Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


January 9

[edit]

05:59, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Smarter Than90

[edit]

Because it is kinda hard to Do Things like this Slow. I would like if some body help me. Smarter Than90 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smarter Than90: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. If you have specific questions, you may ask those. Otherwise, you should find anything you need for article creation at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Smarter Than90 It's hard to do it slow- are you on a deadline? 331dot (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reomoved the photograph as it looks like a copyright violation, all that is left is an info box, there is no content to review? Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. That is LITERALLY A PICTURE FROM MY TABLET. Smarter Than90 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fair to do that. Smarter Than90 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been on your tablet, but unless you took that 1964 picture, it's not your picture. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But can u At least help make a Project Smarter Than90 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Make the Page on Kirk Culberson? Because Hes is A Victim of of The KKK. He is Litteraly my Great grandpa. Smarter Than90 (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:28, 9 January 2025 review of submission by WeTransfer Pakistan

[edit]

WeTransfer Pakistan is a cloud-based application designed for seamless file transfer & sharing, launched in February 2023. why my page and article delete ?

WeTransfer Pakistan is a cloud-based application designed for seamless file transfer & sharing, launched in February 2023. WeTransfer Pakistan (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeTransfer Pakistan I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended, but your draft was blatant advertising and has been deleted. Wikipedia does not allow advertising, and is not a place for businesses to tell about themselves, their offerings, and what they do. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about businesses that meet our criteria. The vast majority of businesses do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 9 January 2025 review of submission by HanskrithaSinghU

[edit]

I am not able to figure out my mistakes.Can you please help me for the same? HanskrithaSinghU (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, please answer the inquiry I just posted to your user talk page. The reviewers have left you replies on the draft, do you have more specific questions about them? 331dot (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've already disclosed paid editing, but it's a bit hidden at the bottom of the user page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:19, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Mobile Knowledge

[edit]

I many time fail to publish my article Mobile Knowledge (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mobile Knowledge: that's because the draft is virtually unreferenced, and there is zero evidence that the subject is notable.
What is your relationship with this organisation? I have posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mobile Knowledge. Your statement is the equivalent of "I built a house without surveying the land or building any foundations, and I keep trying to get a certificate for it, but the authorities keep refusing".
An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable indepedent sources have said about a subject - nothing less, and very little more. A draft without citations to independent sources is nearly worthless, as a reader has no way to tell whether it is reliable or not. ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:42, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Ammu Mohan

[edit]

HOW TO ADD THE LINKS AND REFERENCE AND CITATION AND FOOTNOTE 

Ammu Mohan (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammu Mohan: please don't SHOUT.
You add citations the same way as you have already added one. See WP:REFB for more advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SORRY,PROBLEM WITH MY KEYBOARD.MY INTENTION WAS NOT SHOUT AT YOU.JUST SOME DYSFUNCTIONAL KEYS 2409:40F3:1012:A966:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Ródhiske

[edit]

This article is not fake but lacks sources, if you don't believe it you can search for yourself in the media about this incident Ródhiske (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said it is "fake", that is not the issue. Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 9 January 2025 review of submission by AlfredCampenaerts

[edit]

Hi, I previously received feedback that the page read too much like an advertisement, so I revised it to adopt a more neutral perspective. However, I've received the same feedback again, and it's unclear what specific changes are needed for approval at this point. When I review and compare it to similar pages on other sporting applications, it seems consistent.

Could you provide more detailed guidance on what adjustments are required?

Thanks in advance! AlfredCampenaerts (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlfredCampenaerts: much of the information is unreferenced, and the few sources there are, are clearly based on press releases or similar publicity materials. Therefore this is essentially you telling the world about your app, which makes it inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO). We are almost exclusively interested in what independent and reliable third parties (especially secondary sources) have said about your app. You should find 3-5 sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and summarise what they say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AlfredCampenaerts As the app charges for services, I assume you created it at least in part to earn a living. As such, you must declare as a paid editor per the Terms of Use. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 9 January 2025 review of submission by BobLebanon

[edit]

I need assistance on refrencing the location of this town. Like the little red dots that show where the location of it is. BobLebanon (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BobLebanon: I'm assuming you mean the map etc. that appear in the 'infobox' in articles on human settlements (see eg. Thame, the box in the top-right)? In which case, the relevant template is {{Infobox settlement}}. Just beware, this isn't the easiest infobox to use, there's a fair bit to learn.
If it were me, I'd focus first on the things that actually matter in terms of getting this draft accepted, namely reliable sources to verify the information and to show that the subject is notable (either per WP:GNG or WP:NPLACE). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, alright thanks for your help mate, but how do i learn how to do such things? I wanna get into making and editing wiki pages. BobLebanon (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 9 January 2025 review of submission by 79.125.234.84

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the rejection or blocking of a biography I have been working on. I have made every effort to ensure that the content is accurate, well-researched, and supported by reliable references. While I understand Wikipedia has strict guidelines, I believe my work aligns with these standards and deserves a fair review.

The biography is realistic and based on thorough study. I have provided sufficient references, and while more details and contributions can be added over time by others, I firmly believe the article provides a solid foundation. Unfortunately, some editors appear to be dismissing my efforts without valid reasoning, which has been disappointing and discouraging.

I kindly ask for a reconsideration of the edits and for specific feedback if there are any issues that need to be addressed. My goal is to contribute constructively to Wikipedia and to ensure the platform remains a reliable and inclusive source of knowledge.

Thank you for your understanding and for taking the time to review my concerns. I look forward to working collaboratively to resolve any issues.

