Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
ApplyBy subject
Reviewing instructions

Nov 2023
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

November 25[edit]

00:51, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Lear419[edit]

The draft was rejected because it didn't cite secondary sources. The GitHub FRET project has references to a couple of dozen publications from organizations other than NASA involving the use of FRET as well as its relationship to formal methods. Here are a couple of samples:

Ivan Perez, Anastasia Mavridou, Thomas Pressburger, Alwyn Goodloe, Dimitra Giannakopoulou. Integrating FRET with Copilot: Automated Translation of Natural Language Requirements to Runtime Monitors, NASA/TM–20220000049, January 2022.

Zsófia Ádám, Ignacio D. Lopez-Miguel, Anastasia Mavridou, Thomas Pressburger, Marcin Bęś, Enrique Blanco Viñuela, Andreas Katis, Jean-Charles Tournier, Khanh V. Trinh, Borja Fernandez Adiego. From Natural Language Requirements to the Verification of Programmable Logic Controllers: Integrating FRET into PLCverif, NFM 2023.

Is that what you are looking for as secondary sources? Lear419 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lear419: just to clarify, this draft was declined (not 'rejected') because it failed to show that the subject is notable, which is demonstrated through referencing. At the time of review, it didn't cite a single source, ergo no evidence of notability.
You can read about secondary sources here WP:SECONDARY, and about the general notability guideline here WP:GNG. You may also wish to take a look at WP:NSOFTWARE (an essay, rather than a formal policy statement) specifically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03:54, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Xwallawallax[edit]

\ Help with academic researcher profile page Hello,

I am seeking input on how to improve this page: Draft:Saad Bhamla

It was rejected on the following grounds:

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth and

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Having read the eight academic-specific criteria, it is clear that Prof. Bhamla meets several of these. I have also cited reliable secondary sources (e.g., NSF, NIH, etc.) to support this assertion.

I do need some help on the advertisement vs encyclopedia rejection. Most academic bios are written in the form that I supplied, but any tips on converting it into an encyclopedia-style diction would be appreciated. Xwallawallax (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xwallawallax I've fixed your post to provide a link to your draft.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the accomplishments and accolades of a person. That is considered advertising. I would urge you to read the notability criteria carefully to learn more about what is being looked for when you assert that an individual meets them. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xwallawallax: please don't ask for support both here and at the Teahouse (and certainly not within minutes of each other), as this wastes volunteer effort when multiple contributors are taking part in multiple conversations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My fault - did not realize they were separate forums until after I posted at Teahouse (and realized that was the incorrect place to post). (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05:51, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Ninjascrollqc[edit]

im trying to make this page that looks like this other journalist :Yoani Sánchez

But im having a hard time to find all the coding or format to add all the required information, example , interviews that the journalist received, conferences where he participated, the schollarship he participated in europe, life in Canada and his career as Journalist and Programmer. Ninjascrollqc (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ninjascrollqc Your draft is actually in your sandbox, so I've fixed your link to it. We also don't need the whole url when linking to another article on Wikipedia, so I've fixed that.
Drafts created in a sandbox need the submission template added manually, I've done this for you so you can submit it. This information is provided automatically if you use the Article Wizard to create a draft. Before you submit it, you will need to format the references properly, instead of having bare urls. Please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:26, 25 November 2023 review of submission by 2409:40C4:C:DD87:8000:0:0:0[edit]

I have information about thebandwala.. There is a website on this topic and indiam udyog registration of thebandwala taken on 2021. Are these 2 sources will be enough for refference of this title ? 2409:40C4:C:DD87:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be sure to log into your account as it make communication easier. Their website is primary source and not independent so not useful. Read through all the links in the decline message which outlines the type of sources needed. S0091 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:34, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Le Palais de Tokyo[edit]

Hello everyone at the Teahouse! I recently submitted my first article draft, and unfortunately, it was declined. I'm seeking some guidance on how to improve it and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. I'm eager to learn and make the necessary changes, so any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help! Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Le Palais de Tokyo the draft reads like a listing of things they have done sourced to themselves or routine announcements/press releases with no independent in-depth coverage about them. What they say or want to say about themselves is not useful, nor are sources that make no mention of them. Also, if you are affiliated with them, you need to make the appropriate declaration and will leave you additional information on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi S0091! I appreciate your detailed review. I see what you mean about the need for independent and in-depth sources to enhance the article's quality and neutrality. In the creation of the article, I have basically based the content and structure on other articles, and tried to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's style manual. Perhaps some of those articles I have seen about design studios were based on lists of mainstream competitions or prizes following a brief summary, and seldom about the studios relationship to its subject and practice.  I don't have any direct affiliation with the studio itself. As a former art and design student passionate about conceptual design and art I hope to contribute to Wikipedia in a specific field (design studios not focused on advertising and branding, but operating within the arts and culture) of design practices that is hard to find content of despite this fields development, parallell to traditional design and advertisng businesses, since the turn of the millenium. I’m very grateful for your detailed feedback and I’ll go over the article and try to make it more inline with wikipedias standards. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best wishes, Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks 331dot, and apologize for any newbie misbehaviour. Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:39, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Le Palais de Tokyo[edit]

Hello I recently submitted my first article draft, and unfortunately, it was declined. I'm seeking some guidance on how to improve it and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. I'm eager to learn and make the necessary changes, so any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated. I posted this question in the Teahouse community feed as well. Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated! Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above. S0091 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:57, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Chellers123[edit]

It's a small, but notable traction in the small town/city of Norway in Hønefoss Chellers123 (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft offered no sources whatsoever, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about topics that meet the notability guidelines, such as a notable event. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:01, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Musitafa Kalyowa[edit]

Can't see resubmit option Kalyowa Musita (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Musitafa Kalyowa: that's because this draft has been rejected, which means that resubmission is no longer possible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:08, 25 November 2023 review of submission by IDruben77[edit]

