Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


September 6

[edit]

02:17, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Limmidy

[edit]

To be clear, this is not my article. I recently saw this get moved back into the draft space, resubmitted with no changes, then someone with 10 edits forced it back into the mainspace. This doesn't seem appropriate. Any ideas? Limmidy (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Limmidy: I agree, that move wasn't appropriate, the article looks a bit dodgy, and I reckon something's off with the account who moved it, too. But it's technically NPP's problem now. <switches hats> And with my NPP hat on, let me go deal with... DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Limmidy Thank you for spotting this. The community will now decide its fate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pini Althaus. It would not have been an acceptable draft in the state it was in. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:26, 6 September 2024 review of submission by 178.141.180.87

[edit]

Please, help me make my draft approved.

I am writing about a person that lives in Russia and whose scientific career was mostly in russia, so all of my sources are un Russian. Is that okay? What else should I reference to get an approval? Should I add links on the words in the text itself (as a citation) or just put everything in the reference list/ 178.141.180.87 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be in English; Russian sources are fine, as long as they're otherwise of sufficient standards in terms of reliability etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:38, 6 September 2024 review of submission by 202.166.196.35

[edit]

I am new to wikipedia and i want to make a new page for Gamvir Bista , who works from 2006 and active till date and very popular in NEPAL for his conceptual music video. So can you please help me to make new page 

202.166.196.35 (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't get involved in co-editing, if that's what you mean by "helping". We're happy to answer questions about the draft or the review process, if you have any? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Arpitam03

[edit]

Hello, this is regarding references. Would IMDB links constitute as good references? 

Arpitam03 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arpitam03: no, IMDb is user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Tendythexangsw

[edit]

Help me Tendythexangsw (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say what help it is that you are seeking, but your draft was deleted as unambiguous promotion. In looking at it, I agree.
If you work for this college, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. You should also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot

[edit]

For this Tromanale Event there are three independent reports by different authors in the citation. I do not exactly know which references is not ok. Tromaggot (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft for review, so eventually, you will get feedback from a reviewer.
In the meantime, I suggest you carefully review each of your sources against the criteria in 42.
If a source does not contain significant coverage of Tromanale, probably remove it (it is just possible that the source will contribute a significant piece of information for the article, but if the only source of that information is a passing reference, ask yourself whether that information belongs in the article at all).
If a source is not independent of Tromanale, then only uncontroversial factual information may be cited from it - and again, consider whether the information in question is encyclopaedic.
If a source is not reliable, remove it.
Only if a source meets all three criteria will it contribute to establishing notability. The majority of sources you cite should meet these criteria. ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Anujch 2011

[edit]

why my article rejected Anujch 2011 (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was clearly stated by the reviewer at the top of the draft. To expand on that, you wrote an essay, not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anujch 2011 Please read HELP:YFA which will guide your future contributions, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Moner28

[edit]

Hello, I recently wrote an article on a channel on the YouTube platform that has been providing content for free since 2018. This channel is famous in the Middle East and has multiple sources. Please help in accepting this article. Thank you. Moner28 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moner28 no Declined because you have not demonstrated notability. The references all fail to verify anything other than its existence. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Way245

[edit]

Draft:Patti Callahan Henry Hi guys! I'm new to reviewing and have studied up on Wikipedia's rules and took a shot at it but got denied. She is a well-known author who I think deserves a page without question! Any suggestions on helping me get published? Way245 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a connection to this person, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You need to establish that she meet the definition of a notable author. The awards do not contribute to notability as they lack articles themselves (like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The rest of the content just documents her work and does not say what makes her notable. You wrote "She is known for her works in both contemporary Southern fiction...." but don't say who claims that or why. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot So I was actually able to find articles for the awards, and actually her name shows up in that articles award page.
As for history of where she grew up and such, is her website not a credible source? Way245 (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a good chance that she is notable, but you still need to summarize significant coverage of her, not just document her work. Unless there are sources that go into extensive detail about her podcast and public speaking work, and what makes it particularly important/influential, that section should probably just be removed.
Her website would be a primary source, useful for basic facts about her(her birthdate, place of residence, etc.) but does not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Way245: I would also add that this needs to be much better referenced. There is some unreferenced information, and quite a lot of this is referenced using her own website and other non-independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and @331dot ! I will work on this. Way245 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Wikeditz

[edit]

Hello, The comment on the submitted article states "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)." However, there are two chapters devoted to the subject and her work in the Handbook of Research on the Global Impacts and Roles of Immersive Media, which is a double-blind peer reviewed publication by a reputable academic publisher. A double-blind, peer-reviewed source would seem to be the definition of published, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. The whole purpose of the double-blind peer-review process is to make sure that experts in the field agree that the content is worthy of publication and inclusion in the academic cannon. It's unclear why that level of vetting and endorsement is not enough for publication on Wikipedia. Wikeditz (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikeditz Forgive me, but that is, surely, but one reference? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding, @Fiddle Faddle. The subject of the article in question is the only author in that book who has two chapters published in the single volume. One of those chapters was recently re-published by the publisher in a new volume. There is also a third double-blind peer-reviewed article published by Harvard. (So, that's 4 double-blind peer-reviewed publications of her work...) And many invite-only talks given at reputable industry conferences, like SIGGRAPH, the prestigious computer graphics conference. Her pioneering VR work has also been awarded at CES, the largest consumer electronics show in the world, among others; there it beat out competitors like ABC, CBS, Viacom, etc. Can you help me to understand either why these are not enough or how I could better mention them in the piece? I am relatively new to Wikipedia authorship and would appreciate the opportunity to learn from you and your peers. Thank you. Wikeditz (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikeditz: The source could be utterly unimpeachable and it still would not be enough, on its own, to support an article. Your main issue is you're citing things she has written, which cannot help for notability a whit. We're looking for and at what others have written about her, not what she has written about any topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Jéské Couriano.
Would something like this from the San Diego Union Tribune help?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2020/01/22/la-jolla-news-nuggets-34/
And/or these:
https://arinsider.co/2024/03/12/spawning-into-the-irl-metaverse-at-europaparks-aurea-award/
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/virtual-reality-eve-weston-01-creates-interactive-art Wikeditz (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and @Jéské Couriano & @Fiddle Faddle I forgot to include this one:
https://yle.fi/a/74-20093885
and these that cite her as an expert:
https://digitalfrontier.com/articles/metaverse-real-estate-album-digs
https://www.techmonitor.ai/focus/working-in-the-metaverse-why-3d-virtual-collaboration-is-still-ten-years-away
https://onezero.medium.com/virtual-reality-is-still-failing-half-of-the-worlds-population-b91df3a03262
https://brown.columbia.edu/a-taxonomy-for-vr/
and this one speaks of her TV writing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/fashion/weddings/eve-weston-zachary-pincus-roth.html Wikeditz (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one has only a couple of lines on her, and so is not significant coverage, while the next two are mostly her words, so are not independent. I didn't go any further. You need to evaluate every source against the triple criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 6 September 2024 review of submission by 189.106.129.100