Best regards, 79.125.234.84 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please write yourself, don't use an AI(100% certain per gptzero. We want to hear from you directly.
If you feel the reviewer got it wrong, the first step is to ask them to reconsider. If that does not satisfy you, you may then describe here what policies or procedures were violated by the reviewer. That you did not get the result you want does not mean that policy was violated. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not entertain requests or content created via chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 9 January 2025 review of submission by LogoFanYT

[edit]

This was made for entertainment purposes and not to create drama, this was made for a purpouse. LogoFanYT (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So? You were directed to read Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. There isn't any circumstance in which creating a hoax article here is going to be allowed, regardless of your "entertainment purpose". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:42, 9 January 2025 review of submission by 185.91.120.15

[edit]

I need to understand why the sources I mentioned are unreliable. The Hypogean Crypt Is The Place Where It Is Buried Don Antonio Seghezzi In Links There Are Photos, The Renault Twizy Limited Edition Is Documented By Links Of Italian Newspapers. What else should I provide to complete the page? 185.91.120.15 (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly even a draft article, not even a stub. The prose lacks facts. You have written this WP:BACKWARDS. Instead of thinking what you want to say, find references and say in your own words' what they say. Unable to find references? Then stop. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:43, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Ironzombie39

[edit]

I just simply need someone to help me find more sources for this, that's all. Ironzombie39 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to solicit co-editors or researchers; we just answer questions aboutnl the draft process. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

[edit]

05:33, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2.50.185.237

[edit]

Why was rejected 2.50.185.237 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are stated in the decline and rejection notices. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Al Gattany

[edit]

Why block my account Al Gattany (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Gattany: which account would that be? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your account were blocked, you would not be able to post here. In any case, this is about like calling a burger restaurant to report that your car was stolen; this page is to assist people with AFC questions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A

[edit]

Governor Young

[edit]

I suspect that this governor born in Scotland was made Governor in Australia in 1820-1870 approximately. He travelled between London and Sydney often. Do you have an interest in this topic? HeiLouSimp (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HeiLouSimp: we don't get involved in co-editing, if that's what you mean by do we "have an interest". You may try some of the WikiProjects out there, maybe you'll find someone with an interest in such topics. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Abukhawla

[edit]

I want to include the biography of a prominent figure in Bangladesh's Islamic community, as learning about his life and contributions could be beneficial for many. However, no book has been written about him so far, nor has his biography been published on any website. I have personal knowledge about him, and he also has a Facebook account. How can I add references, and what kind of references would be appropriate in this case? Abukhawla (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abukhawla Note that this is the English Wikipedia, if you want to submit this to the Arabic Wikipedia(a separate project with its own policies), you need to go there and use their processes. Assuming you want to translate it for here- Personal knowledge is unacceptable here as it cannot be independently verified. A Facebook page is only useful for certain basic information(see WP:PRIMARY) and does not establish notability. If that's all you have, this individual would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2603:3005:A7A:4000:B18C:340E:D20B:2920

[edit]

Hi, new to this process, never edited a wikipedia page before. I'm trying to create a page for my company. I understand the tone has to be neutral, and that's perfectly fine. My question is in regard to references. What if there aren't any because no one in my position (marketing) previously did the work to earn them? I've seen company pages with no references, what kind of information would I need to add to make up for a lack of references? Thank you. 2603:3005:A7A:4000:B18C:340E:D20B:2920 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're Hlevatreformpt? Please log into your account whenever editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that, figured it auto logged me in. Hlevatreformpt (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should be composed mainly by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have previously published about a subject. You then cite those sources against the information they have provided. That is what we mean by 'references'.
You have clearly written this draft from the point of view of your business, saying whatever it is you want to say about it. This is considered promotion (see WP:YESPROMO), which is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok understood. That makes it difficult but I get why it's necessary. Hlevatreformpt (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also clearly have a financial steak in this subject, which gives rise to a conflict of interest (COI). You need to formally disclose that before you edit further; I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hlevatreformpt Please see other stuff exists; the existence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not dealt with yet by volunteers, has no bearing on your draft. There are many ways inappropriate articles can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles that lack sources you have seen so we can take action. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Donald Nyandoro

[edit]

Good day may you please help me on how to draft a submission that goes in hand with th rules of Wikipedia my recent submission was denied by wikipedia Donald Nyandoro (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Nyandoro It was deleted as blatant advertising as well as a copyright violation. Promotion is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. My advice is that you go on about your work, and if you are truly notable as we define it, someone will eventually write about you- though that's not always a good thing. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Theorileyuk

[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and a huge wrestling fan and trying to submiit my first article. I have include citations which was the reason it was declined but it has been declined again despite these being added on the basis that its an autobiography which is incorrect. When I wrote the draft I searched to make sure there wasnt one on him and it came up as a draft from I assume Jensen himself and then someone else 4 month ago. It is a bit fustrating that it continues to be declined despite the numerous pages on wikipedia of a similar nature. Theorileyuk (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theorileyuk Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist(this submission process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and is usually voluntary). If you want to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen for possible action- we need the help, we are only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the article inappropriate and props to you all giving your time to help. Much appreciated and I agree it does need to be vetted. I really just want help with the article I have already written so that I can start to create more. But it seems hugely difficult. The one I did is factual, it has references in it now and its from a biography point of view so im not sure what else I can do. Perhaps we can message to sort this out. Theorileyuk (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to discuss the draft, you may do so right here, or on the draft talk page.
Most of the draft is completely unsourced. Anything without a source needs to be removed. He may be notable as Wikipedia defines a notable person(there are no specific criteria for professional wrestlers) but it's hard to parse in between the unsourced information. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely sorted out the links and references so should now be ok. Theorileyuk (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Larriepedia