The proposed article was rejected because "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." I need some help on how to follow this guidelines because it seems to me that the text is written with a neutral point of view. Could anyone help out with improving it or pointing out what could be improved in the article? Thanks IDruben77 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IDruben77 you need to fairly summarize what source state and attribute opinions. For example footnote 9 is an opinion piece so not something that can be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. For footnote 10, you summarize what the NAACP states but nothing else. What did Price say and are there independent sources with no affiliation to either Price or the NAACP that puts it context? Right now, it comes across as if you are pushing a narrative that aligns with a specific point of view even if that is not your intent. S0091 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @S0091 for providing feedback on areas for improvement in the article; your guidance is much appreciated. In response, I have made some adjustments. Firstly, I opted to delete footnote 9, as it was based on an WSJ opinion piece. Instead, I directly quoted Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price to ensure a more factual foundation.
Regarding footnote 10, it's essential to note that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) carries significant weight as a well-respected entity with over a century of history dedicated to racial justice and police accountability. Their stance against the perceived inactivity on crime in Oakland is noteworthy in itself, and it seems to me that that their position is not driven by partisanship. Upon revisiting the San Francisco Chronicle article, I found that, despite the journalist's attempt to contact the Office of the District Attorney, no response or alternative perspective was provided. Consequently, the article from the San Francisco Chronicle stands out as an independent source that diligently reported on this fact. I welcome any further suggestions on refining this section to ensure accuracy and clarity. IDruben77 (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:18, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Redstar0005[edit]

I would like to know if the sources I use in my article are reliable, if you have time, please review them. Redstar0005 (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Redstar0005 Fan sites and IMDB are not reliable sources and generally neither is YouTube unless is a video by a reputable new organization or the like (see WP:RSPYT for additional information). S0091 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:41, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Jack Massing[edit]

I guess that I have made a mistake in trying to publish an entry about myself. How can this be accomplished or could I do this? Jack Massing (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jack Massing Please read the Autobiography policy; writing about yourself, while not absolutely forbidden, is highly discouraged, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 26[edit]

01:22, 26 November 2023 review of submission by[edit]

I just want to help people find the difference in the pronunciations of linguistics pls help (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that is not what wikipedia is for. ltbdl (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:30, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Alexandracraig[edit]

I’m a talent manager and my client Alie Craig and I are trying to get her page published but it keeps getting kicked back for some reason. Can someone help us get this page published or at least tell us what is wrong with it.

Thanks. Alexandracraig (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is direct contact for myself. I would appreciate some insight as to why this page keeps getting kicked back with errors.
jason at Alexandracraig (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

02:49, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Alexandracraig[edit]

I don't know what to put down as the websites, there are so many different websites on my name I don't know which ones to choose. Please some assistance. Alexandracraig (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMDb, Amazon and YouTube are generally not independent, reliable sources and will need replacing. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:13, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Imoveisavista[edit]

What advice can you give to me improve the text and get publication approved, please?

Thanks Nina Mattos Imoveisavista (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It can't be published it was rejected and deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. You are likely to be blocked soon because of that. Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:15, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Agent2122[edit]

I would like to create a biography about Abdul Jackson . I read about him in Onetime . please help me Agent2122 (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that your topic is notable in Wikipedia terms and your draft has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agent2122 I don't think you just read about him since you took a picture of him and your username suggests you are his agent. You must respond to the inquiries I've made on your user talk page, or you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:33, 26 November 2023 review of submission by SaneFlint[edit]

Now I'm being asked that my article is full of praise tone while I'm doing my best to write it in a neutral manner.

Someone can help me with that? SaneFlint (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SaneFlint: this draft has now been rejected (and not before time, IMO), and will therefore not be considered further. Time to drop it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:08, 26 November 2023 review of submission by ALA ALYAMAN[edit]

I do not intend to promote for myself, I aim to provide facts and experience about business to give hope and guide for youths. instead of speedy deletion while it is still a draft and meaningwhile I have a lot of resources of my studies you can advice me how to turn this to a researcher page and place my research for education materials and how to make it less about me. I don't mind that but I need my educational message to reach.

BR, Alaa ALA ALYAMAN (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't the place for you to do those things, sorry. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ALA ALYAMAN please do not re-create this article again, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please go somewhere else to present your research and findings. Qcne (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:23, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Simodabir0[edit]

How can I fix it because it represents a character and not an advertisement or something like that? Simodabir0 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Simodabir0: this draft has been rejected and is pending deletion, so there is no way to "fix it". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:57, 26 November 2023 review of submission by SaneFlint[edit]

Someone here to see my article before I submit it? Just see if it's now in a neutral tone or not? SaneFlint (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews. The best way to find out is to submit it. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draft has been declined 13 times and editor still doesn't appear to understand what we mean by neutral tone, WP:CIR seems to apply. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More context to this request here Qcne (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:52, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Laksh Creations[edit]

I need this content to be posted Laksh Creations (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Laksh Creations: this "content" will not be "posted", as it has been rejected and I have just requested speedy deletion on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:40, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Apugharamikolkata[edit]

i want help new page Apugharamikolkata (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. It is also unwise for you as an artist to post your work to Wikipedia Commons, as it makes it available for anyone to use for any purpose, including commercial, with attribution. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:07, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Archangelectra[edit]

I was declined for not having enough secondary sources, which I understand, but are news articles about the topic at hand considered secondary sources, or primary? Analysis of manuals and other specification based topics aren't done that often by secondary sources, and I do find this topic to be notable enough for an article in my opinion, as there is a Japanese wikipedia page for this topic, as well as a page for another type of Green Line vehicle, the type 8. Archangelectra (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Archangelectra it depends on the content within the article. If it is only mostly what those affiliated with topic say or first hand accounts, those are primary even the source is a third-party (see primary). Also, each Wikipedia language are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines so something acceptable on one does not mean it is acceptable on another and vice versa, though the English Wikipedia tends to be the most strict. S0091 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, alright, thank you for the help! And that's fair, regarding the strictness of the guidelines, I'll work on finding a few more secondary sources before I resubmit. Archangelectra (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:23, 26 November 2023 review of submission by[edit]

How do you insert the 'Authority control' template? (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP, that can only be used once the draft is accepted. S0091 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 27[edit]

01:56, 27 November 2023 review of submission by[edit]

Please help me edit and submit this! (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can resubmit it by clicking "Resubmit" on the draft(in the box at the top containing the most recent review). Is there specific help you are looking for? 331dot (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03:49, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Samh100[edit]


I am looking for assistance on two things.

1. I want to make sure that the title of the page stays the same. huupe is spelled with a lower case "h" as it is how the company prefers to spell it.

