• RDSJ2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Review of Disability Studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding the requirements for a "notable" designation, are there examples for scholarly journals that I could take a look at? Thank you. RDSJ2 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get how it is not notable either Petjayso (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RDSJ2, please read Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). For examples, take a look at Category:Academic journals and its various subcategories. Pay special attention to the articles with a higher assessment. Do not model your work on articles rated "stub" or "start" Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Appreciate it. RDSJ2 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 146.168.109.47 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Atom Hovhannisyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Atom Hovhanesyan chosen shorter version from "Hovhannisyan" when immigrated to USA July,1997, and naturalized as US citizen in 2003. 20 years of his short life he lived and worked in USA. Therefore He is American artist ,born in Armenia.

146.168.109.47 (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your entirely unreferenced and exceptionally brief draft fails to make the case that this artist is notable. It lacks complete sentences. This draft is nowhere near ready for the encyclopedia. Read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 1.47.16.104 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Su Hu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The topic is clearly notable as a mythological figure and deity; the other one is Draft:List of media adaptations of the Investiture of the Gods (See, for example, List of media adaptations of the Legend of the White Snake and List of media adaptations of Journey to the West), but they have been under review for too long. I kindly request that you review these articles as soon as possible. Btw, pls add Italic on List of media adaptations of the ''Investiture of the Gods'' >>> Investiture of the Gods. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of your draft states that this person actually existed and then states in Wikipedia's voice that one of this person's children was killed by a thousand-year-old vixen spirit who possessed her body before becoming the favourite concubine of King Zhou.. That is inane drivel that will never be accepted in this encyclopedia. You state here at this help desk that this is a "mythological figure" but the lead section of your draft does not say that. Your draft will not be accepted "as soon as possible" because your draft in its current form is exceptionally misleading. You must clearly separate fantasy from reality. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so pity you that you don't have much knowledge about Chinese folk religion. So RIP. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have written over 200 articles on Chinese folk characters using Draft, and I have never received such a rude response showing such a lack of knowledge on Chinese folklore like the one you provided above. Chinese folk religion is characterized by the evolution of oral legends and the blending of reality and mythology. It is a traditional cultural belief that is unique to China and India and has no parallel in the Western ones. Despite not existing in the real world, characters such as Sun Wukong are worshiped as deities, with over 50 temples dedicated to him. To deepen your understanding of Chinese mythology, it is recommended to research papers and study Chinese oral and folk traditions. However, I fixed as you suggested. Thank you. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You came here asking for advice, anonymous IP editor, and I gave you an honest critique of the lead section of your draft. You improved your draft in response to my observations. So far, so good. But then you decided to insult me, the person who gave you the advice you asked for, and then when other people commented, you argued with them and insulted them, and then strayed into administrative dictatorship fantasy land. If you despise Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, then you are perfectly free to contribute to other websites with lower standards instead. But if you want to contribute to this top ten worldwide website, you need to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and stop insulting and arguing with your colleagues. That is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, IP, it is the reviewers, not you, who determine whether a subject is notable or not, and whether any such notability is born out by the referencing. That is largely the point of AfC.

Secondly, stating that your drafts "have been under review for too long" is both incorrect and unreasonable, given that they were submitted only 2-3 days ago. We do have other drafts to review, as well, not just yours – over 4,000 of them, in fact. If yours are still awaiting review in three months' time, then you may have a point.

Finally, why not register for an ACCOUNT, so you can publish your articles without going through AfC, as you're clearly finding this process frustrating? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: I don't want to use my account to argue with rude editors and someone who lacks intelligence. If I say something wrong, they might very mean to me and get my account banned. Using an account does not feel like freedom, which is why I prefer not to use it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and under dictatorship of Admin panel. Well, You said that "it is the reviewers, not you". But does that mean I cannot speak to reviewers who make judgments without proper knowledge in a field they are not experts in? Shouldn't I have the right to criticize or point out any flaws in their judgments? I'm a senior scholar of Chinese mythology at Chulalongkorn University. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then; if you prefer to edit from IP, that's your call, but you're then kind of stuck with us here at AfC. In which case, you may want to avoid the accusations and unreasonable demands, because they won't get your drafts reviewed any faster. Good day, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are free to criticise and debate, but this can and should be done in a constructive spirit. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and adversarial approaches are not conducive to collaboration, while personal attacks and insults are absolutely unacceptable.

