Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 2 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 4 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


September 3

[edit]

00:51, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 2601:C4:C601:29E0:1DAD:B357:432D:48

[edit]

it is from the producer's twitter so how is it unreliable? 2601:C4:C601:29E0:1DAD:B357:432D:48 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the decline reason to be a bit misleading and I understand your confusion. It is perfectly fine to cite the producer's tweets for his working process of the song/his opinions/etc, but it wouldn't be reliable for claims that involve third parties. See WP:ABOUTSELF for more info.
However, your draft still needs independent sources. The producer's own tweets are not independent from the song, and only represents the creator's point of view. See WP:42 for more info. Ca talk to me! 01:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with the notability guideline for songs. You must show that this song meets that guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:44, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Hollyshi

[edit]

Based on my current draft, I wonder how I can ensure that the content I draft for a Wikipedia page adheres to academic citation standards, particularly in verifying claims and using reliable sources. Many thanks. Hollyshi (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hollyshi: okay, the good news is, this person is almost certainly notable, with a named chair at Columbia, h-index of 70+, etc.
The bad news is, some of the information is inadequately referenced, including the claim of the named chair, which is only backed up by his own CV. (I can provide a list of problems with the referencing, if you'd like, or you can wait for the next reviewer's feedback.)
Moreover, the article is written in a promotional tone, and with oddly non-enyclopaedic expressions throughout. I give just one example:

Morris was born in New York City in 1964 to a family with origins in western Ireland. They later moved “upstate” to the Catskill mountains, near the site of the Woodstock festival. The swirl of subcultures there piqued interests in cultural worldviews. He and his partners at the local public high school were surprise winners of the state debate championships.

I would recommend tigheting up the language and making it more factual and neutral.
Finally, what is your relationship with this person? I've posted a message on your talk page about conflicts of interest, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:50, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Yves Martin des Taillades

[edit]

Hi, I would like to know how to edit this article so that it fits Wikipedia's requirements. I think that many people would like to read about Silvi on Wikipedia. Thanks! Best, Yves Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yves Martin des Taillades: I assume you know the history of Draft:Silvi Rouskin, since this has been created under a slightly different spelling although the draft and the sources all refer to her as 'Silvi'?
In any case, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, these two pages are referring to the same person.
The reasons of the rejection are unclear to me. Could you tell me what's missing? Silvi is a famous professor, most of them have a wikipedia page so that people can know what are their key contributions.
Thanks for your work! Best, Yves Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to add more references to the article if that's any helpful. If it's just that Silvi isn't famous enough (yet?), we can just wait for her to get a few more awards to re-submit the article? I'll appreciate any sort of guidance on this. Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yves Martin des Taillades: the reason for the rejection (and I'm speculating here, as I wasn't the one who rejected this) was that this has been created at this and other title(s) before, involving various problems with paid editing etc., so the reviewer perhaps felt it wasn't necessary to give this the usual multiple reviews before pulling the plug.
There is no evidence of notability in the draft, not of WP:GNG type, and not WP:NACADEMIC either. I think you need to pass on the message to your friend to forget about having a Wikipedi article for a while, at least until she achieves solid notability (such as a named chair, or membership in a highly selective professional body; awards don't really do the trick, unless they are significant enough to be notable in their own right, and even then it's questionable). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DoubleGrazing for the detailed feedback! That's really insightful. I'll pass the message to Silvi. Have a nice day! Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:11, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Salimkanbour

[edit]

Hello, my page gets rejected every time, how to solve this 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. Salimkanbour (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimkanbour There are, in addition, sections without any referencing. We require citations for facts you state. The tone is of a magazine article, not an encyclopaedia article. We require flat, neutral, "dull-but-worthy" prose. My advice is to cut, cut, and cut again. Lose anything where you have no reference 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 146.255.74.38

[edit]

Is a list of publications considered relevant for an article about an organisation? 146.255.74.38 (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, Wikipedia articles should not be seen as comprehensive logs of a person or organisation's output and other doings; so on that basis, I would say probably not relevant. If you do intend to include some, keep it to the most noteworthy items only, and even then it would be good to see some context, not just a list for its own sake. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined because it needs a comprehensive rewrite to lose the magazine style phraseology. I have said so in my decline 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to reveal which of the sources are consider unreliable or dependent? 146.255.74.38 (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please don't start a new thread, just add to the exiting one.)
It's not necessarily the case that any particular source is unreliable. It's more (as I see it, at any rate) a case of there being a lot of unreferenced narrative, which suggests a source other than an independent third party. An example:

The historical context of the views of the ACC was the ever closer and wider European political cooperation, particularly as this process condensed in EU institutions and in the continuous EU enlargements in the decades after the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

Whose view does this represent? When the source isn't cited, it becomes Wikipedia's view, which isn't appropriate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, very helpful. I was (at least I) was looking in a complete different direction to try and figure out what was the problem of this article. 146.255.74.38 (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, very helpful 146.255.74.38 (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstalled the cutaway, in accordance with the latest reviewers, also to let the next editor start from the most complete version of the article. As I wrote, I give up for now. I takes someone smarter to identify the right balance between your reviewers and guidelines and rules. Just curious: what is the "group" referred to by the latest reviewer? 146.255.74.193 (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Sampaul1710

[edit]

how to get it approved Sampaul1710 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sampaul1710: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why is it rejected? all the information is true and given with citations Sampaul1710 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said the information is not true. Much of the draft is unsourced and it reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia article that neutrally summarizes what independent reliable sources choose to say about her, showing how she is a notable actress as Wikipedia defines it. The awards described do not contribute to notability as they do not have articles themselves(like Academy Award or Filmfare Award). 331dot (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Root Equus

[edit]

I need help in identifying which parts of the article need citing. Thank you. Root Equus (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Root Equus: see WP:MINREF. Basically, whenever a reader might challenge or even wonder if something is really true, or what source a statement is based on, there should be the source cited next to it. This is especially important in articles on living people (WP:BLP). Also, all private personal and family details, such as DOB, must be clearly supported by reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Sarajmartin24

[edit]

Hello, Thank you for reviewing our submission. We understand that the article was declined due to the following reasons:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." "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." We have carefully reviewed your feedback and have made further adjustments to the article to ensure it is written in a neutral and academic tone. We have also ensured that the references used are from external, reputable sources such as Forbes, Cinco Días, Bolsamanía, FUNDS PEOPLE, Invertia, and Corresponsables—all of which are well-established and reliable media outlets that have covered the event in depth.

We are unsure what additional steps are required to meet the criteria for reliable sources, as the current references are from recognized and reputable media organizations that provide independent coverage of the event. Could you please provide us with more specific guidance on why these sources are not considered adequate?

We would greatly appreciate more detailed feedback on how we can further improve the submission to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Sarajmartin24 (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarajmartin24: this draft has a dozen paragraphs of content, only three of which are referenced – where is the rest of the information coming from? And, not to put too fine a point on it, how do we know any of it is true? That's why referencing is required, so that the information can be verified. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wp.ramesh wiki

[edit]

Hi can anyone tell me Which changes actually done in this page. Wp.ramesh wiki (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wp.ramesh wiki: did you read the decline notice and the accompanying comments? You need to cite sources (that actually work) which show that the subject is notable, either per the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You also need to disclose your conflict of interest regarding this film (the same way as you've already done on your talk page regarding another subject). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:58, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 清风与明月

[edit]

Hello. I really want to create an article about this movie, but there may be not enough reference materials. Can I ask if I can use the article so that capable people can expand it? Thank you. 清风与明月 (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. Please don't start multiple threads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 清风与明月

[edit]

Hello. I really want to create an article about this movie, but there may be not enough reference materials. Can I ask if I can use the article so that capable people can expand it? Thank you. 清风与明月 (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@清风与明月: sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "if I can use the article so that capable people can expand it?" Other users can edit this draft, not just you, if that's what you meant.
But if, as you say, adequate sources don't exist, then this film is probably not notable enough for the draft to be accepted. Regardless of who edits it, and how "capable" they are; it's not possible to magic notability out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that maybe other people will see it and become interested and continue to edit and improve this entry. 清风与明月 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@清风与明月: yes, that is a possibility, at least in theory, because drafts are publicly available on the internet. In practice, however, very few people will come across a draft, since it doesn't show up in any searches (within or without Wikipedia), isn't linked to from other articles, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but there's enough people who treat their draft as a sacred cow that we're generally unwilling to edit another's draft. It's not worth torquing off the draft author. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you want others to work on it, to pass this process you need to demonstrate notability, even if the article is not 100% complete. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:1210:7E33:F400:9CA0:A1A4:11BF:8013