2. I want to add three images that are mine but the page will not let me add them. Can I please have assistance on having them added?

Best, Sam Samh100 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Samh100 If you work for the company that produces this product, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.
I believe the title can remain as it is from a technical standpoint. What matters is what independent reliable sources use as a spelling, not necessarily what the company wants.
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until your draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. New accounts cannot directly upload images, you may work with other editors via Files For Upload on doing so, but I would just wait as by the time the draft is accepted you will probably meet the criteria to be able to upload yourself(account is four days old with 10 edits or more). In order for it to be accepted, much promotional language needs to be removed. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05:08, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Oluwafemi1726[edit]

Can you tell me why this was moved to the draft? I think when i first made it i had no sources, but every single one of my claims had a source, even the author's name and his wikipedia page was mentioned on the first paragraph. on my links were through internet archives, with the quotes i was using, making the link DIRECTLY accesible to everyone that clicks on it. So can you tell me what i did wrong? Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oluwafemi1726: you would have to ask the user who moved it to drafts why they did so, but I'm assuming it was for the same reason as why this has since been twice declined, ie. there isn't sufficient evidence that the subject is notable: a single source, especially what appears to be a primary one (travel journal, of sort), is very seldom enough, and certainly not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:20, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Taimour sheikh[edit]

I am making a draft for the first time on Wikipedia and my previous one got rejected because of promotional language. Even though I am connected to the organization I am making this draft for but its not my intention to promote them on wikipedia. Since I am a content writer I don't know how to use neutral language according to wikipedia guidelines and I am overwhelmed by so many restrictions. However, please check this new draft and tell me will it get approved or not because I have tried my best to not use any peacock terms here. Taimour sheikh (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Taimour sheikh: we don't do on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk; submit your draft, and pretty soon you'll get a verdict. Note that promotionality is not just about the language and tone, it can also mean that you're saying what you want to say about the subject rather than summarising what independent secondary sources have said; that will inevitably result in promotional content. Looking at your sources, this is almost certainly the case here. You need to forget what you know about the subject, and instead find some sources that meet the WP:GNG standard and summarise them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that you declared a conflict of interest- if you work for this organization, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. Please see your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Gorkem80[edit]

The subject clearly satisfies #1 and #4 from the listed 8 notability criteria for academics. The listed references clearly demonstrate this. Could an editor help me understand if there is anything I am missing here?

  • The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  • The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Gorkem80 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Gorkem80: which source specifically supports criteria #1 and #4? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:58, 27 November 2023 review of submission by TshepoR[edit]

Request for help with improving the declined draft Good morning team, may I please be assisted with improving this draft, Draft:Khayalethu Anthony. It was recently declined because I couldn't place reliable sources. What helps me search for reliable sources? Please help a brother out. TshepoR (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TshepoR I fixed your post to provide a link for your draft as intended(you had other text there). We can't find reliable sources for you- it's up to you to gather them prior to writing- using search engines or your local library, to find sources with significant coverage of this person. Aside from the reliable sources issue you have some promotional language about his "journey" and "entering the arena"- Wikipedia articles are written very matter of factly and dry, without embellishment. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:25, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Spiggotr6[edit]

Is it true that Publishers Weekly and Booklist are not independent or reliable sources? I have used them in the past with no issues. Spiggotr6 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book retailers are not independent because they have an interest in selling the book. If you've used such sources before, it's probably just pure chance that you got away with it, or you were given incorrect advice previously. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright thank you for the help Spiggotr6 (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:21, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Danielleafrica[edit]

Hi everyone, I would just like to know why this article was rejected? Not enough content perhaps? Danielleafrica (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Danielleafrica. I declined your article because articles about organisations need to show they pass our WP:NORG criteria. There wasn't any indication that Alliance Media Africa passes this criteria with your current sources.
Can I also ask if you are an employee of Alliance Media Africa? Qcne (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Qcne, I sure have a lot to learn still. I am an employee yes so I will try to go declare the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest policy now. Danielleafrica (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Danielleafrica It was not rejected, it was declined, the two terms have different meanings here- "rejected" means that a draft may not be resubmitted, "declined" means it may be resubmitted.
The only sources provided are associated with what I assume is your company- press releases and the company website. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company(i.e. not press releases or announcements) showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared per the Terms of Use, see the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest.
You claimed the logo of your company as your own personal work- this makes it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. Did you create the logo yourself? 331dot (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @331dot, thanks for your message. A previous graphic designer of the company created the logo, the company has made small edits since, but the initial work was done by a former employee. Should I load it as something different? Would really appreciate the guidance here. Danielleafrica (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Danielleafrica You must immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons- Commons only hosts images free of copyright issues- or at least you need to claim it as the work of the company, not your personal work- if they want to make their logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution(I wouldn't want to do that, but it's up to your company).
Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. See WP:UPIMAGE. Fair use does carry some restrictions- like being unable to be used in drafts- but it does permit logos to be in articles.
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about uploading images until and if you draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@33dot, okay thank you. I will try to request deletion right now and re-upload later. Danielleafrica (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make the paid editing disclosure first- I've place instructions on how to do so on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:44, 27 November 2023 review of submission by[edit]

I do not understand why this was not accepted, or what more is needed. The artist is one of the leading musicians of the country, but as it is one of the smaller countries in African print media, especially online, is not going to be as readily available. (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two issues Editor:
  1. We need in-line citations for every single material statement. This is a hard requirement for biographies of living people. See the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
  2. You need to prove that Barhama meets our WP:NMUSICIAN criteria. Do this through the use of significant coverage of Barhama in multiple secondary sources that are independent and reliable.
Qcne (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to provide significant coverage of the subject and show they meet the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:21, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Anthon Caesar[edit]

need help with my biography Anthon Caesar (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anthon Caesar Wikipedia is not a social media website like Facebook, it is not a place to tell the world about yourself. Qcne (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:02, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Karl.zylinski[edit]

Can this be re-reviewed? I have updated the article with additional sources that I think should make the article more reliable. I have also changed the structure somewhat to make the article clearer. Finally I removed some sections that had a lack of sources or that seemed subjective. Karl.zylinski (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft was rejected, typically meaning it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. Personally, I'm not seeing it- the draft is highly technical and does not seem to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say is important/significant/influential about this programming language, what we term notability. Are you associated with this language? 331dot (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:53, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Ilghibellinfuggiasco[edit]