As for whether you are a "senior scholar" (for which we, of course, have only your word), this is neither here nor there, and has no bearing on the draft review process. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems like you're getting it backwards. I have no intention of personally attacking anyone, but it appears that you and your colleague are actually insulting me. It would be best if you refrain from displaying your authority or exerting your power on Wikipedia. AfC reviewers are not more than nothing minors. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would you call your remarks about "rude editors and someone who lacks intelligence", if not personal attacks?

And please point to where exactly I insulted you. I'll wait. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop editing earlier comments. The way discussion threads work is, you add each new comment after the previous one, and leave the earlier comments alone.

And with that, I'm done with this discussion. Bye, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, your statement 'IP, it is the reviewers, not you, who determine whether a subject is notable or not' appears to assert your power. Secondly, your suggestion of 'why not register for an ACCOUNT' feels like pressure to me. Finally, your comment about my status as a 'senior scholar' and the fact that 'we, of course, have only your word,' seems like a challenge to my credibility. Regardless of your intentions, it is unacceptable to insult someone's educational background or opinions. Such behavior is considered very rude in Southeast Asian tradition. For PA, No, referring to someone who exhibits rude or unacceptable behavior as 'rude editors' is not a personal attack. If not that, then how else would you refer to them? For instance, would 'poor editors' be a more appropriate term?. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a simple statement of fact that we only have your word on your background and qualifications. No one said that they disbelieve you. If you find this offensive, there's not much we can do about it. The same goes for if you feel "pressured" by a simple question about using an account. No one is "asserting power"- simply stating the role of AFC reviewers. It would be like saying you are "asserting power" by telling us your qualifications. In fact, your whole line of discussion seems to be accusing us of that which you are doing.