[edit]

I'm trying to create a page for a Brazilian artist and actor called Metturo, but this is what they say: This topic is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. and every time it is someone with the user name SafariScribe who refuses to create the page. I have already proven in every way that the person is public and famous, all the sources and references I used are notorious and so is the artist. What should I do? 189.106.129.100 (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should move on from this topic. Being public and famous is not the same thing as being notable. You have not shown he is a notable actor as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my page being rejected? I've already tried it in every way with all the true sources and references about the actor and it's not being accepted. Why are they doing this? 189.106.129.100 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create additional threads for every post, just edit this existing section. No one says the sources are not true, that is not the issue. You need to move on from this. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected means it is the end of the line for this topic. You cannot reverse it and resubmit. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:17, 6 September 2024 review of submission by JanaFerrume

[edit]

Hi , I created multiple edits I still believe this topic/person is and has notable credits JanaFerrume (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

[edit]

00:25, 7 September 2024 review of submission by 2603:7000:C800:354F:C595:CED2:6C7:698D

[edit]
2603:7000:C800:354F:C595:CED2:6C7:698D (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:15, 7 September 2024 review of submission by Jaytirth joshi

[edit]

Finding References and Help as this is a COI Jaytirth joshi (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Deleted I suggest you do not attempt to use Wikipedia to advertise yourself, Jaytirth joshi. It is always doomed to failure. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:48, 7 September 2024 review of submission by Mrsrusso35

[edit]

because my article not good Mrsrusso35 (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a question? The article is not written like an encyclopedia entry, has no sources, and makes no real claim to notability. The reviewer was kind to not simply reject the draft outright. Given the name you're using on Wikipedia, it also appears there's a high probability that this is an autobiography or an article about someone you're closely connected to. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 7 September 2024 review of submission by Davideeajeanseb

[edit]

I don't understand why you do not find the verification of Jean-Sèbastien Colau, as He is the Ballet Director of the National Fondation of Teatro Massimo Palermo, as we can verify everything easily on the website of this National Theatre www.teatromassimo.it Davideeajeanseb (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davideeajeanseb: this draft is completely unreferenced, which is totally unacceptable especially where the subject is a living person (see WP:BLP). For the same reason, there is also no evidence of notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What is your relationship with the subject? Your user name suggests a connection, and you've uploaded a photo of him which you say you've taken. I've posted a message on your talk page regarding conflicts of interest, please read and respond to it. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:22, 7 September 2024 review of submission by A37393

[edit]

What needs to be improved? A37393 (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A37393: We can't cite the Global Times (no editorial oversight). The Paralympics website is useless for notability (too sparse). The People's Daily source is credited to Xinhua, which is a dodgy source for any matter where the CCP has an interest in spinning it but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Even so, one source by itself cannot support any article on Wikipedia, let alone one where strict sourcing requirements apply. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 7 September 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson

[edit]

Turned down several hours ago over reliable-source concerns--although the links from Newspapers.com and Allmusic clearly suggest otherwise. Filing this appeal to see if I'm missing one more ingredient per WP:NALBUM/WP:SIGCOV, or if the decline was a mistake; on behalf of page creator Piperium (talk · contribs). Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 7 September 2024 review of submission by MartaTari

[edit]

Can you tell me for which informations reliable sources are needed. If you can specify me this then I can rewrite the article in a better way without (I hope) making errors like this.

Thanks MartaTari (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MartaTari: pretty much everything needs to be supported by reliable sources. Which source gives this person's date of birth? Which one says that "He is renowned for his contributions to research on vortex reconnection, turbulence, and boundary layer stability"? Where does his educational history come from? Etc. etc. You should only be summarising what reliable sources say, and then you must cite those sources so that the information can be verified. This is a core principle of Wikipedia in any article, but especially important in articles on living people (see WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Now I will correct what you made me note.
thank you MartaTari (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:36, 7 September 2024 review of submission by CATLORD1944

[edit]

should I add it to a page about cookies CATLORD1944 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CATLORD1944: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We do not accept random things and concepts that are novel; sources are hard-required to demonstrate that the term/concept is in relatively widespread use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

[edit]

06:58, 8 September 2024 review of submission by Jnana theertha

[edit]

What are the reasons for decline Jnana theertha (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnana theertha: We don't host instruction guides or original research unattested by reliable sources, which is why this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 8 September 2024 review of submission by 85.253.11.128

[edit]

Because is an real countries seen is an real countries in the cold war 85.253.11.128 (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite even one reliable source to support this? And by 'reliable', I don't mean Fandom. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 8 September 2024 review of submission by Faridgurbanov3

[edit]

I have question about my references. Which one is not suitable for Wikipedia, as I did not understand Faridgurbanov3 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faridgurbanov3: they are all primary sources (business websites), which cannot be used to establish notability per WP:GNG. They may also not be particularly reliable, as they each have an 'agenda' to push. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:05, 8 September 2024 review of submission by 67.211.168.157

[edit]

I have just written a draft article on Paul Veneto, a retired flight attendant who is currently pushing a beverage cart from Boston to New York to commemorate flight crews lost in the September 11th, 2001 attacks. Is there any way to get this expedited so it can be reviewed and published before he arrives at the September 11th memorial on that day? Thanks for any help. Draft:Paul Veneto 67.211.168.157 (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not respect external deadlines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 8 September 2024 review of submission by Violetpennington

[edit]

This draft was denied by a reviewer, supposedly because it did not meet the requirements for notability, but the individual in question is a major media figure whose work has been covered extensively by many international outlets. Violetpennington (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it; the reviewer will either accept it or leave feedback. In my looking at it, you have summarized his work, but not what independent reliable sources say is notable about him. You quote a Canadian government official speaking about his work, but not him personally or how the fact that he filmed the footage made it significant. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 8 September 2024 review of submission by AutisticMinnesotan

[edit]

I don't know why it breaks the five pillars. Please help. Also, I'm not usually the paragraph guy, but do I have to write a paragraph? Cause I might delete this account if I do. Sorry if this is is unnecessary or unkind, Sincerely - AustisticMinnesotan AutisticMinnesotan (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have written a math problem. This is a place to write an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


September 9

[edit]

00:03, 9 September 2024 review of submission by 69.157.87.189

[edit]

What would make this more notable? The reviewer mention there was not sufficient independent coverage. But I had included several external links, including a few to notable literary awards. 69.157.87.189 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagreed with the review, worked on it, and accepted it. Also, I have messaged the rejecting reviewer too. Congratulations! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:15, 9 September 2024 review of submission by 189.202.71.98

[edit]