Hi there. My entry was declined for it says it is not supported by adequate sources. I was helped by other users in developing the page and thought I came to a decent result. From the last rejection I understand that only the sources in the reliable sources list page are taken into consideration? I have put dozens and dozens of sources, all verifiable, mostly Italian well-known magazines, and apparently this is still not enough. It is especially frustrating because I continuously see a lot of pages that have 3 or 4 sources, all outside the "reliable list" and apparently there is no problem with them. Maybe I put too many? I would like some help in understanding how to improve the sourcing. I can add several more, or reduce. Thanks! romeoandjuliet (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ilghibellinfuggiasco As odd as it may sound, you actually have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. What are your three (and only three, please) best sources?
Be aware that other articles that you view might also be inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this- that another article exists does not mean that it is problem free. See other stuff exists. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles.
As an aside, you altered your signature to display something very different from your username, this makes it hard for others to link to your username and communicate with you. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot! I did not know that username and signature would have to be the same. I will revert my signature back to my username then. I'm still learning.
Yes I may have put a lot of sources, surely too many, in an attempt to understand what needs to be sourced and what doesn't. Will reconsider the whole source list and narrow them down to the best ones. romeoandjuliet (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:36, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Jrg valdez[edit]

Σ Jrg valdez (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't ask a question, but three characters will never be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:38:12, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Kodakararajeev36[edit]

Kodakararajeev36 (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:51, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Rblack1185[edit]

What specifically is causing this to be declined for lack of notability? It's a large, privately-held organization that holds numerous, reliable resources to illustrate its notability, including partnerships with other major organizations. This would be a great encyclopedic page that outlines the company's evolving history. There are pages with less notability than this organization, and certainly pages with similar notability. Rblack1185 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rblack1185 Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and just not addressed yet.
You declared a COI, what is the general nature of it?
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your draft did not do that, which is why it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. My COI is that I am employed by the company, but that should have no bearing since I claimed the COI.
As for the reliable sources, there are 9 sources that are reliable in nature. There is nothing claimed in the article that is not backed by a reputable resource. How can we get this reviewed again, or approved in general? Rblack1185 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Press releases are NOT reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Insulation2[edit]

I tried to look up VPN on Wikipedia. It seems that someone decided to reject an article about it, despite Wikipedia having pages for several other VPN companies, e.g. Proton VPN, NordVPN, ExpressVPN, and many others. It seems unreasonable to have articles about some VPN companies and not others. I am not connected with in any way and only found out about it today - I was googling for VPNs that offer full IPv6 support. Insulation2 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not every company in a field merits an article, it depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources showing that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you just learned of this company, what motivated you to write about it? My first thought when learning of a company is not to run to Wikipedia and write about it. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you had bothered to read what I wrote before replying to it, you would have understood that I am not in the least "motivated to write about it". I came to Wikipedia to read about it. My search for a VPN provider offering full IPv6 support turned up, but I wanted to learn more about it before paying anything for their service. It seems that somebody was willing to write an article that might have been useful to me (and presumably to other people) - but some Wikipedia editor (maybe someone who works for a competing VPN provider) blocked it. Insulation2 (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read very carefully what you wrote. Since you are posting on the Articles for Creation Help Desk, which is intended to ask questions about creating and submitting drafts, I (incorrectly, it seems) assumed that you wanted to write about it. Many people say they come here after learning about a company to write about it. Since that's not what you were doing, I apologize. If you're not here to contribute to the draft that I am wondering what exactly your query is. Are you requesting that the rejection be reversed?
Accusing the reviewer that rejected the draft of being associated with(and presumably paid by) a competitor is a serious accusation that requires serious evidence. Do you have that? 331dot (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will note that this draft was written by a declared paid editor from the company. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:42, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Qstor2[edit]

want to resubmit page. - question what's wrong with Reference #3? It's not "showing up" correctly for a webpage I think. Qstor2 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qstor2: it was just missing one of the closing double curly brackets of the cite tag. Fixed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:43, 27 November 2023 review of submission by KSienkiewicz[edit]

Hi! I have tried to publish a page of a film that I am working on. I am a Polish distributor of the film, and also a Post-production manager and PR manager internationally. I added references but it was still declined and I don't know how else can I make it authentic enough to get past verification. KSienkiewicz (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KSienkiewicz: the first thing you need to do is disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:PAID.
This draft was declined because the sources aren't sufficient to establish notability either per WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:27, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Rahmanibnusaid[edit]

I'm sure my article was correct. Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be correct, but he is not notable, which is why the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by[edit]

This information here is a collection of information that enthusiasts have painfully gathered over the years. There are hundreds, probably thousands of hours in collecting all of this info. Toyota does not publish this info, there is no authoritative source on this information but that makes this information even more important because there is no alternative source for it even if you pay Toyota for their technician subscription service.

I do donate to wikipedia and this is a big part of why i use it. Please don't delete this amazing source of information. (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an editor, I thank you for donating, but that has no impact on the consideration of articles. Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation and go towards running the computers Wikipedia is on, as well as other Foundation activities. We don't get the money.
Wikipedia is not a mere database of information- it summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You have just compiled technical information, you have not summarized any reliable sources as to why this transmission is notable. I would suggest finding an alternative forum to host this information, such as a personal website. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:40, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Redstar0005[edit]

Can you please review this page and tell me what I should work on before I submit it again? Thanks! Redstar0005 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the advice left by reviewers pretty much covers it. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:51, 27 November 2023 review of submission by CreatorNotConsumer[edit]