  Again, if you find this process frustrating, there is a way to avoid it, but you've declined it, so you are stuck with us. Please assume good faith that we are here to help you. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you're saying that I'm 'asserting power' by sharing my qualifications. Please be aware of what we're discussing. We're currently discussing Chinese folk religion, and I simply wanted to state that it's my field of research. I never claimed to be a professor or an authority figure. I don't care whether or not you trust me, as the role of a scholar is not of great importance. Why are you taking this so seriously? I have the right to defend those who criticize Chinese folk religion without knowing anything about it. You should stop disrespecting on the folk religion, as it feels like a personal challenge to me. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you seem to be taking everything that people say personally, I too am going to withdraw from this discussion. I would suggest that you change your approach. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've grown increasingly frustrated with creating articles about Chinese traditions on the Western dominated Wikipedia. This is why I've been away from my account for a long time. It seems that there is a stubborn refusal to investigate topics that are not well-understood. The only actions taken seem to be "deleting" and "denying". It's disheartening to see that native voices are not being heard. That's all. Bye 1.47.16.104 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You way wish to consider editing a Wikipedia version in a Chinese language which is more likely to have Chinese editors. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the "premier" Wikipedia. Also, it is not required that editors be knowledgable in a topic area in order to participate in editing it, mainly because Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people, summarizing reliable sources. Okay, I'm really finished now. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, as it was previously stated that 'Wikipedia is a collaborative effort,' and then you have also mentioned that 'it is not necessary for editors to be knowledgeable in a specific topic area to contribute to it.' Does this mean that Wikipedia does not value experts???? However, if you need to verify sources in the Thai language, it is crucial to seek the assistance of native editors. Please do not advise others that English Wikipedia does not require volunteers from other language Wikipedias, as it may be perceived as an arrogant attitude. Thanks. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't anything close to what I said. Please see WP:EXPERT. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have already memorized all of Wikipedia's policies and essays like drinking water three years ago. I did this because many experienced editors tend to bully those who are not familiar with the policies. I am now like a tiger, not a cat. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... I have decided to leave this article as it is for further review. I strongly believe that the topic is clearly notable, as he holds the dual roles of a court minister and a deity, which beyond the notability criteria. However, if the article is rejected, I'm prepared to discuss the matter with the reviewer who rejected it and file a complaint with the ANI. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there are no notability guidelines for a mythological "court minister and a deity", and your combative attitude here will not help you get the article accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Of course, this means that you may need to update your knowledge on Wikipedia. First, it is important to understand the difference between a biography of a living person and a non-BLP issue. A deity is beyond notable, and a court ministers are automatically considered notable per WP:NPOL. A royal court is a joke to you??? See other articles in the same category in AfD for reference. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait!!! I have created over 500 articles in total during my time on Wikipedia. When I used an IP, I created almost 200 articles, and none of them were deleted or rejected. I mainly focus on my area of expertise and have created over 500 articles. How about you? Only have propaganda of the edior Onel?? 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting close to a block, I suggest that you either move on from this or change your approach. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do nothing wrong and insult to other. Blocking me, an innocent person, is causing the truth to disappear from Wikipedia. Btw, It is still my philosophy that over past century royalty who are documented by one reliable source are notable. I would also add that insisting on multiple independent sources for historical figures from Southeast Asia or Africa may maintain systemic bias. by Robert McClenon said at once. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are here to post "the truth", you are operating under a misunderstanding. See WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out any mistakes I've made? I'm here to enlighten those who refuse to acknowledge the significance of historical figures from over a thousand years ago. This is a different issue bcs there are no notability guidelines for them, as they are already notable due to their historical importance. They lived in ancient times, not in the Joe Biden's era. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am reasonably confident that WP:NPOL does NOT include mythological/fictional characters from a book. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking? He is not a fictional one, but a noble during Shang dynasty. Well, he had a historical tomb and is worshipped as a deity in Taiwan, which goes beyond our notability criteria. How much more evidence do you need? 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, If you don't mind, let's discuss this on the article's talk page instead of here. I am willing to devote my time to defending the Shang dynasty figures from your insults directed at them. Or see you at ANI when refuse notability. For now, let me retire here. Thanks 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "beyond the notability criteria". 331dot (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right! so r u happy? Wiki admin always right! However... AfD will decide not you. As you mentioned earlier, "Okay, I'm really finished now. Good day to you." Why are you still continuing the conversation here after I have withdrawn from the discussion? Please stay cool and keep your words while editing. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Coderc Codes 77 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Arc Web Browser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there! I am writing about a web browser called Arc (arc.net), as I realised there was not a wikipedia article for that. Arc Web Browser is a rather new browser, and thus there is not much information readily available. Therefore, I could not put many citations for my wikipedia article, and therefore it was rejected. Any tips for cases like this, and how can I make it in an even more neutral point-of-view? Thanks.

(And yes, Arc Web Browser is a fairly well-known browser with thousands of users with many big tech companies investing in it.) Coderc Codes 77 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coderc Codes 77 If as you say there "is not much information readily available" in independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this browser, it would not merit an article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that. Articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so does this mean that it will not be possible to make that article at this time? That's sad, but alright. Coderc Codes 77 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does not merit an article at this time. That does not mean forever, just not now. Once the browser becomes better known and independent sources start to write about it and its significance, that will change later. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources have actually written about it, but after checking the information, I realised that it is not true, which is why I worry when putting the citations in and therefore to not cite, as there is not really any actual information given from the official website. For example, a blog said that it was released in 2022. There was no official source that said when the first build was released(and I try not to use official sources since it may be abit bias), but digging into the twitter archive of @browsercompany showed me that it was actually released in 2021, as there was evidence that they had a public build before 2022. Does this mean that I can cite the independent sources, or should I just wait until it gets more significant and the company actually puts actual information out? Thanks. Coderc Codes 77 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Barshuts (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Russell John Cochran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Having trouble with vetting the articles references as i cannot find for the life of me the errors in question before i can submit the page

Cite error group ref

Probably something really simple, but still learning!