[edit]

Hi! I recently submitted a new article for creation and it was swiftly denied. The reviewer said this: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Could you point me in the right direction in terms of specifics I should fix or focus on in my next edit? I would love to know which sentences needs support sources or if whole paragraphs feel unsupported? Thank you so much for any help you can give. xxxxxx

Link to my article: Draft:Jayne Bentzen Larriepedia (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larriepedia I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. You can ask SafariScribe directly but it looks like parts are unsourced. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:09:53, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Pauliesnug

[edit]

hiya-- this is my first BLP AfC, so I'm sort of confused as to what i should do next. there are only one or two more sources i managed to find that aren't already included. there isn't really a severe shortage of sources though, i think it mostly comes down to notability/reliability, does this mean the page isn't fit for wikipedia until a more main article is authored? pauliesnug (message / contribs) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the template is broken, the article is Draft:Freya_Holmér pauliesnug (message / contribs) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is a severe shortage of sources. Most of the sources given are interviews, which aren't useful to establish notability, and the few that aren't only mention Holmér in passing. For example, the VentureBeat article is about Shader Forge and says nothing about Holmér other than stating she cofounded the studio and the Roadtovr article is about Budget Cuts. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:DAAE:A400:DC03:34E6:FCB1:53B7

[edit]

Is there anything else I need to add to get moved to the main article 2A02:C7C:DAAE:A400:DC03:34E6:FCB1:53B7 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending; the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. It may be some time before it is reviewed, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anything I need to accept it 2A02:C7C:DAAE:A400:DC03:34E6:FCB1:53B7 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The draft has been rejected, because Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing fiction or creating alternative realities. --bonadea contributions talk 20:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rangeblock now in place; the OP is socking.-- Ponyobons mots 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Davidwtaylor1

[edit]

I originally created this wiki page sourcing from the Japanese Wiki page that is published (using the English conversion feature). My first to attempts at publishing were returned stating need more verifiable sources. I have spent much time going through each section, and adding sources for every fact that I can find a source statement for. Before I submit it a third time, is there any type of review-tool that can pre-examine and provide suggestions for success, or is this going to be another submission and hope it suffices this time? All help to get this to successful submission is appreviated. Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Cinefilm

[edit]

Request for Review of the Salvatore Ruocco Wikipedia Page

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I am writing to request clarification regarding the rejection of the page I recently submitted about actor Salvatore Ruocco. I want to emphasize that I strongly support Wikipedia and regularly contribute donations to help sustain the platform.

I am unable to understand the reasons behind the refusal of the page, especially considering that Salvatore Ruocco has a noteworthy career, including significant work on an international level. I believe his achievements and contributions to the world of cinema deserve recognition on Wikipedia, providing users with accurate and comprehensive information.

I kindly ask you to reconsider the proposed page or, if possible, guide me on how to improve the content to fully comply with your publication criteria. I am more than willing to provide additional sources and details to support the validity of the information.

Thank you for your attention and for the essential work you do every day in promoting knowledge.

Looking forward to your kind response, CineFilm Cinefilm (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinefilm Thanks for donating to the Foundation, but that gives you no special status with the rest of us Wikipedia editors. Donations are collected by the Foundation to operate the computers Wikipedia is on, as well as other Foundation activities, and have no impact on day to day matters like this.
Note that other stuff exists; the existence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate has no bearing on yours. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. There are many ways to get inappropriate articles past us, we can only address what we know about. If you'd like to help us, please identify other articles you have seen that do not meet guidelines. We need the help.
You have not shown that he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. This may be a different policy than the Italian Wikipedia, as each Wikipedia is a separate project with their own editors and policies. If this draft is deemed acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia, I suggest you concentrate your efforts there. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A

[edit]

Mortal Kombat 2 (2025) runtime is reportedly 128 minutes (2 hours, 8 minutes) per AMC Theatres. Without post-credits. Copy Terminator: Dark Fate & Deadpool & Wolverine. 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in #11:23, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A yesterday, please STOP wasting your and our time with these non-articles. ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:16, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A

[edit]

Sheriff Country is coming to CBS in 2025. 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your question? 331dot (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have already published about a subject: nothing less, and bery little more. Future films and programmes hardly ever have enough written about the to make it possible to write anything at all in an article. Please see WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:55, 10 January 2025 review of submission by CyberDave9000

[edit]

I'm a newbie editor and I was asked by Rick to create this page for him. The page that we created (Draft:Rick_Sanjek ) was ultimately rejected for notability. I have looked at the Wikipedia:Notability page and I'm at a loss as to why it lacked notability. I'm looking for some assistance/guidance as to why. Thanks in advance. CyberDave9000 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CyberDave9000 I fixed your header to properly provide a link to your draft as intended, and fixed the other link, the whole url is not needed. Since you are here at Rick's behest, you have a conflict of interest to disclose(click for instructions). If you are employed by Rick or he compensates you in any manner, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure.
You have documented his work and accomplishments, but not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he is a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. Wikipedia doesn't just want to know his work, they want to know what others unaffiliated with him choose to say is important about him or his work. The reviewer must have felt the prospect of that was low, so they rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 11

[edit]

05:01, 11 January 2025 review of submission by 2400:3740:20D:1A00:F0C6:B223:8AA0:24D2

[edit]