Can you explain why this article got rejected? Why don’t sources 5, 6, 17, and 18 count as notable? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops. So why did it get declined? How do the sources I listed fail WP:CORP? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CreatorNotConsumer have you read WP:NCORP? The sources I checked (NYT, Financial Times, etc.) are mostly what those affiliated say or are not in-depth. Others are likewise not independent and/or not reliable (sources like CoinDesk, forums, have no editorial oversight, etc.) with some making no mention of Manifold so not useful. S0091 (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I’ve read it carefully and checked the four sources I listed against the each of the guidelines. I have trouble understanding how the NYT and FT articles don’t qualify as significant coverage, given the amount of reporting and analysis each devote to Manifold in those sources. CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are Bloomberg and TDN not reliable or independent? They each have editorial oversight and significantly cover Manifold in their articles. I’d be so grateful if you could explain to me what it is that I’m missing. CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't read 6 as it is paywalled(which is fine, I just can't see it). 5 seems to talk about prediction markets as a broad concept and discussed this particular one very little. The other two sources don't seem to have significant coverage about why this particular prediction market is important/significant/influential- why it is notable. I've seen this described as a "startup"- startups almost never merit articles. A company must be established and recognized in its field before sources start giving it the needed coverage. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you’ll read the full NYT article (5), you’ll see that the majority of the text is about Manifold, especially about the reporter’s experience at the Manifold conference. What makes you call that “very little”? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgot to say earlier—-thanks so much for your help! A few more things: In what way is the Bloomberg newsletter not describing Manifold as notable? It explains that Manifold is a site from which you can gauge the opinion of engaged people with “skin in the game,” and includes a screenshot of the site and uses it as an indicator of popular sentiment about what will happen in the future. By explaining its usefulness, doesn’t that mean the article shows that the site is notable? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The TDN article states that they will be creating Manifold markets for each of their story posts going forward, so that readers can bet on what will happen in the future of the story covered. Is it notable that they are using Manifold as a tool to get the general opinion of their users? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:26, 27 November 2023 review of submission by[edit]

I have all my sources. Why am I not able to have this published? (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply], your draft contains numerous promotional phrases and sentences, which violate the Neutral pint of view, which is a mandatory core content policy. One of many examples is the final sentence:
In his spare time, Alucozai immerses himself in the beauty of California's hiking trails and steadily pursues his dream of traveling to every country in the world. That promotionsl, non-neutral sentence is unreferenced, which violates another core content policy, which is Verifiability.
Promotional writing and editing of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok thank you so much! Anything else to change? (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay thank you so much! Anything else to change? (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] it needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral manner using reliable sources. Most of the content is unsourced or WP:CITEBOMBed with unreliable sources or extremely poor sources (LinkedIn, The Exponent, Salam are not reliable sources so should not be used). There is nothing that currently suggests Alucozai can meet the notability guidelines. S0091 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 28[edit]

00:33, 28 November 2023 review of submission by W. Russell Smith[edit]

I am very new to creating pages and want to make sure everything is done correctly and by the book. I created a draft from a document I wrote in Word and then cut and pasted it into wiki. I am not sure how to use citations. It is all so new that it seems impossible! Please help. W. Russell Smith (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

W. Russell Smith, although it may seem impossible, it is not, as can be seen by the fact that this encyclopedia currently has 6,751,562 articles, all of which were written by someone at first. I recommend against drafting articles in Word or anywhere else because that prioritizes the prose. The backbone of a Wikipedia article are the references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. The prose simply summarizes that coverage, nothing more and nothing less. Instead, articles should be created in draft space or personal sandboxes, so that they can be developed in the Wikipedia environment, reflecting Wikipedia's specific Policies and guidelines. As for citations, Referencing for beginners explains things. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
W. Russell Smith As Cullen328 indicated, The *structure* of the proposed article isn't that bad, *BUT* the Problem is that County Commissioners in general aren't Notable enough for them to have a Wikipedia page about them. See WP:NPOL for the policy on notability of Politicians.Naraht (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

02:10, 28 November 2023 review of submission by BootNet[edit]

He is a famous Indian Islamic scholar, he should have a Wikipedia article. BootNet (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BootNet, the Neutral point of view is a core content policy that forbids promotional editing of any kind on Wikipedia. You wrote:
Javed Haider Zaidi passionately advocates for Muslim unity, emphasizing the importance of setting aside differences to thwart imperialist agendas. He actively promotes unity and brotherhood between Sunni and Shiite Muslims., referenced to the person's own website.
Non-neutral, promotional writing like this is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:51, 28 November 2023 review of submission by AbhissszZ[edit]

Why this article was rejected ? AbhissszZ (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AbhissszZ, your deleted draft biography of a living person was entirely unreferenced and was therefore a policy violation. See Verifiability. In addition, your draft contained highly promotional language such as this:
In addition to his thriving professional career in IT, Abhishek Kumar Singh possesses a diverse set of skills that reflect his artistic personality. Beyond the realm of technology, he is an accomplished painter and a skilled flutist, showcasing his creativity and passion for the arts. This unique combination of technical expertise and artistic talents highlights Abhishek's well-rounded and multifaceted personality also a disciple of Shiva.
Promotion of any kind is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:06, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Hypermole115[edit]

Hi there! My name is Adriel and I was wondering if I could get help on my article. I see that my article does not meet the criteria for publishing in the music category as well I need more sources to establish notability. Could I please get some help as I am confused about how my article is not ready to be published. Thank you! Hypermole115 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have not shown how the band meets the definition of a notable band, nor have you summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band(which usually includes professional reviews of their work). 331dot (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:18, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Vikamsinghsurya[edit]

Vikram Singh Surya Vikamsinghsurya (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vikamsinghsurya You don't ask a question, but your draft(which I fixed the link to) was deleted as blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:00, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Budoislife[edit]