Kenneth Ian Valdivieso Almeida is for Mexico 189.202.71.98 (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @189.202.71.98, your draft was rejected as "not sufficiently suitable for Wikipedia" because it doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. Also, being a YouTuber is not enough as you need to show how he is notable as a YouTuber; and it includes: YouTube creators award, impact he has made as a creator, appearances in multiple reliable news, e.t.c. You may like to read HELP:YFA. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:44, 9 September 2024 review of submission by Wikiproject2024

[edit]

How can I rewrite this article to sound more neutral? I used the Rotary Youth Exchange wikipedia website as a guide. Can you provide an example to help me fix the draft? Wikiproject2024 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikiproject2024 and how are you're doing?
Your draft has been tagged for speedy deletion as not written in a neutral encyclopedic format. Writing on Wikipedia involves giving time to research about the topic and not using what the website says. If I have a website and you go to my "about" segment, you may see praises about me like: "passionate about reading and has indigenously added impact to his country and beyond the world." Same is applicable when writing from the company's website. However, you should not use promotional WP:PEACOCK terms while writing an article. Simply show us how the organisation is notable using reliable sources. You may like to see other company/organisation's article (Facebook, Wikipedia, and so on) to see how it is written. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if i use words like "unique" is that puffery language even if there isnt another one like it within the Rotary scholarships and programs and it only exists within one state in the USA? Wikiproject2024 (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WTW. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should only be described as unique if it is also said which third party is making that claim- it shouldn't say so in Wikipedia's voice. (i.e. "according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitition, this program is unique in the United States because....") Nor should it say so if the only people who say it's unique is the program itself. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you associated with this program in some way, such as being assigned the task of writing about it by the program? ("project" is in your username) 331dot (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not associated with this program. I had to write a wikipedia article as part of a college class, that's why project is in my username :) I could write about anything and noticed this program didn't have a wikipedia page. Thanks for the help Wikiproject2024 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject2024 Assigning you the task of writing a Wikipedia article as part of a class is extremely unfair to you, as you actually have little control over the process. Your instructor may wish to review the Wikipedia Education Program materials to better incorporate Wikipedia into their lessons, in such a way as to not put students in a difficult position. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 9 September 2024 review of submission by GrisWGris

[edit]

Thanks in advance. I would like the title of the page to be Garry Gray and simply to link the brief profile to my Sacred Cowboys post punk Wiki page. If people look for me they can link to Sacred Cowboys. Regards, Garry 

GrisWGris (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: @GrisWGris, note that writing an WP: AUTOBIOGRAPHY is not advised herein. I have moved the page to your desired title and hence it's eligible for deletion by any editor, if it meets any criteria. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 9 September 2024 review of submission by Streamerdude

[edit]

I have submitted a draft article, but it has not been published yet, and I would like to understand the reasons behind this. Could you please provide guidance on why my draft has not been accepted and what specific steps I can take to improve it to meet the publication standards?

Your assistance in helping me get the article recognized would be greatly appreciated. Streamerdude (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft doesn't appear to meet WP:NSOFT. Almost, if not all the sources are unreliable. It's should be pure that GitHub, Zoom Inc, e.t.c are unreliable sources and doesn't show WP:SIGCOV (one of the reasons for the article's deletion three years ago). Please read WP:RS for tips on identifying reliable sources. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:31, 9 September 2024 review of submission by Vanityorpride

[edit]

How does the article look now for approval for a Wikipedia article posted on the main space Vanityorpride (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanityorpride: this draft has now been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanityorpride Please see User talk:Theroadislong § My Draft:Bjorn Vido passes as under the WP:General Notability Guideline where I am unable to answer your final question. Why? Because I have no answer for you. Others might.
Instead, let me ask you one of my own. If you are certain that Vido passes the notability threshold, why not move it to become an article yourself?
Several reviewers have suggested that Vido does not make the grade. You are entitled to disagree. The community may agree with you, or may not. That is a risk everyone takes with new articles. If you move it, please tidy the AFC artefacts up after the move 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:44, 9 September 2024 review of submission by Vanityorpride

[edit]

Please review how the article is written now as I did paraphrase and summarised the articles he is mentioned in plus did research on reliable sources after this article is published I plan to edit other articles to gain more credibility on Wikipedia as someone who knows what they are doing Vanityorpride (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been declined 9 times and rejected once it doesn't show how they pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanityorpride Please do not open new discussions. The existing one is perfectly sufficient. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 9 September 2024 review of submission by Liyafromspace

[edit]

I am requesting assistance with resubmitting the Draft: Dima_XR. The draft was previously rejected, but I believe it now meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Dima XR is an established artist with multiple concerts this month, featuring guest artists (Dudu Faruk, who already have Wikipedia pages. These collaborations, combined with Dima XR's growing influence and public presence, further solidify his relevance. I would appreciate guidance on how to strengthen the draft, particularly in terms of notability, and ensure that it aligns with Wikipedia's standards for sources and verifiability for resubmission. Liyafromspace (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liyafromspace: before we get to that, can I ask what is your relationship with this subject? And are you also operating the Liyabelll account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 9 September 2024 review of submission by Tuckermanguy

[edit]

how do I submit a draft for review Tuckermanguy (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tuckermanguy, the draft has been submitted for review. However, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia so I have rejected it. Qcne (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the draft for the article, there's a big button that says "Submit the draft for review." However, it is extremely unlikely that this draft would be approved in its current state. No case for notability is made, no sources are provided for any of the facts presented, and the whole thing is written in an unencyclopedic manner. The only source, just slapped on the end, is simply an organization that he allegedly volunteers for. This article needs a lot of work, and I don't see the case for notability at all. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. Gave 'em my deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 9 September 2024 review of submission by Jhanjeriboy

[edit]