Requiring assistance on citing each part of the document to have a speedy approval. 2400:3740:20D:1A00:F0C6:B223:8AA0:24D2 (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find advice on referencing at WP:REFB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Dr James Dover

[edit]

I need to cite sources for the history of Ardmore University Stevenson School of Psychology. These are : 1.Athensville Pa was established in 1853 2. The name was changed to Ardmore in 1873 3. In 1875 Ardmore University was founded. 4. In 1923 John R Stevenson initiated the teaching of psychology to students in Gladwyne. 5. The formal establishment of the Gladwyne School of Psychology occurred in 1926. 6. Gladwyne School of Psychology was later renamed in honor of Professor Stevenson in 1931, becoming the "Stevenson School of Psychology." 7. in 1933, the Stevenson School of Psychology merged with Ardmore University, leading to the creation of "Ardmore Stevenson." 

8. by 1937, it had become an integral component of Ardmore University.

9. the university transformed in 1973, transitioning into a correspondence school. 10. Ardmore University Stevenson School of Psychology closed its doors in 2003 Dr James Dover (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr James Dover: I wouldn't call those sources, I'd call that a timeline. You need to tell us where the information in your draft came from.
On a separate but related point, your sources also need to demonstrate that the subject is a notable organisation, as we define it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Suryapakrashy

[edit]

The page is complete ok, and true. still its not getting accepted. i want it to be on the Article's section. Previously it was declined. And later i changed the whole content. not i think its acceptable. All the Details in the Article are true as i am the person who is writing about myself Debanjan Pakrashy. Its my kind request to make it visible on the Articles Page. Later ill work more on that Article to expand that. The Name Debanjan Pakrashy can be searched on google and all details will be visible for verification. Verified YouTube Channel, Google Knowledge Pannel, etc.... Thank You Suryapakrashy (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsourced with no indication of any notability - See WP:MUSICBIO KylieTastic (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Niikwabena

[edit]

Wikipedia is meant for everyone to edit, but it is good for a new wikipedian to be assisted. Niikwabena (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niikwabena Please tell what assistance you are seeking. You were provided an explanation on your draft by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; you wouldn't give a violin recital at Carnegie Hall as your first attempt at playing the violin. You would practice and gain experience and knowledge first- that's what you should do now; first edit existing articles to gain experience and knowledge as to what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Salman317

[edit]

Why are you doing like this Salman317 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Wikipedia is a place to promote your new business? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable subjects not a place for promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 11 January 2025 review of submission by JOSHBLY

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I currently have a draft at Draft:Profound (company) that was declined on 11 January 2025 due to concerns about notability and references. The company is an AI startup focused on AI search optimization, and I’ve cited coverage from TechCrunch, Adweek, Digiday, Search Engine Land, and The New York Times. The reviewer mentioned that the sources may not be sufficiently in-depth to meet WP:NCORP guidelines.

I’d love guidance on the following points: (1.) Are these sources considered suitably in-depth, independent, and reliable for establishing notability? (2.) Is the overall tone or structure of my draft too promotional or lacking neutrality? (3.) Are there any specific improvements in referencing, formatting, or content that I should address before resubmitting?

I also want to publicly disclose that I am an early employee of Profound, so I understand I have a conflict of interest and must adhere to Wikipedia’s COI and neutral-point-of-view guidelines. My goal is to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia’s standards, if indeed the subject is notable enough. If you feel the company isn’t yet notable, I’m okay with that outcome—just looking for clarity.

Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your time!

Best regards, Josh JOSHBLY (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for disclosing a conflict of interest; as an employee, however, you will need to make the stricter paid editing disclosure instead.
"Startups" very rarely merit articles; a company must be established and recognized by independent reliable sources that then write about the company in order to merit an article. Just summarizing what the company does and its offerings does not establish that the definition of a notable company is met. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 11 January 2025 review of submission by The noun wit no name

[edit]

how to rename this draft The noun wit no name (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. If accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. You can leave guidance about the title on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 11 January 2025 review of submission by 91.125.98.193

[edit]

I'm trying to find reasonable sources. Looking at similar athletes from US Rowing in that time period, they don't seem to have better references though. See-- 

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chris_Swan_(rower)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jonathan_Smith_(rower) And basically everyone in the US M8+ category linked from this wiki article: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/1987_World_Rowing_Championships

How did existing bios get published but not this one? 91.125.98.193 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Wikipedia has many millions of articles, tens of thousands of which are poor quality and should be improved or deleted. As we're a volunteer project no one has gotten around to doing that yet. It's very possible those existing articles are poor quality with poor sources, were written when our standards were more lax, or didn't go through the articles for creation process.
If you want to base your draft on a good article, choose one that has been rated Good by the community. qcne (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Swan (rower) was never drafted. In fact, it predates WP:ACPERM by almost a year (first edit 2017/03/16). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:11, 11 January 2025 review of submission by 76.190.40.3

[edit]

This article has not been thoroughly reviewed, it seems that it was rejected without a concrete basis. The article has utilized several independent sources. 76.190.40.3 (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were given a clear reason for the decline. What error in process are you alleging? 331dot (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't said that no sources are independent, but not enough of them are. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many independent sources are being expected? The independent sources do inform most of the article's content. What is the expectation? 76.190.40.3 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one attached to a claim a reasonable person could challenge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

[edit]

01:54, 12 January 2025 review of submission by NTG2024

[edit]

