Help desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 11

09:55:20, 11 June 2022 review of submission by NeverTry4Me

NeverTry4Me (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Madan Kalita (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Though I assured not to land here again the Draft:Madana_kalita is rejected, even though the draft person clearly passes WP:NPOL. I request an experienced review. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was NOT rejected it was declined, and please do not cast aspersions on reviewers, all reviewers are experienced. Theroadislong (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NeverTry4Me That a topic passes the notability criteria does not guarantee it an article. There still must be significant coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. Your draft only states that this individual was a legislator and passed away due to cardiac arrest. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot please assist me what more I shall include in the Draft. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NeverTry4Me You need to summarize independent reliable sources that give this person significant coverage. If no sources exist beyond confirming they were a legislator and that they passed, the person likely would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why the temporary reviewer is angry without knowing what is MLA in India?~~ _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to open up an additional section with each question about the same draft. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume the reviewer is angry with you? 331dot (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me: I don't know who it was aimed at, but I am going to take issue with this 'temporary reviewer' slur, which continues in the earlier vein of suggesting that some reviewers are not competent and/or somehow not good enough to review your drafts. I'm not expecting you to be grateful to volunteers for giving their time to review your drafts, but basic respect would not be at all out of place IMO. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have retracted my comment and tender apology with good faith. Pardon me for this._{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 22:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me your posts here are teetering on being disruptive. You are either asking for someone to essentially review a draft you have submitted rather than waiting for a review like everyone else or complaining about the review received. (June 6th complaint, June 8th question about pending submission, June 9th complaint, June 10th question about pending submission). With your complaints you often state you want an "experienced" or "senior" reviewer which can be construed as an insult to the editor who reviewed the draft. If you have an issue with the review you received, contact that reviewer directly first and give them time to respond. Please do not come here asking for someone to look at pending submission. It will be reviewed in due course just like all other drafts. S0091 (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:05, 11 June 2022 review of submission by Angkynrhr

Angkynrhr (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ansoft Solutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Angkynrhr (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angkynrhr You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. I see you declared a conflict of interest, if you work for this company you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected, each sentence is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:03:05, 11 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 007Ranjeet

007Ranjeet (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Christ College, Cuttack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

007Ranjeet (talk · contribs)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

007Ranjeet (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @007Ranjeet? The draft was declined several times, and finally rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but why it is rejected it is a college please guide step by step what to do how to add this. i have doing this watching other college page from my city this is a govt institute what to do next? 007Ranjeet (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@007Ranjeet: You cite only one source, and that source is a profile (too sparse/connexion to subject). Even if that source were acceptable, one source is not enough for us to have an article on a given topic. And based on Google search results (string: ["christ college" cuttack]) there aren't really any in-depth, non-routine, independent sources about the school that are written by identifiable journalists and published in outlets with competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts that we can actually base an article off of. So the answer to "what to do next?" is "Abandon the draft for now". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there are other sites am adding can i create a new draft 007Ranjeet (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@007Ranjeet: As long as you have the sources to support it, yes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:38, 11 June 2022 review of submission by 209.203.8.10

209.203.8.10 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Relton Booysen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

209.203.8.10 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please advice what i must do further.

@209.203.8.10: The article has been rejected, due to the subject's lack of notability. See WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:56, 11 June 2022 review of submission by 209.203.8.10

209.203.8.10 (talk · contribs)

Page have been rejected , an i do not know how to fix it.

209.203.8.10 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, the draft was rejected and won't be considered further, for repeatedly ignoring requests to declare WP:COI, no improvement in sourcing to establish notability, and large portions of text still being unsourced. I suggest you find another topic. Theroadislong (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:59, 11 June 2022 review of submission by Nighthawk789

Nighthawk789 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

Hello, I had a draft submission deleted by a reviewer http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Draft:Needlecraft_(magazine) , and that was my only copy of the text. I spent many days editing the content. Is there a way I can get a copy of it now? I wasn't aware that sentences I was citing from other internet sources could not be direct quotes but had to be rewritten in my own words.

Nighthawk789 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nighthawk789: As a rule admins are very uncomfortable restoring or providing anything that's a copyright violation, as it would then open Wikipedia and themselves up to legal liability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nighthawk789: I'm the reviewer who tagged it for speedy deletion as copyright infringement. The draft consisted almost entirely of text copied from a few different sources. It is much harder to create a well-written article by copying sentences from a source and then trying to rewrite them, than it is if you read the source, noting the main important facts, and then compose an entirely new text based on those facts. It is also very difficult to avoid plagiarism when writing a new text by rephrasing existing sentences. In other words, the admins wouldn't actually do you any favours by sending the text to you. --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:09, 11 June 2022 review of submission by Ombhusal9

Ombhusal9 (talk · contribs)
- User:Ombhusal9/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ombhusal9 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ombhusal9: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as blatant advertizing and, as the subject is involved with NFTs, dropped a sanctions alert on your userpage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:33:17, 11 June 2022 review of submission by BaldiBasicsFan

BaldiBasicsFan (talk · contribs)
- Draft:The Unstoppable Yellow Yeti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Look, I tried my best, but it wasn't accepted. Why do you guys mean about using me sources as "legal"? Télé-Loisirs is a good source for French airdates, especially since one of the countries that produces the show is France. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldiBasicsFan: "Legal" is not the word I would have used, but we generally don't cite social media except to attribute quotes as such websites have no editorial oversight. And airdates are the absolute last thing you should worry about; Animation Magazine is (possibly) the only viable notability-granting source you cite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: Is there an actual reliable source that has French airdates? I might add a citation needed notice on the airdates if there isn't any. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldiBasicsFan: Forget the airdates, focus on proving the show is notable first. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: Replaced the Gigglebug reference, as that could be seen as original research, that research is forbidden per WP:OR. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]