i need help to submit my article Jhanjeriboy (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhanjeriboy You submitted it for review, but then bypassed the review process by moving it manually to the main encyclopaedia. Qcne (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, it has been declined every time. Could you please let me know the reason? Jhanjeriboy (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined once as you did not prove notability under WP:NSCHOOL. Qcne (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted the reference, and it has been live for the last 2 years. However, it was suddenly deleted, and Wikipedia is not accepting it. Jhanjeriboy (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I have WP:BLARed the draft to article moved page to the main topic, Chandigarh Group of Colleges. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three different Institutions under CGC
However, there are three distinct institutions under the CGC.
Despite having similar names, Chandigarh Group of Colleges (CGC Landran), Chandigarh Group of Colleges (CGC Jhanjeri), and Chandigarh University are three separate educational institutions, each with its own location and unique identity.
Please review this information once again. Jhanjeriboy (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly request that my article be moved to the Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Jhanjeri page, and not be redirected to the Chandigarh Group of Colleges page. As I have already mentioned, there are three separate educational institutions with similar names: Chandigarh Group of Colleges (CGC Landran), Chandigarh Group of Colleges (CGC Jhanjeri), and Chandigarh University. Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Jhanjeri is a different location, so please ensure my article is placed under the correct institution, which is Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Jhanjeri, and not Chandigarh Group of Colleges. Jhanjeriboy (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating your request 38 minutes after you make is isn't likely to be effective. This is a volunteer effort. You did not show that this college merits a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what should i do? Jhanjeriboy (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is no longer an issue about the draft submission process. If you feel that this particular location merits a standalone article and should not be included in the article about the overall organization, I first suggest that you expand the portion of the existing article about it to show that it is a notable organization itself, then you can start a discussion about splitting the article. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhanjeriboy I have sorted it:
I removed the redirect and restored your draft, it is not submitted for review yet: Draft:Chandigarh_Group_of_Colleges,_Jhanjeri.
You also moved your userpage to the main encyclopedia, I have reverted that too. Qcne (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved my username by mistake Jhanjeriboy (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhanjeriboy: you've now recreated the article at the variant spelling Chandigarh Group Of Colleges, Jhanjeri. I'm struggling to WP:Assume good faith here. Why haven't you improved the draft, and submitted that for review? Wikishovel (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:02, 9 September 2024 review of submission by AtlasMarck

[edit]

"Hello! I would like to request assistance with Spanish to ensure accuracy. I previously attempted to produce English content, but it was unfortunately declined. Could you please provide guidance?"AtlasMarck (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AtlasMarck The Spanish Wikipedia has different policies and editors than the English Wikipedia. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. Your text was unambiguously promotional, it talked up the person and told of their activities. Instead, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was rejected and deleted because it was unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, you may use any machine translator to translate from Spanish to English without submitting it, otherwise it will be declined. From there I can help as Miguel Angel Ramirez Alonso appears to be notable. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 9 September 2024 review of submission by Benm1909

[edit]

Hi there, I'm wondering what else I can add to this page to help it pass muster. It's in depth, independently sourced and cited, and includes links to board members, all with their own established wikipedia pages. Any guidance would be appreciated. Benm1909 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources are the organization itself, and the ones that aren't just mention the organization. Any article about this organization must summarize independent reliable sources which discuss the organization itself and what makes it a notable organization as Wikipedia defines it. Having board members who are notable is insufficient, notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Benm1909. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

[edit]

00:12, 10 September 2024 review of submission by SacoraLinlake

[edit]

my page keeps getting declined and i don't know what I'm missing, It's. saying my references are wrong and I've fixed them a couple times now. SacoraLinlake (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SacoraLinlake,
Your draft doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM and likely, no WP:SIGCOV will exist for it. Your sources appears to be unreliable and that's the reason for the decline. You should be familiar with WP policies and guidelines for notablility and how to consider sources as reliable. IMDb, Letterboxd, and all your sources including social media aren't close to WP:RS requirements. However, you may also need to declare your relationship, if any, per WP:COI. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SacoraLinlake: To follow on from what SafariScribe says, this isn't a Wikipedia article; this looks like something you'd see on a film profiling website. We're an encyclopaedia and thus require more substantial content than just a poster and credits listing for our articles, sourced to in-depth third-party sources with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborate the article's claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:11, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Karinvanderlaag

[edit]

Good Day. I am trying to improve the Draft:Film Afrika. I wanted to suggest removing the filmography as part of my edit. Would this be allowed? Or will it be too large an edit? Thanks Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Karinvanderlaag: you're welcome to make (more or less) any edits you wish, to a draft. Personally, I think removing that long list of films would be an improvement. In any case, it should be cut to those films that are notable and where Film Afrika has played a significant role; Wikipedia articles are not intended as comprehensive catalogues of the subject's entire output. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks a lot for the advice! Karinvanderlaag (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 10 September 2024 review of submission by TMarie111

[edit]

I have submitted the article but not approved. I'm a new editor. Please let me know I have to update/add which details in the article. So that it can be approved. TMarie111 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TMarie111: this draft is completely unreferenced, which also means it provides no evidence that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. Moreover, the draft merely says that such a business exists, and what it does. We want to see what independent third parties (mainly secondary sources such as print or broadcast media) have said about the business and what makes it noteworthy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: A message has been posted on your talk page at User_talk:TMarie111#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest regarding conflicts of interest. Please read and respond to it. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Satthepbienhoa

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I am writing to discuss the approval and verification of my article on Seamless Steel Pipes. Throughout the process of compiling and editing this article, I have carefully collected and cross-referenced information from reliable and credible sources to ensure that the content meets Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and neutrality.

Seamless Steel Pipes are real products that have achieved significant success in the global market. With their superior qualities, such as high pressure resistance, durability, and adaptability to harsh conditions, Seamless Steel Pipes have garnered attention and usage in many important projects across various countries.

I believe that my article not only accurately reflects the true nature of this product but also provides valuable information to the Wikipedia community. The article has been supplemented with references, scientific sources, and real-world data to substantiate the authenticity of the information presented.

I kindly request your support in reviewing and verifying this article. My goal is to contribute a high-quality entry that enables readers worldwide to gain a comprehensive and accurate understanding of Seamless Steel Pipes. Having this article approved would not only help broaden public knowledge but also ensure that more people have access to reliable information about this crucial product.

I am committed to continuously updating and maintaining the article in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules to ensure the content remains accurate and beneficial.

Thank you very much for your consideration and support. Satthepbienhoa (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Satthepbienhoa: I have restored the earlier decline to this draft; please don't remove these templates, they must remain there until the draft is accepted.
You say you're requesting support in reviewing the draft, but it has been reviewed and declined. This being the case, is there a question you would like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia Team,
Thank you for your response. I understand that my draft was previously declined due to insufficient verification of the information regarding Seamless Steel Pipes. I appreciate the feedback and have since made significant revisions to address the concerns raised.
I have now added comprehensive verification elements, including credible sources and reliable references, to support the accuracy and authenticity of the information presented in the article. These updates aim to meet Wikipedia’s standards and provide a more robust and well-supported entry.
Could you please provide any additional guidance or specific areas that might still need improvement? I am committed to ensuring the article aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines and would appreciate any further feedback that can help in making the necessary adjustments.
Thank you for your continued support and assistance. Satthepbienhoa (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Satthepbienhoa: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel you have sufficiently addressed the reason(s) for the earlier decline, you can resubmit the draft for another review. That said, there is still quite a lot of unreferenced information, so this may be declined again for the same reason. Please note that Wikipedia articles should not be composed based on what you know, but rather by summarising what independent and reliable sources have previously published.
More worryingly, it seems that your user name is that of a business acting as supplier of this type of product, and you are referencing your own website through external links. Your user name is therefore a violation of our terms & conditions, and including external links like this can be considered spamming. You should remove any such links. You also need to change your user name. Lastly, I will post information on your website about disclosing your conflict of interest. Please attend to these issues as a matter of urgency, lest you are blocked from editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 10 September 2024 review of submission by NetcloudConsulting