Unclear comment. The reviewer for the page I submitted for review said "fill out citation neededs please". Could someone please provide more clarity? NTG2024 (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NTG2024: Every single claim tagged with [citation needed] needs to get a source that corroborates it or get out. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:11, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Kaotao

[edit]

My draft, a split from an existing article, was declined on the basis that it should be merged into the article it was split from because I failed to explicitly mark it as a split. What should I do to rectify this? I already did the WP:RIA thing. Kaotao (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 12 January 2025 review of submission by AstrooKai

[edit]

This draft was 99.4% copied from this wiki fandom as shown in this copyvios report. Generally speaking, are drafts copied from Fandom a WP:COPYRIGHT violation? AstrooKai (Talk) 06:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AstrooKai: Assuming the licence is complied with, no. Fandom is under CC-By-SA, so for it to be in compliance there needs to be a backlink to the page's history or some other credit for the author(s) of the original. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, while the draft may not be a copyright violation, it is utterly unacceptable as a Wikipedia article.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutrally written summary of what reliable indepedent sources say about a subject: nothing less, and very little more.
The draft is entirely unfreferenced, and full of WP:peacock words.
Very quick guide to writing a successful Wikipedia article:
  1. . Find several places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about the subject and been published in reliable places. (See WP:42) for more detail.
  2. . If you can't find at least three such, give up and do something else.
  3. . If you can, then forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.
Trying to do it in any other way is a recipe for frustration and disappointment. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:50, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Akileee1

[edit]


I want to know how to improve this draft, I already added all the possible info. There are many less notable waterpolo players who have their wikipedia pages Akileee1 (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post, the whole url is not needed, just the full title in the header. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Akileee1 Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to get past us and exist, even for years; we can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen that are about non-notable people so we can take action. We need the help, we are only as good as the people who choose to help us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked for compliance with guidelines by the community(which isn't necessarily the case with any random article).
Note that people do not "have Wikipedia pages" here that they own and control. Wikipedia has articles about topics.
The main issue here is your sourcing- the sources seem to not be reliable sources with a history of fact checking and editorial control. You have resubmitted and it is pending, the reviewer will leave feedback. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Beka7800

[edit]

correct the citation because i have tried many times to correct it. Beka7800 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beka7800 Have you followed the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE? It is up to you to learn how to reference correctly. qcne (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ASSIST Beka7800 (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beka7800 Yelling at us for assistance isn't likely to work. (don't use all caps) What assistance are you seeking? Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please see the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start multiple threads, just edit this existing thread. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 12 January 2025 review of submission by ZayKitty Wiki

[edit]

This is my first "created" article, which was declined for the following reason: "not adequately supported by reliable sources." I think it needs more reliable sources. Can an experienced editor help me with polishing this article with more reliable sources (Although there is a references list)? Thanks. ZayKitty Wiki (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZayKitty Wiki: we don't get involved in co-editing or source research here at the help desk, that onus is squarely on you (although you may wish to ask at the relevant WikiProjects if anyone is interested in helping you).
This is a common problem when translating from other language versions of Wikipedia. Our requirements in terms of referencing and proof of notability here at the English-language version are stricter than in other language versions, and often what is acceptable elsewhere cannot be accepted here.
If you cannot support the contents with sufficient referencing, you need to remove the sections without appropriate support.
Note that as this person died only three months ago, they almost certainly still come under our policy on articles on living people (WP:BLP), with particularly strict referencing requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Can you give me the relevant WikiProjects please? ZayKitty Wiki (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZayKitty Wiki: I would start with the ones you tagged on the draft talk page? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. ZayKitty Wiki (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 12 January 2025 review of submission by WWBM

[edit]

Hello. My submission on the article about American voice actress Alex Cazares was declined because it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." Is there a way how to make this entry, rephrase the submission to not look like an advertisement? WWBM (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have just documented her work, not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her, showing how she is a notable actress or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Niasoh

[edit]

Any suggestions for improve for publishing this article? Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:44:34, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Yachtahead

[edit]

Hello Afc Helpers, requesting a review please or help for review and/or approval for my first draft submission: Draft:Gerry Cardinale It's been two months waiting in review, I don't think it's being seen by any reviewers. Appreciate your help or any direction to another option. Thank you again! Yachtahead (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yachtahead Your draft is pending review, and visible to reviewers. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you@331dot, apologies for the eagerness. Yachtahead (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:07, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Ethanandersen

[edit]

Hi, this submission was declined without comment; only indicating that it doesn't qualify for an article due to not showing significant coverage in published, reliable, secondary, independent sources; but it certainly seems like the sources in the draft meet that criteria. Please share additional context on why this is not deemed notable. Ethanandersen (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanandersen I agree this person meets our WP:NACADEMIC notability criteria. However there is a few sections without sources: Personal Life and Education, as well as a few other unsourced sentences sprinkled throughout. If you find sources for those, or remove, then it would be acceptable. qcne (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thank you. I'll do that. Ethanandersen (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

[edit]

00:30, 13 January 2025 review of submission by Turps222

[edit]

Hi Everyone, I am trying to add a new bio page about a current scientist that is doing exciting work (Professor Greg Neely, University of Sydney), but it has been knocked back by editors. Their feedback was that it "didn't show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I'm a little surprised about this, since his work has been published in prestigious scientific journals and is regularly featured in reputable international media outlets (eg. BBC, CNN, The Guardian, etc). Does anyone have any advice/suggestions on what can be done to improve the draft and satisfy the editors? I'd appreciate your advice. Thanks. Turps222 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Turps222: I looked at the BBC and CNN pieces you mention. They have Neely commenting on something, rather than being about him. The Guardian articles, esp. the first one, are better, as they talk more about him and his work. Notability according to the general WP:GNG guideline, which applies to most subjects, requires multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage, directly of the subject and not of some indirectly related or ancillary matters.
For academics there is an also another possibility for demonstrating notability, namely the special WP:NPROF guideline. Study the eight criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC and see if you can find evidence that at least one of them is objectively and unambiguously met.
If you have an external relationship with this person, that need to be disclosed. A message has been posted on your talk page about managing conflicts of interest. Please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:48, 13 January 2025 review of submission by Createuserss

