnal: the problem isn't easily fixed; there is nothing in this draft to suggest that you are notable in the Wikipedia context. Focus on your career, get covered in the media, maybe win a Grammy or two, and one day someone will surely write an article on you. (Even then that someone shouldn't be you, though – see WP:AUTOBIO). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pancras Hogendoorn (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Paul Ernst (pathologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added a reference which I use 3 times in the text and it now gives: Cite error: The named reference Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937) was invoked but never defined (see the help page). I looked at the help page but cannot get it fixed. Can you help me out? Pancras Hogendoorn (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pancras Hogendoorn: this isn't strictly speaking an AfC matter anymore, now that the draft has been published; you should ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk instead. But since you're here... the problem is in the first citation: <ref name="Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937)"> This is calling a source named "Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937)", but no such source name has been defined. The solution is actually easier to do than to explain, so I'll go and fix it for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Pancras Hogendoorn (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kirkoconnell (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Estelle Clements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I follow the Digital Civics page and I went to University with Estelle and have followed her career for a while now.

I am just noticing some declines in articles write by or about her. I suspect she tried to edit her own articles, at least from what I can tell here.

I guess I thought I would request less vague assistance. On this article in particular, it seems rather well written with great sourcing, yet it states that the sources are not enough.

I've checked them and they seem fine to me. Now, I have been editing on Wikipedia for a while now and I know rules have changed, but is there something explicitly wrong with the sources listed that can be addressed as opposed to this vague "Not the Right Kind of sources", as it lists. When I reviewed the requirements for that page and compared them to the links, they actually seem to meet the criteria.

Anyway, looking at this here, I think Estelle's issue was that she believed it was OK for her to edit her own articles, which I know is a no-go. I am willing to write the articles but I don't want to be in this circular trap of modifying an article, getting it taken down for "sources issues" and constantly fight back and forth on it.

So can I get clearer direction on what the sourcing issue is exactly so that I may address it?

All I really know is that Dr. Clements really did do research, really is a Digital Civics expert, and developed at least two concepts in the field, well the field itself (Digital Civics) and Shadow Footprints, from the studies and articles she has released anyway.

Besides having attending University with Dr. Clements, I have followed her career has it took her from North America over to the UK and am keen on getting these concepts in Wikipedia. I do science communication and Digital civics in general, and Shadow Footprints as a concept, have been great insights to trying to solve the divide we see with information online.

So I am willing to work with people on what needs to be changed, but I do need a bit more than "source not be good". Kirkoconnell (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kirkoconnell: just to clarify, this draft was declined for lack of evidence that the subject is notable, not for inadequate sources per se. Notability, according to the general WP:GNG guideline, requires significant coverage directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. This draft cites mostly works by the subject, plus a few other primary sources, which doesn't satisfy GNG.

The other route for academics to demonstrate notability is described in the special WP:NPROF guideline, and more specifically in the list of criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. The main difference between this and GNG is that the focus is less on secondary sources (in fact, so much so that no secondary sources are needed at all), and more on career achievements and standing in the academic community. It may be that NPROF is easier to satisfy in this case, based on your description and a quick scan of the sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting watching the rules change constantly.

I think unless Estelle won a Noble prize, I doubt she could meet the requirements listed in modern academics.

I remember once that I was accused of hating Gay people because I deleted an account from someone who wasn't considered notable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Jensen. They literally harassed me online until I stopped requesting that their account get deleted.

I wish you guys cared as much about the rules back then. Well, I give up. I tried to help but I guess the whole "Be Bold" thing is just BS.

I would ask for a greater clarification, as when I review what is posted and the sources I see it hit the checkmarks you are demanding, but when you review it you don't see that, but I suspect there is no further direction incoming. Just "this doesn't meet some weird standard IN MY OPINION because, sure, it matches the words of it but I DO NOT BELIEVE it matches the words, so therefore, it does not".

I get it.

Sorry I even tried. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkoconnell "Be bold" means we want people to act, but it doesn't mean they get a pass on policies and consultation with other editors/consensus. This process is usually voluntary, if you truly feel that the reviewer got it wrong, you are free to move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, though you are rolling the dice that it will not be nominated for deletion. The main standard reviewers go by is "would this survive an Articles for deletion discussion"?

I know it's depressing to have something you worked on criticized and declined, but that doesn't mean we don't care about rules. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't care for this weird fighting.

When I religiously edited the site, people would fight with me COSNTANTLY about non-sense articles that never met standard, but the Wiki people would say "Be Bold" and keep the article.

NOW, I see a legit article with full citations that match literally every requirement to a Tee, and NOW there is a WHOLE NEW LEVEL of requirements to make an article, that cannot seem to accurately defined, but it's wrong because "reasons" and until I fix these ambiguous "reasons", the article cannot even be displayed. And when I ask for examples of the "reasons", I get no feedback whatever, or I get given a 55 page article and told to read it. Then I do read it, find no issues that match up, ask again where I made the mistake, and get zero actual feedback again.

I am just losing faith in Wikipedia in general. It seems if you are an idiot, you can make whatever article you want and it's cool. If you actually do research, try to cite things, people will delete the articles, say some vague non-sense that does not make sense in the context of the article, when you push back and ask for more explicit information, they just throw their hands up and say "find someone else".

"I know it's depressing to have something you worked on criticized and declined, but that doesn't mean we don't care about rules."

WHAT ****ING RULES? Where is the problem? THIS IS WHAT I AM ASKING. I get told "These sources don't cite this", where those sources are not meant to cite that, so what is the problem? Or I get told "Not enough secondary sources", I point to at least three that were in the article from the start and no one mentions secondary sources to me again but it's still a problem.

I WANT TO FIX THE ARTICLE. But saying vague non-sense and when they ask for more feedback because it seems what is being said doesn't match what the accused claim is, how am I supposed to fix it?

If you accuse me of stealing and I claim I have video evidence of myself in my house the whole day, your reply can't be "well stuff was stolen, deal with it" and expect me to be OK with that.

Unless you are on Wikipedia, apparently. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, what is unclear or vague about the reasons being given to you? They seem pretty clear to me- but it could just be me, truly. You were even told that WP:NPROF is the best pathway forward here. It doesn't require a Nobel Prize, but if you don't think you can show she meets those criteria, the more general notable person definition would be controlling.

Note that the nature of this process is that different reviewers will see different things at different times, and may not see what was seen before. That doesn't mean it is or is not still a problem.

I understand not wanting to fight- but that's sometimes necessary. This isn't a place to just post something and forget about it. You need to be here- active and defending it at least for a time. Not everyone wants to do that- which is fine- but that's the nature of a collaborative community with different people and different perspectives. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I again stress- if you feel the reviewer got it wrong, or this process is too bureaucratic and stressful- it's not required that you use it. You can move it into the encyclopedia yourself. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why wont you accept my article I just want a page on wikipedia Cael Thorington (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Politicians Page (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thirupathi Bodapatla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's been frequently rejected, after adding references also. The Politicians Page (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you first must appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft directly. He seems to be a lower level regional party official; he wouldn't meet the notable politician definition as he does not hold public office. The coverage doesn't seem to be there to meet the broader notable person definition, this is why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2607:F010:2E9:22:148F:C242:7DDC:8DC8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Self-Continuity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thank you so much for the feedback. Could you give some detailed feedback on how to improve it? I'd really like to see this article be posted. Thank you so much again for the review! 2607:F010:2E9:22:148F:C242:7DDC:8DC8 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The previous reviews must remain on the draft. It was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's still written in an essay style. If you are able to fundamentally change the style of the draft to be more encyclopedic, you must first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]