[edit]

Why declined my article post? NetcloudConsulting (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NetcloudConsulting Promotion is prohibited on Wikipedia. Your draft will shortly be deleted and your account will shortly be banned. Qcne (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Bijaygyawalinepal

[edit]

How can i make my article notable there are very few articles written on his name 

Bijaygyawalinepal (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bijaygyawalinepal: this draft has been rejected, as there is no evidence that the subject is notable. And you cannot make a non-notable subject notable with any amount of editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so how do i provide evidence on that he is a famous actor of nepal what sources i need to add ? can you give me some examples. Bijaygyawalinepal (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bijaygyawalinepal: as I said, this has been rejected, which means the end of the road.
But for future reference, you need to cite sources that either satisfy the general WP:GNG notability guideline, or prove that the subject meets one of the special ones such as WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER or whatever is most relevant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Vanityorpride

[edit]

What can I add to make the draft approved Vanityorpride (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:11, 10 September 2024 review of submission by SheepyTheSheep

[edit]

How do i know if my article is awaiting approval? I'm not 100% sure I managed to publish a page I wrote correctly, how do I know that it's awaiting approval? SheepyTheSheep (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the draft I fixed your header to link to as intended, you moved it into the encyclopedia yourself. If you didn't intend to do that, it can be moved back. I would suggest that you consent to that, as it is not yet ready. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or are you referring to it being patrolled by a New Page Patroller? 331dot (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 10 September 2024 review of submission by BDOklahoma24

[edit]

Hi, I understand there is a waiting period for drafts to be reviewed. Since making a revised version of this draft back in May, I have been waiting for it be reviewed. I have made all suggested edits, and I would like to know if there is anything more I can do/revise for the editors to get this published. I really appreciate your help in advance. BDOklahoma24 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BDOklahoma24 There is nothing you can do to speed up the review process, which is conducted by volunteers, reviewing drafts in no particular order. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you for your reply. BDOklahoma24 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 10 September 2024 review of submission by 94.20.97.6

[edit]

Can you say what is exactly problem about my article or which parts ? 94.20.97.6 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by the reviewers on the draft, these make it very clear. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Sara246santos

[edit]

I am trying to get this page accepted. I have integrated the feedback I've received over several iterations of the document. There are citations/references from primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Please give me detailed feedback on what other changes must be made to re-submit the page. Sara246santos (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what "review" is for. We do not generally do "pre-reviews" on this page. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Rex Villaflor

[edit]

Please enlighten me about the issue at hand. I am comparing the entry to other entries like in this following link: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Abbey_Crunch Is it really not worthy for this Muddy Bites product to be included in Wikipedia? Rex Villaflor (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rex Villaflor no Declined for the same reasons I have sent Abbey Crunch for a deletion discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. Here are other entities of the same category:
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Adyar_Ananda_Bhavan
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Elma_Chips
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bamba_(snack)
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Takis_(snack)
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bambeanos
May I know what's the difference of having these entries listed where in fact they are both types of snacks like Muddy Bites. Rex Villaflor (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rex Villaflor: You cannot use the existence, absence, or condition of other tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. Bambinos, Bamba, and Adyar all predate AfC (2005, 2004, and 2009, respectively) and neither of the others were ever drafted, being created directly in mainspace by autoconfirmed users. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:17, 10 September 2024 review of submission by HelloMynameiseat

[edit]

I am trying to make my company famous what the fuck do you want HelloMynameiseat (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in making your company famous. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows- your company must already meet the definition of a notable company as shown by coverage in independent reliable sources to merit an article here. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. If you want to promote your company, hire an advertising agency. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 10 September 2024 review of submission by 5.177.139.18

[edit]

Draft:D4-D 

5.177.139.18 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a question.
And when you've been blocked, you're not allowed to edit, even from an IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:03, 10 September 2024 review of submission by BretDvr

[edit]

I have added several external sources discussing PolyAI and its offerings, and it is still being rejected. Is there a particular type of article or publication you're looking for that could help this page get published? Would you prefer more general articles about the company or more articles about specific products?

Thanks for your help,

Bret BretDvr (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are meaningless in terms of notability, as they lack articles themselves(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize).
We are looking for sources that describe what they see that makes the company notable, see WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Jcrcboston

[edit]

Can you help me edit my draft? I am writing on behalf of JCRC Boston as we do not have a Wikipedia page, so I would appreciate if a Wikipedia editor could add and edit things in a more neutral fashion. Jcrcboston (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcrcboston We do not accept co-editing requests here. We offer help. If you feel that your organisation merits a page I suggest youi wait for someone to wrote it. If you insist in writing it yourself please declare your paid editing and comply with all aspects of WP:PAID 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Abhiramakella

[edit]

I did include reliable sources. Abhiramakella (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You resubmitted it; usually one asks for help first. The reviewer will leave you feedback.
The draft was clearly written by a Patriots or at least Brady fan. We shouldn't be able to tell this from reading it, it should have a neutral point of view. Language like "highly anticipated" in the first line should be removed.
The only sources just document the occurrence of this event. You need sources that discuss what makes this a notable event; I suspect most of the notable stuff could go in Brady's article. I'm not sure being inducted into a team HOF is notable.(teams can honor anyone they see fit for any reason). Maybe when Canton decides to induct him. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable attendees should only list people, not general categories. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:16, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Professorincryptography

[edit]

Hello,

I hope this message finds you well. I have a few questions regarding the use of images and sources in my article, and I would greatly appreciate your guidance to ensure I follow Wikipedia's standards correctly:

1. I created a simple diagram This diagram provides a factual summary of key concepts from ISO/IEC 27032, NIST, CNSSI, NSPD-54, and 18 USC 1030 regarding the distinctions between cyber, internet, digital, and related systems., which provides a factual summary of key concepts from ISO/IEC 27032, NIST, CNSSI, NSPD-54, and 18 USC 1030. The diagram clarifies distinctions between "cyber," "internet," "digital," and related systems. This is not original research, but rather a summary from reliable sources. Can I use this image to address a reviewer's comment that the difference between "cyber" and "digital" is unclear? The sources I used either directly reference "cyber privacy" or have been cited by secondary sources that define the term "cyber privacy."

I’m uncertain about including the image because I uploaded it to Wikipedia Commons as "my own work." My role was solely in creating a visual representation of concepts that are fully supported by the sources, which I don’t consider original research. However, I am concerned that reviewers might interpret it as such, given that they’ve previously raised concerns about other aspects of the article that I believed were adequately sourced. That’s why I’m being cautious and seeking clarification on whether using this image is appropriate.