[edit]

Why My Draft Article was rejected. Createuserss (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Createuserss: this draft was declined (not yet rejected) because the sources do not demonstrate that the subject is notable. The information is also almost entirely unreferenced, although that wasn't the reason for declining it on this occasion.
You also clearly have a conflict of interests which needs to be disclosed. I have posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 13 January 2025 review of submission by HanskrithaSinghU

[edit]

Created an article page for a high ranking police official who has made a significant difference in local law enforcement and shown significant articles that he has been mentioned in. But article keeps getting denied due to Notability issues.

How do i resolve this issue? HanskrithaSinghU (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. Your draft just summarizes what seems to be to be routine police work and does not detail any particular influence of this person on policing as a field. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Has this man developed unique police strategies that others write about or other police officers emulate? Has a particular reduction in crime been attributed to this man personally that others took note of and write about? Not every police officer or administrator merits a Wikipedia article. I see that you're a paid editor for him- if your specific duties require you to successfully create a Wikipedia article, I suggest that you return his money. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 13 January 2025 review of submission by EddieOR11

[edit]

Hi, my wiki page submission was recently rejected and I was just wondering why this was rejected and can I appeal this as I desperately would like this page to be posted as it means a lot to myself and the people of Creeslough. This competition shed a glimmer of light in what was a very difficult time for the community due to the gas explosion that occurred in Creeslough. The original darts competition was a day that many people started to go out in the community again and it is fondly remembered by the Creeslough people EddieOR11 (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieOR11: I've already answered this on my talk page, please don't ask the same question in several places. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are based on what independent, reliable, published sources say about a topic, you have none here you are merely advertising an event. Theroadislong (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:14, 13 January 2025 review of submission by Nik9t

[edit]

I am struggling to identify secondary sources in order to validate a notable person entry.

Dr. Kent is considered a legend within the UN for decades of pioneering work done, but I am struggling to find what might be considered acceptable validation of the facts through secondary sources.

For example, my understanding was that elected titles / association of reputed academic bodies alone should suffice, but this appears not to be the case (rejected submission).

The requirements seem dismissive with respect to what I have been able to identify online so far. What am I missing? How might I reasonably validate this entry.

Thank you for any guidance. Nik9t (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have added an unreferenced section with personal details where did you get this from? Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nik9t: Have you read over WP:NACADEMIC? That uses a different, somewhat more bespoke, set of criteria than the general guideline that may be easier for Kent to meet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 13 January 2025 review of submission by AudaciousT

[edit]

How many notable articles does an individual need to qualify for an article. AudaciousT (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the number, but the quality, for example Intagram and Applemusic are not independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 14

[edit]

00:02, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Phenomenon 10

[edit]

Hi, I posted this to the article talk page, but I am not sure that is the proper place. I would like assistance with the following (thank you):

____

Hello!

I submitted this article and it was rejected on 04 March 2024.

I made all the requested changes, and the article was rejected again on 21 July 2024.

The editor for the second rejection on 21 July 2024 cited the exact same rejection reasons (reliable sources) the editor for the 04 March 2024 rejection used.

Please review the sources section of the article and note they meet, in abundance, the criteria for reliable sourcing. The article subject is the primary subject of most of the included sources in the article, and, the sources are universally acknowledged, highly credible, journalistic entities.

I would also like to suggest, respectfully, that there is a possibility the second article editor may have been influenced by bias against the article subject, as the article subject is strongly affiliated with the State of Israel, and the US and Israeli military.

Thank you for your attention and assistance to this matter. Phenomenon 10 (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was not rejected, it was declined.
Not sure what you're talking about by "second article editor" (You were the only submitter), but if you're accusing reviewers of being biased against the article subject you have to stop. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phenomenon 10: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
You might have better luck if you can provide page numbers to the offline cites (page numbers are hard-required for all offline newspaper/news magazine cites) and get rid of every source that is primarily stuff he or his direct associates have written or said. I cannot say if he is notable or not since there are two sources I cannot assess, but getting rid of the worst sources is paramount. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:02, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Guhvkkik

[edit]

I am the person on this article I can show you any proof Guhvkkik (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Vaxlodz
@Guhvkkik: Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Articles here have to be neutral and be based solely on reliable sources. As you can not be neutral when talking about yourself, anything you write could be biased. Also, you are a primary source about yourself, and typically, articles should be based mostly on secondary sources. Wikipedia does not allow original research, including personal accounts of your own life. Everything you write must be backed by a reliable source, and currently, every source in your draft is user generated, which is not reliable. It is not always a good thing to have an article about yourself. cyberdog958Talk 02:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I Add some link why Spotify and Fandom are not approuved?! Guhvkkik (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I need to add for proof ? I don't want my wiki got deleted Guhvkkik (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guhvkkik: As I have said here and the other reviewers stated on your draft, you have to source everything from a reliable source. The sources you had, and then deleted, were not reliable sources. If no such sources exist, then you cannot create the article. cyberdog958Talk 06:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guhvkkik: We don't cite streaming platforms such as Spotify, and Wikia/Fandom is an open wiki just like Wikipedia is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Guhvkkik. Like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources (see WP:42 for more detail): nothing less, and very little more.
What the subject or their associates do, or have done, or say, or want to say is almost completely irrelevant except where it has been discussed by such independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:32, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Georgebucklang1