I have tried to submit an article about a significant person in the AIkido world. If I understand the process correctly, it was not accepted due to lack of sourcing. I believe I have exhausted most available sources both on and off line. I wonder if there is something I am missing. Thank you in advance for any help. Budoislife (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Budoislife if you have exhausted all available sources, then he is not notable (by standards on Wikipedia). You can promote Takeshi Kimeda via another outlet, for example social media. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 14:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:01, 28 November 2023 review of submission by OffekM[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Helpdesk, I am writing about the repeated rejection of my draft article about Professor Ido Kanter, who is a leading physicist in several research areas and whose work is documented in more than 200 publications in leading scientific journals and some are cited hundreds of times in leading scientific journals. After my first rejection I was approached via email by someone who introduced herself as an experienced Wikipedia editor. She offered to edit the article and make sure that it is accepted, for a fee of 380 USD. Having read the scam warning page on Wikipedia, I refused the offer. After addressing the remarks left by the reviewer myself, I submitted the article again and it was rejected again. Since then, I have been rejected several times for various reasons, the remarks given were very vague and rarely addressed particular issues in the article itself. Let me mention three such reasons. (A) “the research does not demonstrate significant notability about them”, papers were published in leading scientific journals including Nature Photonics and Physical Review Letters. (B) “should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources”, “Every single reference except the one is a primary source”. I examined tens of Wikipedia pages of equivalent scientists and almost all contain only their own publications. Nevertheless, following this type of requests I have added mentioning of Kanter’s work in Newsweeks, Sciencemag etc, and when it was rejected again and asked for more such external citations, I added many more. (C) After all these additions the last rejection arrived “for references to show notability. At the moment appears to be a bit of a CV.”. This is a completely new issue which was not previously raised, and is general and does not direct a specific change. In addition, I do not understand what makes this article look like a CV. Every time I addressed the remarks of the reviewer – new remarks were raised. These remarks were unrelated to the previous issues raised about the article. It really looks as though someone is trying to prevent the article from being accepted – presenting new issues that had not been considered problematic previously so as to reject the article again and again. I have a very strong suspicion that this behavior is the result of my rejecting the offer for paid editing services. I hope this issue can be resolved promptly and I wish to receive clear remarks on all outstanding issues such that I can address them properly and have the draft article accepted. Thank you in advance, Yours Sincerely, Offek Marelly OffekM (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OffekM Good that you avoided being scammed. If you still have the email, could you follow the instructions at WP:SCAM to forward it to the email address indicated at the top of that page?
Note that there is a difference between "rejected" and "declined". Your draft was declined, meaning it may be resubmitted. Rejected would mean it could not be resubmitted. That your draft is being declined almost certainly has little to do with you turning down a demand for payment. The scammers who tried to scam you usually impersonate legitimate Wikipedia editors to give themselves legitimacy and(if they fail) get those legitimate editors in trouble.
Be advised that using other articles that themselves may be problematic is not a good idea, as you would be unaware of these problems. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles.
The main issue seems to be that you are describing his research when instead you should be describing how he is notable. If his research makes him notable, that is not being made clear in the article. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reviewers tend to raise only a few issues at a time to overload editors. There are a ridiculous amount of policies and guidelines (see WP:POLICYLIST) and it is hard to learn all of them. Given the number of declines, it is likely you are not notable. Try to demonstrate that you meet either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for academics.
If your only purpose to edit Wikipedia is to promote yourself, then you will probably be blocked as you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to actually contribute, start small. You can begin with 'easy' edits at your homepage.
There are many other ways to promote yourself, such as social media. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 14:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sungodtemple, you are replying in terms suggesting that OffekM is the same person as Ido Kanter. DO you have a reason for thinking this? ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to elaborate on Sungodtemple's point, the script used in reviewing drafts only allows 1-2 decline reasons to be chosen at a time. Reviewers are free to choose any reason(s) they wish; they do not have to 'follow suit' with what the previous reviewer may have chosen. So if a draft has, say, half a dozen plausible grounds for declining, it may indeed be declined multiple times for different reason(s), and this does not mean that the reviewers are 'moving the goalposts'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:41, 28 November 2023 review of submission by OhCanuck[edit]

How is this subject not notable enough? He is a Welsh international footballer with dozens of international games. Has played for two of the major clubs in england. I am new to this but there is much much less notable players on this site. User:Zoglophie? can you please explain? OhCanuck (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The sources you used are insufficient to establish notability. zoglophie•talk• 14:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have read through the rules you mentioned and i find nothing that requires original research. The sources show him siging a professional contract and multiple news sources. Hes also on the roster page for Leicester city! I dont know what more you could possibly need please tell me. OhCanuck (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need sources that give him significant coverage, not that merely describe his activities. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then what is an example of these sources? You are not being helpful at all right now. I have multiple news sources, club sources, independent source. Do you need a front page espn article? You are both being very difficult with this and are providing no explanations. OhCanuck (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that you are probably frustrated, but we really are trying to help you. Your four sources are
  1. his team website, which is not an independent source
  2. a profile from what seems to be a marketing or representation agency, which also is likely not independent
  3. a basic profile, not signficant coverage
  4. a single paragraph about him, not significant coverage
None of these sources establish notability. I see that upon creating your account you immediately dived right in to creating this draft article- which is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that new users first gain experience and knowledge by first editing existing articles, to learn about how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Users like you who dive right in to creating articles usually end up frustrated as you are, because they do not understand what is happening to their draft. If you haven't already read Your First Article, I would suggest that you do. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for this 331 it was all i was asking for. I wanted to go right into creating pages for my favourite footballers who didn't already have pages. I have an understanding of wikipedia but i did not think this wouldn't meet the requirements.Thank you for your help 331.
Last Question: Why was my page automatically rejected rather than declined? I put alot of work into this and now i cant even edit and resubmit. OhCanuck (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If he ever meets guidelines in future, someone will automatically create an article about him. zoglophie•talk• 15:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How? Thats what i was trying to do today? OhCanuck (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should read WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORTS before trying to submit a draft for review. It doesn't matter if he was your "Favourite" or not, we don't accept pages if they fail to meet these guidelines. Your best course of action is to wait until he is notable enough. zoglophie•talk• 15:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me? I have questions about my sources not because he was my "favorite". You have been nothing but difficult with me this whole time zoglophie and i dont understand why.
I will be filing a complaint to the administrators about your conduct and lack of professionalism. 331 has been fantastic and explained things in detail while you resort to side eyed remarks. Please reconsider how you talk to people on this platform. OhCanuck (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You also still haven't answered my question of "How?" an article will be auto generated. OhCanuck (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Auto generated" only means that when it is obvious that he meets the criteria and there is sufficient coverage of him, someone like you will eventually write about him.
I'm an administrator, and I see no issues with how zoglophie addressed you. We try to be direct here, which can sometimes come off as blunt. Also, we try to start with broad information and work our way up to details, not start with details as we are volunteers and are first trying to steer you to find the information yourself. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thank you 331 but i cannot hide my disappointment. Just for the future, this is not how you get new people excited about becoming editors. I am very very saddened OhCanuck (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly suggest that you start smaller. Many tens of thousands of editors are highly successful and impactful without creating a single article. We have millions of articles, many of which are in poor condition and need help. Many of these are probably about athletes. If you start smaller, making edits to existing articles, you can build on that for the future. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted d(⌒ー⌒) OhCanuck (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OhCanuck I recommend Special:Homepage - you can filter to articles that need copyediting or the like, and also by subject, in your example sports. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 17:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OhCanuck, I'm afraid you are in the position (like hundreds of others) of somebody who buys a musical instrument, and immediately takes it out busking. It's a laudable goal, but it takes practice to get there, and trying it before you're ready is likely to get uncomfortable feedback which may not be readily comprehensible.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. This means that nothing originating from the player or his club or associates can contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:13, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Htet Yadanar Lwin[edit]

Can you give me a specific reason why my article cannot be published? And I also have one question which is 'Can we publish the article with the same topic which was already on wikipedia but with different information?'.