2. In response to recurring reviewer feedback questioning the credibility of the "neologism" (e.g., "cyber privacy"), I would like to include an image from an open-access research paper, cited as follows:

Eltahawy, Bahaa (2022). "Understanding Cyberprivacy: Context, Concept, and Issues". Wirtschaftsinformatik 2022 Proceedings.

The paper explores concepts relevant to the reviewer's concerns, specifically addressing whether "cyber privacy" is a distinct concept, by reviewing over 200 articles that use the term. It also provides visual illustrations, which I believe could enhance the article. After reviewing Wikipedia Commons' guidelines on images, I encountered some conflicting information. On the one hand, it appears I can use images with full credit if they are free to share, but on the other hand, it suggests I should avoid uploading screenshots of others' work. Since this paper is publicly accessible in PDF format, I was wondering whether uploading a screenshot from it can be considered a "visual citation" as opposed to a "text citation," given that I will fully credit the author. Would it be necessary for me to contact the author for explicit permission, or is the use of such an image permissible within Wikipedia’s guidelines?

3. A reviewer has commented that sections like "Entities and Contributors to Cyber Privacy," "Critics of Cyber Privacy Advocacy," "Key Components of Cyber Privacy," and "Challenges and Future Directions" require additional sources. However, in these paragraphs I have provided approximately 30 diverse and (I believed) reliable sources, including official documents, standards, press releases, reports from businesses, and research articles. In some cases, I confirmed facts from multiple sources to ensure accuracy. My intent was to follow Wikipedia's standards and present verifiable information, while leaving some sections partially filled as "placeholders" for future contributions from the community. Could you help identify which specific sources or sections might be undermining the credibility of the information? I’ve carefully vetted my sources, but since they have been flagged by the reviewers as not sufficiently credible, I would greatly appreciate concrete examples of what may be lacking or not compliant with Wikipedia’s standards. Despite reviewing the guidelines multiple times and my long experience with Wikipedia as a reader, I'm struggling to pinpoint the exact issues.

4. Lastly, I apologize for any unintended "essay tone" or "research tone" in my writing. As English is not my first language, I am actively working to align my contributions with Wikipedia's tone and style. I would be grateful for any guidance on improving this aspect. If I may add a brief comment, I sometimes find the quantity of rules and their interpretation by reviewers overwhelming. While I don’t always agree with the reviewers' perspectives, I want to emphasize that I am doing my best to follow the guidelines in good faith and with full respect for Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I look forward to learning from your feedback. Professorincryptography (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't dug into the rest, but I would consider the image to absolutely be WP:OR. The fact is that your image is your interpretation of the underlying facts as a visualization. Whether it's a valid interpretation of the information or not is irrelevant here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response and respect your opinion. However, I would like to clarify a few points. The idea of a 'visual representation' was not originally mine. A similar image exists in one of the documents I cite, although I neither copied it nor used all the information from that source. Additionally, there are other 'visual representations' of these concepts (for example [1]) by different authors, some of which I believe are incorrect. While these representations may meet Wikipedia’s verifiability standards, they do not seem reliable, which is why I avoided using them.
That said, I understand your point about WP:OR. Although the image is a summary of the sources I cited, I acknowledge that creating my own visual representation could fall outside of Wikipedia's best practices: "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words" . I see now that recommends summarizing reliable sources in one's own words, and while it doesn't explicitly prohibit images, I accept that textual summaries are preferred.
However, I believe there is some nuance to this. Much of Wikipedia’s content involves the summarization of information, which naturally may include some degree of 'interpretation.' I would politely ask for further consideration of whether my image is indeed 'my interpretation' or a 'summarization' of the sources, after verifying the references I’ve cited. Again, I didn't see that "summarisation" in a for of image is prohibited.
In other words—and I apologize for not phrasing this more directly—I wasn’t seeking a general answer about images on Wikipedia, but rather whether this specific image, in the opinion of the community, reflects an interpretation of the cited sources or a valid summarization. To my mind, this involves engaging with the sources themselves. If the community does not have the time to look into this in detail, I completely understand and accept that without criticism.
Additionally, I wanted to ask if, since my question was partially addressed by an administrator, I should expect the remaining points to be reviewed as well. Or would it be better to ask them again in a new post, making them more concise and clear? Professorincryptography (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator. I'm just a regular ol' editor, but remember, the only difference between an editor and an administrator is that administrator's have access to specific tools because they have been entrusted with those tools by the community. I don't think the graphic was a bad one and it would be useful in, say, something you wrote on a blogging or publishing platform. But generally speaking, my line is when something requires the reliability of the source to be transferred to the reliability of the editor.
I know it's not satisfying, but when reliable sources aren't as good as we hope, then at the end of the day, the articles simply aren't as good as we hope, because verifiability is more important than truth. Wikipedia's goals are different in this manner than, say, the motivation of academia. This can sometimes lead to some odd edge cases, especially when you're editing an article in an area in which you have expertise.
I'm sure someone will respond to the rest; the topic is a bit out of my wheelhouse. This is a volunteer project, so it can take some time for people to get through something that's very information dense. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 10 September 2024 review of submission by Operaobscura

[edit]

Hi, I am an opera fan and realized in my search for Carl Friedrich Oberle that the page doesn't exist. He is possibly the most globally active opera designer and has put on shows at many of the most famous opera houses in the world and has a large fan base amongst people in the arts. He has worked with some of the most well known directors of their time and has influenced the way stage design is studied today at University. His works are described in scientific publications. While I completely agree that autobiographies need to be discouraged on wikipedia, a person of his statue is of true public interest to the field. I am very confused why someone would reject this page. They person who reviewed it must not understand that for a designer to do more than 2 productions a year is rather rare, having more than 200 productions is a feat similar to that of world renowned athletes breaking records. Operaobscura (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly much improved without that long list. Having more than 200 productions does sound impressive to this layman, but we don't need to list each individual one. It's enough to say Hank Aaron hit 755 home runs; Wikipedia doesn't have to list all 755 of them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WIkipedia articles go on what the reliable independent sources say, not on what you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) think. If a reliable independent source talks about his having done 200 productions, then the article can. If not, then it shouldn't. ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:59, 10 September 2024 review of submission by MIG editor

[edit]

I am hoping to gain more specific information about why my article submission has been declined, and whether there is any chance tht it might be acceptted with revisions. MIG editor (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MIG editor: A lot of your draft is unreferenced, with several claims that completely lack any sort of supporting citations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 10 September 2024 review of submission by 199.242.176.66

[edit]

Can you explain how the content can be improved? 199.242.176.66 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not likely that it can be, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

[edit]

02:12, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Gorinu

[edit]

My draft was declined saying 'This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people).' But i have used reliable sources like news and verified websites. how ca i get my page approved 