[edit]

How come my article about westmount park school was declined by CyberDog958 thank you Georgebucklang1 (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Westmount Park School
Please, read the reason provided. You submitted a redirect request to a process which reviews articles.
Please submit the request at WP:WIZR.
ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Audiodude

[edit]

Thank you for reviewing my draft so quickly! The reviewer (SK2242) left the following message: "Needs more reliable sources that talk about Fedipact itself in significant detail." I guess I'm just not sure about what the threshhold is for "more" and "significant". Or if "itself" in that sentence implies that a reliable source needs to write a dedicated article, perhaps with the word "Fedipact" in the headline? I know my sources are reliable, and I've already got 4 of them. audiodude (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability)
I guess my suspicion is correct, that it needs a dedicated article. It seems my intuition about "in passing" is different than the definition applied in notability reviews. audiodude (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Audiodude: that's right; we need to see 'significant coverage' directly of the subject, which means that it should be the main topic, or at least one of the main topics, of the sources you're citing, to show that the subject is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Also, because Wikipedia only summarises what others have previously published, for that to be possible there must be substantial content to summarise. Of the four sources cited in this draft, two make only a single, passing mention of Fedipact, and a third provides not much more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 14 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502

[edit]

Fast X: Part 2 (2026) we have runtime is reportedly 148 minutes (2 hours, 28 minutes) per AMC Theatres. 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502 (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, from #21:56, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A. How long are you going to carry on wasting your time and everybody else's on this nonsense? Please read What Wikipedia is not carefully. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Namenamesjjenehjd

[edit]

My article was denied because of favoritism. Not only did I provide the exact resource that was used in another article very similar to mine (and that also provided sufficient information), I have also noticed other articles that have been approved with less information. Denying my article's approval shows clear favoritism towards other subjects and other editors, which is not acceptable in this community. Just because I am not as experienced in article creation as others does not mean that my article should be denied. I'd like to bring attention to the article for Triazeugacanthus, which was approved whilst having similar information and sources as mine. Namenamesjjenehjd (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Namenamesjjenehjd: Odds are that article was never drafted, as one-source stub drafts have never survived the AfC process. (That's because one source, by itself, cannot support an article no matter how good the source or short the article.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Deidrel.evans

[edit]

Hello, I recently attempted to create a Wikipedia article for StriveTogether, but it was rejected for "not meeting notability guidelines" and "neutrality". I want to improve the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards and would greatly appreciate any feedback or guidance. I was revising it by ensuring a neutral tone, but I’d welcome advice on how to strengthen it further. I think it got resubmitted before I was finished. Here’s the draft: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:StriveTogether . Thank you for your help! Deidrel.evans (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deidrel.evans: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered futher.
And for the record "it got resubmitted" because you resubmitted it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Nycrest

[edit]

Hello - please review the updated page with new sources (The Today Show and others) Thanks Nycrest (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycrest: this draft was rejected many months ago, and will therefore not be considered further. If evidence of notability has come to light which wasn't previously considered, you may appeal the rejection by contacting the rejecting reviewer directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks, not sure if the reviewer is active anymore, how do i check? Nycrest (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycrest: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
I'd talk to S0091 about reversing the rejection, but first I would get rid of the Resy, Eater, and The Infatuation sources —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made these changes and fixed the PIX11 link (idk what happen there) - also how do I make sure S0091 is still active? Nycrest (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycrest: Per the navpopups S0091 last edited 10 Jan. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you Nycrest (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycrest first, per your discussion with at User talk:Clovermoss/Archive 13#Question from Nycrest (02:09, 21 December 2024) you need to disclose your COI for each draft/article that involves the "nonprofit East Village Collective". The easiest way do this in on your User page (see WP:COIDISCLOSE for the COI Userbox template). I have added a template to the referenced draft which will allow you to resubmit it but do take care the COI declarations first. Transparency is key (not that think you trying to hide anything, but be upfront). I will leave you some additional information on your talk page. In addition, please be aware we are volunteers here so responses may not come quickly. It may take days, if not a couple weeks. Outside of that, I think you have at least done a good job addressing the draft's promotional tone. S0091 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycrest you just re-submitted the draft before taking care of the COI declaration so I have reverted you. Again, take care of that first. S0091 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't realize the COI wasn't updated on my page (i didnt hit submit). I submitted my background with my affiliation with the Community Board (who initially approved this businesses license) Nycrest (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycrest all good now. For the record Nycrest has made an WP:AGF effort to appropriately disclose. With a little help, we got there. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 14 January 2025 review of submission by 196.188.159.97

[edit]

allow 196.188.159.97 (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected due to refusal to address criticisms and will not be considered further. You absolutely cannot just slap a list of references on the end and call it good; they need to be cited in-line at the spot(s) of the claim(s) each source supports. Anything less gets declined out of hand. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Mjpmnelissen

[edit]

Request for final edit and publication. Mjpmnelissen (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjpmnelissen: I'm not sure what exactly you're asking, but if you are finished with this draft and would like it to be reviewed, you need to submit it by clicking that blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nycrest (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:03, 14 January 2025 review of submission by 74.135.79.38