[edit]

I can't submit the draft for review, because the catch comes again after its entered. Can anybody help? 2A02:1210:7E33:F400:9CA0:A1A4:11BF:8013 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could submit this for you, but then I'd have to decline it for lack of notability, so there seems little point.
We need to see significant coverage of this organisation, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other. At the moment this draft cites at most one such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wynnsantiy

[edit]

Wikipedia Please do not delete a Draft:List of programmes English Series (Malaysian premiere) for Six months. Wynnsantiy (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wynnsantiy: it won't be automatically deleted for six months, but I can't guarantee that no one will request deletion earlier.
Was it you who created all those drafts on the Malaysian premieres of various US television shows, which I rejected? They were largely copied from the main articles on the respective shows, with only the Malaysian broadcast information added. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I for one don't see the need for such articles, otherwise we could potentially end up on 200 variations on the theme for every TV show that has ever been shown internationally. If you wish to add the Malaysian broadcast details to the main article, that might still not be a very good idea, but it would be better at least.
I also don't see why we would need a list like this, of who shows what on Malaysian TV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a TV guide, or a repository of indiscriminate information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wynnsantiy

[edit]

Wikipedia Please do not delete a Draft:List of Slot English Series On 2 TV2 (Malaysia) for Six months. Wynnsantiy (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wynnsantiy

[edit]

Wikipedia Please do not delete a Draft:List of Slot Saranghaeyo On 2 TV2 (Malaysia) for Six months. Wynnsantiy (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. And please don't post a new thread for every one of those TV show articles I mentioned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 3 September 2024 review of submission by DzHaruna

[edit]

The article rejected and I want help on how I can improve it to be accepted according to Wikipedia standards DzHaruna (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Rejected" means that the reviewer believes that this cannot be made into an acceptable article, usually because adequate sources simply do not exist to estabish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If you beieve that you have several sources which are all three of reliable (eg not social media), independent (not written, published, or commissioned by Gusau or his associates, and not based on his words) and contain significant coverage of him (not just a passing mention), then you should approach the rejecting reviewr SafariScribe. But I advise you not to bother them unless you are 100% sure that you have adequate sources to demonstrate notability. Look at all your sources critically according to WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 3 September 2024 review of submission by OldPolandUpdates

[edit]

Several Wikipedia articles exist for Polish cathedrals of this size and age. Can you help me understand what makes this one insignificant? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OldPolandUpdates: we don't assess drafts on the basis of whether articles exist on comparable topics. A draft has to stand on its own two legs, meeting all relevant policies and guidelines. This one was first declined twice for insufficient referencing, and then a further three times for lack of evidence of notability, before being finally rejected. That's not saying the subject is "insignificant", just that the sources cited don't justify its inclusion in the encyclopaedia. That's my reading of it, at least; I'm pinging the rejecting reviewer Courtesy ping: SafariScribe in case they have anything more to add. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your response. I worded my original question in that way because the article rejection stated, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." So, the subject was indeed considered to be not notable.
The core references establishing the existence and features of this cathedral are all academic or from literature. My NYT source was deemed to be a passing reference, but I have kept it in because it mostly describes an aspect of the history of the cathedral and is not used to fundamentally establish the existence of the cathedral. Should I remove that source and the corresponding history?
For this draft, I also used relevant sources that appear on other published cathedral articles ("Die polnischen Kathedralen"). Does the rejection of this article have implications for all articles that use that particular source?
I am new to this process, so I heavily appreciate any response. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OldPolandUpdates: apologies, I will try to explain better, without using unnecessary jargon.
'Notability' in the Wikipedia context means 'worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia' (my words, but more or less accurate). Given that Wikipedia's role is to summarise what reliable sources have previously published about a subject, it follows that if such sources don't exist, or they aren't enough to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, then it isn't possible to publish an article on the subject.
There are some exceptions to WP:GNG. The one applicable to buildings is WP:NGEO for geographical features, which among other things contains the provision WP:GEOFEAT whereby buildings covered by official heritage protection/registration are automatically assumed notable. Might this apply to the cathedral in question, do you know?
Aside from all that, I actually think, for what it's worth, that a cathedral is likely to be more or less inherently notable, for its status in the hierarchy of religious buildings, not to mention its historical status as an obvious focal point of urban society, cityscape, etc. For that reason, I probably wouldn't have rejected this draft myself, even if I might have declined it for lack of evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Snrizvi