Gorinu (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorinu: Government documents (including court documents) are not acceptable sources by dint of them being primary sources. Secondary sources are hard-required. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying Jeske,but i didnt included any court documents in the Draft, can you be more specific please Gorinu (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorinu: Did you even read your sources? Reference 3 is a literal motion to dismiss filed by the United States Department of Justice, and you include a large number of documents from the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants which are intended to be used in connexion with military tribunals. You also cite the United States Department of Defense and the Congressional Research Service, both of which are also government bodies and thus any document they produce is also primary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské, I think the problem here is that the link above isn't correct because of redirect antics. The draft being referred to is not Abdulla_Majid_Al_Naimi, the Bahraini national interred at Gitmo, but to that of Draft:Abdulla_Al_Nuaimi, a CEO in the UAE. It's still not sourced well at all, but for slightly different reasons of inadequacy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources provided don't even mention Al Nuaimi and only a speaking profile and his dissertation go any farther (and aren't really notable sources). You need detailed independent coverage of him, not simply basic business reports involving SecureTech. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:11, 11 September 2024 review of submission by 146.255.74.198

[edit]

It has been interesting to do the research behind this article. It is less interesting to spend time on trying to guess which rules and rejections weigh the most. Let's see if some other contributors wish to try and figure it out. I am out for now. If nothing happens, please just delete it all. It will be issued elsewhere. I am sure there are good reasons for the rejections. I just don't understand it, and perhaps there are unofficial (good) reasons? Keep up the good work. Wikipedia is seriously what we need these days. 146.255.74.198 (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Please see the comments left by reviewers. As it's hard to find drafts unless you already know they exist, the only one who can improve it is you. If you do nothing, it will be deleted after six months of inactivity. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My (and other contributors) attempts to find a balance between your rules, your comments and what is truly noteworthy have been rejected ;-) I give up. I will delete my part sooner, unless the other contributors decide to continue. 146.255.74.198 (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once you click "publish changes", the edit belongs to Wikipedia; you can't just remove your contributions just because. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I wanted to remove them, because I think I have compromised too much. Anyway, not too important, if it disappears in half a year. 146.255.74.198 (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:45, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Rafiqulalam007

[edit]

May I get any help from some one because I can't understand why my article is declain ? Rafiqulalam007 (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafiqulalam007: it has been declined because your sources are primary, and what's more, close to the subject. We don't want to hear what the organisation or its affiliates say about it, we want to hear what independent and reliable third parties (mainly secondary sources) have said about it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, Maybe I have selected wrong. I am not the primary sources and no relation with this Academy. So, What I can do now ? Rafiqulalam007 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rafiqulalam007: I meant that your draft cites only close primary sources, whether or not you're affiliated with this organisation yourself. See WP:ORG for details of the sort of sources we need. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion for it to work properly. How did you come to edit about this academy if you have no affiliation to it? You didn't pick it at random. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it at Panthapath, Dhaka. And I knew that it is a very good institution those who affiliated with Greenwich University and NCC Programs. Lots of students are graduated from Greenwich University and from this academy I have known. they are well establish in UK and other countries as well. Rafiqulalam007 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Joshakatz

[edit]

I’m trying to write a Wikipedia page about my 12+ year photographic career And what to do everything I can to guarantee it will be published

This is the first time I’ve tried this so any help is greatly appreciated. 

Joshakatz (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshakatz: your various drafts, apart from Draft:Joshakatz, have been deleted. Please don't create multiple copies of the same draft, as that can be considered spamming.
What's more, you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, see WP:AUTOBIO.
You are also not allowed to promote anything, including yourself. These drafts were purely promotional (see WP:YESPROMO), because they were you saying what you wanted to say about yourself, rather than being based on summaries of what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about you, as Wikipedia articles should be.
My strong advice would be not to go down this road any further, because you're already getting close to being blocked for self-promotion, and to instead continue pursuing your photography career until someone, entirely unconnected to you, will one day write an article about you based on published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:14, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Talltrees1

[edit]

Only 0.1% of creative agencies are owned by women and the number of agencies with female creative directors is about 11%. When looking for wikipedia pages of other female graphic designers, there were only 19. Therefore, this article about Georgia Fendley is relevant because women like Georgia tend to be reserved about their accomplishments, which means they don’t always receive the recognition they deserve as designers. She has featured in numerous articles and has made significant impacts over her career, such as; during her time at Mulberry with Emma Hill, when the company’s turnover tripled and the share price rose from £1.50 to a high of £26.00. She has also been responsible for over 20 highly regarded brand identities, she really is an unsung leader in her field. I think Wikipedia should recognise people like this. Talltrees1 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Talltrees1: Righting great wrongs is a noble pursuit (even if it isn't quite the objective of Wikipedia), and there is certainly a lot to be righted in what comes to systemic gender bias, but alas, this draft does not meet our notability criteria and has therefore been rejected. In any case, I don't think you actually asked a question, so I'm unsure what else I could help you with? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Talltrees1 Wikipedia is not intended as a form of recognition for someone and their achievements. It's not an award(quite the opposite, actually, see WP:PROUD). If this person isn't appropriately covered in independent reliable sources, they can't merit an article here, no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. If the reason that there is little coverage is that the person doesn't put themselves out there- we can't control that, and they can't get a pass on sourcing guidelines because of it. I would suggest that you go to the Women in Red project where you might be able to get some advice and guidance specific to what it is you are trying to do. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Nigel PG Dale

[edit]

Having addressed comments back in May 2024 and waited nearly four months, it is unreasonable to have this draft rejected on the grounds of "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". The decision is highly subjective from someone I guess who hasn't followed the story of Bill Smith from 1996 to 2024 and onwards. Bill Smith's endeavours ensured that Donald Campbell, an important figure in the UK, was recovered from the lake bed of Coniston Water after thirty-plus years, and laid to rest. Not only that, but in what was described by a Campbell family member as "nothing short of a miracle" Bill Smith with his Bluebird Project meticulously rebuild Bluebird K7 over a twenty-three year period. How can such an achievement be "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia"? This is to say nothing of Smith's other achievements in the pioneering of sides-can sonar deep water searches. Please help me to reverse this unfair rejection. Nigel PG Dale 09:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel PG Dale: we don't need to have "followed the story of Bill Smith", that's not how drafts are assessed. We evaluate them with reference to the applicable policies and guidelines.
Anyway, you have the necessary user rights to publish this yourself, if you disagree with the reviewer's (reviewers') assessment. Just move it to the main space, and clear out the AfC templates; NPP will then assess it instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel PG Dale: Just be aware that if you do move it into mainspace, you accept all the consequences that arise from doing that, up to and including deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 11 September 2024 review of submission by 172.58.182.175

[edit]

Assistance needed with draft for: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Naheem_Houston

Issue: 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. 172.58.182.175 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why the draft was declined. Did you have a question, IP editor? StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 11 September 2024 review of submission by F Ayyub

[edit]

Good evening! Dear Sir. could I know what is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? You know I have no idea about it. I would love to get your expert opinions. Please help me! I need your loving cooperation! Thanks, in advance!