[edit]

Miami Valley Golf is an association similar to the USGA and should have their own page on this site 74.135.79.38 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations do not "have pages" here. Wikipedia has articles about topics, some of which are organizations. Those organizations do not exclusively control or maintain those articles.
Your draft is written as an advertisement, telling of the offerings of the organization and what it sees as its own history. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about a topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 14 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502

[edit]

FBI (also known as FBI: The Game) is a upcoming video game based on the television show of the same name. FBI is a first-person shooter. (portrayed by Missy Peregrym, & Zeeko Zaki). The game will be released on Windows & PlayStation 5 & Xbox Series S/X & PlayStation 6. 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your question? 331dot (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Lanak20

[edit]

Dear editors, would appreciate your assistance as I work to get an article approved. I believe the article is well-prepared and meets Wikipedia’s guidelines. However, I would appreciate it if someone could take a look to confirm everything is in order.

If there are any minor adjustments or suggestions that could enhance the article further, I’d be happy to address them. xx

Thank you for your time and support! :) Lanak20 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lanak20 I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. You have submitted the draft for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if they don't accept it. It's redundant to submit the draft for a review then ask for a review outside of the process. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the link, I appreciate it xx Lanak20 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:27, 14 January 2025 review of submission by DavidGodo

[edit]

I am trying to submit a page or an article for an independent artist named Hypnautic who is half of the independent group Top Flite Empire. it is declining me. DavidGodo (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidGodo: The page was declined and deleted as blatant promotion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White (2025).

[edit]

Snow White we have runtime is reportedly 127 minutes (2 hours, 7 minutes) per AMC Theatres. 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502 (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for help with the drafting process and isn't for requesting edits to existing articles. Take it to Talk:Snow White (2025 film) or (if that is protected) to WP:Requests for page protection/Edit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:35, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Lanak20

[edit]

Hello

I am writing to express my deep frustration and confusion regarding the recent decline of my draft, After dedicating months to meticulously gather and incorporate reliable, published, and independent sources that adhere strictly to Wikipedia’s guidelines, my submission was dismissed in less than an hour with the rationale that the references do not demonstrate the subject’s notability.

To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:

• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/

• Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com

• 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com

These sources provide detailed information about Ario Nahavandi’s career and public presence, aligning with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for people.

It is disheartening to observe that numerous articles on Wikipedia have been approved with references that are far less substantial. In contrast, despite my adherence to the guidelines and the inclusion of credible sources, my draft has faced multiple rejections.

I kindly request a thorough review of my draft and the accompanying references. If there are specific issues or additional criteria that I need to address, please provide detailed feedback so I can make the necessary adjustments.

Thank you xx 

Lanak20 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lanak20: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
What is your connexion to Nahavandi? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Batman Part II (2027)

[edit]

The Batman Part II we have runtime is reportedly 168 minutes (2 hours, 48 minutes) per AMC Theatres. 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told above, this page is not for requesting edits to existing articles and you need to take it either to the talk page or (if that's protected) to WP:RFPP/E. Any further posts by you requesting edits on this page will be summarily reverted off. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

[edit]

00:11, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Wahdoh

[edit]

The article is correctly cited according to wikipedia guidelines. Please tell me if I am mistaken and what more information should I provide to make it acceptable. Thank you. Wahdoh (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the draft for resubmission per SafariScribe's statement "I am reopening this draft for submission if you cite sources.", as it seems you have added inline citations. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:34, 15 January 2025 review of submission by JazzDoc5525

[edit]

This article was declined. I tried to ask the editor who declined it their reasoning and received no response. I could use some guidance here... This article was submitted with what should be the *highest* value sources, feature articles in both Downbeat and JazzTimes magazines. It is very difficult to get this coverage if a musician is not "notable." For young jazz artists, there are no better independent references for a Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, Wiki has consideration for Genre-Specific notability which seems to be disregarded here. The criteria seems subjective and the editor seems uninformed about relevant sources... Thanks. JazzDoc5525 (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JazzDoc5525: We can't use https://www.allaboutjazz.com/musicians/behn-gillece/ (unknown provenance). Replacing that source with a much better one might help. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:06, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Infomdzakaria

[edit]

page rejected, but person is really famous and well know person in Bangladesh. Infomdzakaria (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Infomdzakaria: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:00, 15 January 2025 review of submission by LPM UNKLAB

[edit]

I want to create an alumni profile of universitas klabat, because i'm a webmaster of universitas klabat LPM UNKLAB (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LPM UNKLAB: the first thing you need to do is disclose your paid editing. I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions.
As I said when I rejected your draft, none of the alumni listed in it seems to be notable, as we define it, since they don't have existing Wikipedia articles.
And even if all three were notable, there would be no real reason to publish a separate article just for that, when they can be very easily included in the main university article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Also, do not edit (other than to make simple typo etc. corrections) the main university article directly, on account of your conflict of interest. You need instead to make edit requests via its talk page; the easiest way to do that is via the wizard at WP:ERW. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Please do not create multiple drafts on the same subject, you now have both Draft:Notable Alumni of Universitas Klabat and Draft:Notable Alumni in the system (as well as your sandbox User:LPM UNKLAB/sandbox). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Abdalrahmanmido

[edit]

I was acquiring on why was my article declined

thank you and I hope to hear from you soon Abdalrahmanmido (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdalrahmanmido: I declined it, because there was no evidence of notability. The draft was entirely unreferenced, and only listed the university's own website as a general source. I then deleted it, as purely promotional, and also as a copyright violation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1269555967"