[edit]

I re-submitted with recommended edits and updates. have not heard back. Snrizvi (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snrizvi: this draft has only been submitted once. It was declined shortly afterwards, following which you have made a couple of edits, but have not resubmitted it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,
I clicked "resubmit" button under the first objection light blue wondow. Should I resubmit as fresh new article ? Please guide. Snrizvi (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snrizvi Just press the blue Resubmit button and wait while the system does it. The waiting is important. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snrizvi: The content of this draft falls into a contentious topic (Indian Subcontinent). This reads more like a research essay than an encyclopaedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand " contentious" and "research essay". This topic is been a current issue and have effected 7% population of Pakistan. Political party representing these 7% people of Pakistan has been talking about it. This party is being mentioned in Wikipedia. I have linked it. When you say "research" what do you mean by it ? How it can be wikipedia article? Earlier other gentleman mentioned "tone" and "independant" references. I have made it totally neutral with realiable academc refernces to support the content. What's stopping it to get published. Do not understand Snrizvi (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should consist of neutrally-written summaries of what reliable sources say. It should not contain any argumentation or conclusions, with the possible exception of summaries of arguments and conclusions wholly contained within one of the sources. (It could contain several of these, but should not contain any kind of synthesis or comparison between the sources). ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 3 :CTOP|September 2024 (UTC)
The draft reads like an essay, not like an encyclopedia article. I had to read several paragraphs into it to even begin to understand what "Matruka Sindh" even means. An encyclopedia article identifies and describes the topic from the first sentence without a meandering lead-in. As for a contentious topic, that applies to all coverage on Wikipedia of the ongoing and historical conflicts between India and Pakistan. Cullen328 (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Ailintom

[edit]

Dear community. Many thanks for the feedback. I was tempted to think that the topic of the article meets criterion 5 of WP:ACADEMIC: the person was elected full professor (distinguished professorships and named chairs are not common in Germany) at a major German research university (U15 member), as confirmed by a university webpage referenced in the draft in question, and being the only professor of Egyptology in Mainz the person is thus considered a chair of Egyptology (Lehrstuhlinhaber in German). Does this not qualify for criterion 5? Ailintom (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ailintom I agree. Accepted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Davetheirishguy

[edit]

I do not understand how a wholly subjective understanding of what constitutes "signifigant" mentioning allows someone to simply delete a submission, I am an experienced veteran journalist, these citations are from purely editorial, journalistic content published by legitimate, respected 3rd party outlets. Where or who do I seek for recourse? Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davetheirishguy: If you're here to relitigate the Articles for Deletion discussion then WP:Deletion review is that-a-way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davetheirishguy: As to your sources, refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Of the sources I can assess, one is borderline and the rest are useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not remotely clear what makes this person notable in Wikipedia terms? Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the 3 articles you can't access are actually the ones that contain the actual journalism. question - is there a simple way to post unwalled versions? Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704204304574543462129137096?st=fbpdwtr9aa7b9lv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link is still walled, and my comment about it being unlikely to be about Hogg stands given the headline. But I will note that if those three sources are "the ones that contain the actual journalism" then we have a more significant problem here with source assessment, given how much chaff there is relative to the potential wheat. Again, pretty much every source I could assess was unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. Paywalled sources are acceptable, and it is conceivable that those three will clinch notability for Hogg. Jeske (who was not the reviewer who declined it) is giving you his estimation of your sources, without going in to look at those.
But now that you have posted an open link to it, I can see that, as Jeske suspected, it does not contain in-depth discussion of Hogg. ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, now that I have a more clearer understanding of what is meant by notability I will try to source additonal info that is appropriate for usage here. I knoe it exists, I just have to put the time/effort to locate it then rewrite the entry and resubmit. Question: how long until it is "permanently" deleted? Davetheirishguy (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davetheirishguy: Drafts are deleted as abandoned six months from the last edit made to the draft, regardless of who made the edit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new at this so I'm using this to teach myself these ways. Davetheirishguy (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is "permanently deleted" here; even if the draft is deleted, it can be recovered via WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:26, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Adipratamaa25

[edit]

because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. Adipratamaa25 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adipratamaa25: That means it needs to be rewritten from scratch without plagiarising content from elsewhere on the web. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you rewrite it without getting a violation Adipratamaa25 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_September_3&oldid=1245639281"