Best regards, FAYSAL AYYUB F Ayyub (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @F Ayyub. As the comment left by the reviewer states, Wikipedia is not a social media website like LinkedIn or a blog. We host articles about notable topics. Your draft was just a bio about you, this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 11 September 2024 review of submission by SKumar58

[edit]

ill summit the reliable sources kindly publish the page SKumar58 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 11 September 2024 review of submission by SKumar58

[edit]

ill summit the reliable sources; kindly publish the page SKumar58 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SKumar58 Draft has been rejected, and will not be published. There are no reliable sources evident. Qcne (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:59, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Sparkbean

[edit]

My edit submission was declined, although I only used two reliable sources. Sparkbean (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sparkbean, your sources may be reliable but it didn't prove notability. We're looking for significant coverage in three or more independent reliable sources. Qcne (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne, Variety was one of my sources, but I'll expand the draft and add more. Sparkbean (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more sources to my draft. Does it need more review? Sparkbean (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sparkbean feel free to re-submit for review :) Qcne (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll add more sources first. Sparkbean (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 11 September 2024 review of submission by WikiAccount1777

[edit]

Hi there, the article was rejected. Question: the problem was that you need "reliable, secondary sources, independent of the subject" or something else? If it is about reliable sources: I gave references but I guess these are not sufficient? WikiAccount1777 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAccount1777: You cannot just slap a bunch of references on the end of a biography of a living person and call it good. You need to properly cite your sources in-line, at claims they can explicitly support. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 11 September 2024 review of submission by 2601:80:C983:F7C0:C808:DA82:9465:E9A1

[edit]

Hello,

I was hoping for additional guidance to edit the article I submitted. I appreciate the feedback provided and would like to share my plan for revisions.

I would first review the article and remove any messaging that might be deemed self-promotion to ensure the article is 100% fact-based. I would then shorten the sections about programs and remove most if not all sources that link to the organization's website. Virtually all sources would be external. Do you think this would make the article more likely to be approved?

Given the long history of the organization and its impact on the racial integration of Princeton University, I firmly believe the Princeton-Blairstown Center is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Given the structure and sourcing of another page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Camp_Ralph_S._Mason), it seems like Princeton-Blairstown Center certainly meets your criteria.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! Scott McKelvey 

2601:80:C983:F7C0:C808:DA82:9465:E9A1 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reads more like a brochure for potential students rather than a neutral encyclopaedia article. As the reviewer noted, the vast majority of your sources are also to Princeton or the Centre itself, which do not help for notability and are useless for any claims a reasonable person could challenge. We also do not accept the extensive quotes you have in the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 11 September 2024 review of submission by 94.20.97.6

[edit]

I would like to know why my article is rejected. What is the problem exactly ? 94.20.97.6 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This crosses between WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTESSAY. In addition, most of the sources are not reliable (blogs, WP:FORBESCON, commercial sites, conference proceedings, etc.). If resubmitted without substantial improvement with both the content and sourcing, the draft may be rejected meaning it will not longer be considered. Verbatim, with links in original, comment from the last reviewer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked this question yesterday. Will this be a daily habit? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 11 September 2024 review of submission by GNVquant

[edit]

I have been advised that 1) "direct listing" should be merged with 2) "direct public offering". I disagree. These are two completely separate ways for a private operating company to go public, along with 3) an initial public offering, 4) merging with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), or 5) doing a reverse merger. Options 1, 3, and 4 typically involve the private operating company raising cash in the process. Options 2 and 5 typically do not involve raising cash. Direct public offerings usually involve tiny companies, but direct listings have included huge companies such as Palantir Technologies ($70 billion market cap) and Coinbase Global ($40 billion market cap). All five of these methods for going public deserve their own entries. GNVquant (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GNVquant You have provided the technical distinction here. Have you expressed that distinction in the draft with a citation that verifies that? I have not visited the draft to check. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Instigo1

[edit]

Vishen is a clan of rajputs and I just made an draft for it , but I don't know why the draft is declined for the submission, I published the Reliable references which connects Bisen or Vishen rajputs to Malla Mahajanapad, and I didn't add any other info. Instigo1 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Instigo1 While you have three references (which I have not checked) you have not assi=ociated the directly with the fact you wish to verify, and it is unfair to expect reviewers to work out what you mean. Please read WP:CITE and WP:REFB for help 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Jattlife121

[edit]

I’ve been working on this draft for over a year, but it keeps getting rejected despite using numerous reliable sources. I’ve successfully created 15-16 other Wikipedia pages, but this one has been particularly challenging to get reviewed. The individual passed away in 1980, so there aren't many newspaper reports available outside of India. However, he is extensively referenced in books about Sikhism. Additionally, the Sikh Gurdwara he founded is already featured on Wikipedia. Could you please advise on what needs to be done to get this draft approved? Jattlife121 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted, and you did so, so the next reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 11 September 2024 review of submission by 71.219.162.143

[edit]

Hello! I am understanding that a new article for this soda company that was in business for 15 or more years is not of enough interest for a new Wikipedia article? Doing a Google search I found about 5 web pages concerning Canadian Club Corporation. Not much. My interest for this new article is that I found a soda bottle with label (pictured in AFC) for Canadian Club Corporation and looked for it on Wikipedia and did not find it. I thought to myself, I could make the article on Wiki with what I know about the bottle/label/company and invite others to add what they may know. I thought it could add to my knowledge. Thank you for helping with my question. Jim K. 71.219.162.143 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jim, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate database of information and every company to have ever existed: we only host articles on topic we deem notable. Notability is easiest proven through the use of indepth coverage in several independent reliable sources. It looks like this company doesn't meet that threshold. Maybe post about it on a personal blog instead? Qcne (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Qcne. Beautifully put! At least this releases me of the trouble of running my head up against the wall a number of times more. Thank you! What I was finding with this particular product by Canadian Club Corporation was that it seems they were copying another company's idea and was caught at it in a court of law. A story about the soda business of the past was presenting itself as I was trying to put this article together. Thank you for your reply! Jim 71.219.162.143 (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:59, 11 September 2024 review of submission by Warezalex911

[edit]

Hi,

I keep seeing that this page is rejected, despite linking to media organisations and websites about Daniel Bird and his career / television appearances. Any guidance would be great. Warezalex911 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected, as opposed to just declined, means that resubmission is not possible. You just documented his work, not summarized significant coverage of him in independent sources. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

[edit]

00:55, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Fjavaherchi

[edit]

Hi. I saw your message in my notifications. Yes I am new to article creation. I'm wondering if you can point out any specific things in my article that stands out as "promotional language" or "improper sources" or anything else. I was rejected twice. Thank you! Fjavaherchi (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1245270719"