Htet Yadanar Lwin (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Htet Yadanar Lwin: Wikipedia can't have two articles on the same topic. Please edit the existing Mala xiang guo article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:16, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Robin Safar[edit]

Hi team wikipedia! I've been attempting to set up a wikipedia page on regards to the professional boxer Robin Safar. I've never done this before, and I keep getting my submission rejected. I'm not quite sure what I've done wrong but I have on multiple occasions tried to make the text more neutral in it's tone, I've included more sources and yet it keeps getting rejected.

I would appreciate any help I can get as i'd like to get this thing up and running.

Sincerely Robin Safar (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft has been rejected, currently meaning that it will not ever be accepted. If you object to that, your best bet is to contact the person who rejected it, but don't hold your breath over it. Mach61 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:15, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Autistic Hyperfixation[edit]

I may be incorrect in my assumption that I submitted this translated article correctly, however (to my knowledge) in translating an article from Russian ( that was poorly sourced into English (My draft), my translation was not deem adequate by reviewer Theroadislong (

How do I proceed from here? Autistic Hyperfixation (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autistic Hyperfixation you may have assumed that because there is an article on the Russian Wikipedia the topic automatically qualifies for an article on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately this is not true, as different language Wikipedias are entirely separate projects and have their own standards. So you have to show that the article meets notability guidelines. See that page for details. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 12:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah I see! Thank you for the information! I'll try to find sources to back up my article then, have a great day! Autistic Hyperfixation (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:58, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Mahir bin Raees[edit]

Hell me what is a problem to create my page ? Mahir bin Raees (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 29[edit]

01:14, 29 November 2023 review of submission by HodgeBrad[edit]

This was rejected by the script, but I think that the sources cited are verifiable enough. I have the New York Times, the Washington Post, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter as well as others listed as sources, and he is notable enough to have a page. Please reconsider. Thank you! HodgeBrad (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evaluate each of your sources against the WP:Golden rule. Only those that pass it are capable of contributing to establishing notability. I can see straight away that several of your sources don't (eg 1,3,4,5,10,11). ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:32, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Greshthegreat[edit]

My draft was declined back on November 1, 2023 because, as user KylieTastic who reviewed it said, the "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject..."

Piper Rubio is definitely noteable though, yet I am having a hard time finding any articles to cite that primarily are about her, that make more than a passing mention of her.

She currently has 128k followers on her instagram account (which is run by one of her parents), and when I searched for Piper Rubio on TikTok, all the videos that come up collectively have 98.3 million views, several which themselves have over 1 million views. She also starred in her first major movie this year, Five Night's at Freddy's. That all in my opinion, among a few other things, shows that she is definitely very notable and popular.

Could I get some help finding some articles primarily or exclusively about Piper Rubio too cite? Thanks in advance to anyone who replies. Greshthegreat (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of followers has zero affect on notability here, what we need are independnent sources that discuss her in-depth, Instagram is not a reliable source either. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am very aware of that. That is why I am asking for some help getting independent sources that talk about Piper Rubio beyond a passing mention.
I only mentioned her Instagram followers, how lots of videos featuring her on TikTok have gotten many millions of views and that she was in a major movie, Five Night's at Freddys to point out that she is noteable. Also with all that in mind, surely there are some sources that discuss her at length. I am just having a hard time finding those sources. It is also possible somehow no such sources exist yet, which would be suprising given that she is somewhat famous. Greshthegreat (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rubio may indeed be notable in the usual sense of the word, but unless you can find suitable sources, she is by definition not notable in the way that Wikipedia uses the word.
I don't think you're likely to get much help in finding sources from people on this page: you're the one who wants to write an article on her, so you're the one with the motive to look for sources. (I may be wrong, of course: somebody may choose to look. I'm not interested in doing so myself). It's possible that if you ask on WT:FILMBIO somebody may be interested. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:38, 29 November 2023 review of submission by[edit]

I was trying to make a wiki page for my father showcasing his accomplishments and achieving such a high rank in the military can you please advise the information needed to validate and have the page upload. (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not recommended to write an article about your father, as that would be a conflict of interest and it will be hard to stay neutral. Practically only thing that matters for accept or decline is whether he is notable. Read that guideline for details. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:08, 29 November 2023 review of submission by NAMAN.GAUBA007[edit]

for editing what all things need to be change in this draft NAMAN.GAUBA007 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first thing you need to do is to turn your floating list of sources into inline references, so that it is apparent where every single piece of information in the article is sourced to.
When you have done that, you can resubmit it, and it will be practical for a reviewer to look at it and see whether or not he seems to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. But it will be helpful if you look critically at your sources to check that before you resubmit. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:19, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Good parents[edit]

Why this article has declined? Good parents (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good parents I fixed the link to your draft(it lacked the "Draft:") but it was a copyright violation. A Wikipedia article should not just be copied from elsewhere, it should summarize independent sources. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:35, 29 November 2023 review of submission by[edit]

why it is restricted ?? (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason for rejection was given. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have restored the rejection notice in the draft. Removing it was disruptive editing.
Please read WP:YFA. The very first step in creating a Wikipedia article is to find several reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. From that you will know whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The "sources" you list are worthless: the first one is merely a name: I don't even know what it is, never mind where to find it. The second is clearly not independent, and so is worthless for establishing notability.
The fact that the draft has been rejected suggests that the reviewer Zoglophie has looked for, and failed to find, suitable sources, and has therefore concluded that there is no point on you or anybody else spending any time on this.
If you are sure that you have several suitable sources, you can take it up with the reviewer on their user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Requests for accepting non-notable autobiographies constitute highest portion of total Afc. This was just another example of it. zoglophie•talk• 17:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:48, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Semigall[edit]

Hello. I don't understand why article about architect and urban planner Arnold Baron von Maydell is declined and considered not enough significant? There are several articles about similiar latvian architects which are published despite their short length and poor quality. Semigall (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semigall a common misconception is that since other crappy articles exist, my crappy article is acceptable. Practically the only thing that matters is notability, or whether enough reliable sources have significant coverage about von Maydell. Try to find other high-quality sources about him. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 12:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semigall If you would like to help us reduce the number of inappropriate articles, you may work with us to idenfity these other inappropriate articles for possible action. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:37, 29 November 2023 review of submission by[edit]

I ask for the page to be unblocked Draft:Gaetano Minale (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OP blocked for block evasion. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:49, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Lummoxxxx[edit]

How I can improve my work on this article Lummoxxxx (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:10, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Metalbro[edit]

I would like some help with the citation side of this page Metalbro (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What aspect do you need help with? 331dot (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:51, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Lilly0010[edit]

Why has my article been declined Lilly0010 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lilly0010 because it is not an encyclopedic article but an essay or as you put it a report. Social media or a blog are the types of place for you to write about such things. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:11, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Secretsauce99[edit]

Hey, I thought this article would be deemed notable given that it pertains to an existing Wikipedia page Pitchblack Playback and is about the founder of this event? I'm sure in the past this would have qualified someone for their own page? An event is notable but the person who created it is not? I don't quite understand the logic, even if I understand that the editor who has rejected this may not deem the person notable solely based on the citations added to the new article..

Thanks Secretsauce99 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the founder of something notable is not necessarily notable themselves, see WP:NOTINHERITED. It would depend on coverage in independent reliable sources being about them personally and not just what they did- and they would probably need to be notable for something in addition to creating a particular event in order to merit a standalone article. Most of the sources you provide discuss the importance of the event, not its creator. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:15, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Sidharthsnair[edit]

I have updated my page with more references and i need advice to make it to the approval team. Sidharthsnair (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft was rejected, which typically means that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you must first appeal to the last reviewer(the one who rejected the draft).
As you are associated with this topic, that must be formally disclosed, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In looking at the draft it appears that the sources provided are wholly inappropriate for establishing notability as Wikipedia defines a notable film. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:25, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Javert13[edit]

I'd love getting some help optimizing the page I'm trying to create so that it is eligible for publishing. My overall goal is to publish pages for more noteable parishes within the American Byzantine Catholic Church, and if I get good at that, figure out what else to grow next. Some of them already have wikipedia pages, and I'm attempting to add more in the same style as the previously published verisons. As far as I could tell, I used multiple sources to validate all of the information, and didn't just copy or paste from any one source (it was actually interesting to see a complete story synthesize from across the different sources).

Any advise as to how I could modify the page to be eligible, and what I could learn for future pages to avoid this?

Thank you!!! I use wikipedia enough, figured it was time to help it grow. Javert13 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of your sources have brief coverage, or are not independent of the parish. An article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it, thank you. I think I was more focusing on sources that verified or illustrated facts, and not so much looking at the breadth or quality of the actual sources. The quality of the sources seems kind of fuzzy, is there a helpful rule of thumb I could use when looking?
Is using the parish as a source useful at all, or does it draw a red flag right away? I find it useful as a starting point to then go and verify with independent sources elsewhere, but is that not a good approach?
Thank you for the quick feedback, super helpful already. Javert13 (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may read reliable sources to learn more about what is considered a reliable source, but in short, a source is considered reliable if it has a reputation of fact checking, editorial control, and basic journalistic or academic standards of process- they don't just publish anything they like without checking for accuracy, like a blog or self-published book.
The parish itself as a primary source, can be used as a source for certain things, but not to establish notability or claims beyond basic information like location, number of members, staff, etc. The history of the parish in general would need an independent source. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, incredibly helpful. Thank you! Javert13 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:30, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Bperu[edit]

Just wanted to get an update on my last submission of this article about 2 months ago.

I've made all the edits suggested by everyone who has reviewed it so far, and am curious to know if it now has all the elements necessary for it to be published.

Thanks! Bperu (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't usually do pre-review reviews- but the external links in the body of your draft need to be removed. Please see Referencing for beginners if you intend them as references- but your own newspaper can't be used as a reference to establish the notability of your newspaper. It's a primary source. An article needs to primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the paper.
References need to be in line, not just gathered at the bottom, so we know which references cite what information. Again, please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll need to make a formal conflict of interest disclosure, or if you work for the paper, a paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:49, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Klevis Elmazaj[edit]

Dear Team at Wikipedia, I received your latest refusal because of 'Autobiography on promotional tone'.

I believe if you compare this page to others of similar artists who are listed on wikipedia, it follows the same guidelines and content. This is not intended for promotional purposes, but mostly for informative purposes, where people can read and know more about the person or artist they encountered. It can be easy to say for every page that it has a promotional tone, unless of course someone else writes for them which can also be an agent, doing it for promotional tone.

Could you help me understand and guide through what I would need to do in order to have this page accepted?

Thank you for you understanding,

Warm regards, Klevis Klevis Elmazaj (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF - Do not try to use the existence of other articles to argue the validity of yours. It's also not cited properly, you need in-line citations, not all of them gathered at the bottom, please read WP:REFB - RichT|C|E-Mail 20:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:04, 29 November 2023 review of submission by VictoireIsdor[edit]

Can you help me to not be rejected VictoireIsdor (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, no; you do not meet our definition of a notable musician, and your draft is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:21, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Iulia pantea[edit]


Can you please advise me about the modifications I must make to the Wikipedia page for Daniel Epure in order for it to be approved?

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Kind regards,

Iulia pantea (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Iulia pantea: thanks for reaching out. Did you see the note on the draft? Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject.
~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 30[edit]

01:03, 30 November 2023 review of submission by[edit]

How to edit page to be published on Wikipedia (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed your link to your draft. Publishing will not be possible, it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]