BRSHTS 12:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Barshuts: in the election results table, you're invoking a named reference 'turnout' (in <ref group="note" name="turnout"/>) but this isn't defined anywhere, meaning none of the existing ref tags is given the name 'turnout'. HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Resolved BRSHTS 10:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barshuts (talk • contribs)

• Naadis (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Toofan Salafzoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please help too approve biography Naadis (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naadis: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahron218 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Ahron218 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to delete my account. Ahron218 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahron218: as explained at WP:Username_policy#Deleting_and_merging_accounts, it isn't possible to delete / close down accounts, but you may request a courtesy vanishing if you wish. Alternatively you can just stop using your account. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Farzan77far (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sogand Haghparast Lati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I mention some reference but still the submission not accept. It just about the person who plays volleyball. The reason that not accept is commented that "Just passing mentions of being in a team is not notable, the team being a junior one even less". please help me. Farzan77far (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Farzan77far you only cite one source and that source appears to be some kind of forum or blog, which is not a reliable source. In order to meet the notability criteria, you need multiple reliable sources that have written about him in-depth, such as reputable newspapers, magazines or the like. S0091 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brightonthatbeat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why can't this be submitted? I don't fully understand. 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, it was successfully submitted but not accepted because neither of the sources are reliable and/or independent. What Brightonthatbeat says about himself matters not. What is needed are secondary reliable sources that have written about him in-depth. S0091 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of the information that is provided are from the sources that were given. so i guess i don't know what else to put when there isnt a lot about my client. What is it thats needed? More from someone elses point of view? 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brightonthatbeat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Whats wrong in here, and why does it keep getting denied? Whats the problem 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why this draft was declined and then rejected is that there is no evidence of notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. We need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't start multiple threads, you can just continue in the one already started. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 94.188.182.25 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:RAID: Call of the Arbiter (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hey! This cannot be merged to the Raid: Shadow Legends page, since this page is about a video game. And the current article that we would like to publish is TV Series.

94.188.182.25 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fine; the reviewer was merely suggesting that since this doesn't seem notable in its own right, it could be included in the game article. Add sources that demonstrate notability according to the WP:GNG standard, and then (and only then) resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mickey Singh Narula (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Mickey Singh Narula/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mickey Singh Narula (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Singh Narula You don't ask a question for us to help you with, and your sandbox only has the base article template without any text from you. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• StriveMe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:StriveMe/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We are a well known magazine in the middle east , this is not a spam account for promotional purposes , yet we need to be on wikipedia like all magazines StriveMe (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StriveMe: firstly, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further; moreover, it is promotional, and hence awaiting speedy deletion.

Secondly, while you may feel that you "need to be on wikipedia", we have policies and guidelines that govern inclusion, and the subject's desire doesn't feature on any of them. There may one day be an article on your magazine, but only if it can be shown to be notable, which based on this draft isn't the case. And even then, you shouldn't really be writing that article.

...which brings me to my 'thirdly': you have an obvious conflict of interest (COI) and you are likely editing for pay or other compensation, and you must disclose that as your very next edit. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and then there's that. (Blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathews Kantchembere (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Mathews Kantchembere/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

to publish my post

Mathews Kantchembere (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathews Kantchembere: oh yes, I remember this. :)) I just looked at it quickly and thought it was a book outline, so marked it as promotional (sorry!). Luckily the attending admin sensibly declined my speedy deletion request. Anyway, we already have an article on World War II, so feel free to improve that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2605:BA00:4138:445:1974:CACD:E09D:A640 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wheelchair curling at the 2024 Summer Paralympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I, sorry 2605:BA00:4138:445:1974:CACD:E09D:A640 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected (and you probably know why) and therefore won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Adamozito (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dynasteampress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is rejected? It's a type of machine present in almost all wood boards plants as the reference shows. Adamo Zito 20:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adamozito As stated in the rejection notice, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". The draft does little more than document the existence of the topic, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic. This is why it was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rapmarocedit (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Simo Idrissi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi all, How To move drave intro page ? Rapmarocedit (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@rapmarocedit: don't. the draft been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 01:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• BVECJordan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Patabari Fv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I have created a page new called patabari Fv everything was done as reliable sources citations from various website But it recently moved to draft What is the reason I want to know about it And how to resubmit it Please tell me anyone the solution BVECJordan (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BVECJordan: not that this is strictly speaking an AfC matter, but – the reason why this article was draftified is given in the move notice posted on your talk page (which you have clearly seen, as you have responded to it), namely that the article did not demonstrate the notability of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sir

Thanks a lot BVECJordan (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Susanta108 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Child Help Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What am I doing wrong with the article? Susanta108 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Susanta108: did you read the decline notices and comments? The reviewer is saying the sources don't show that the subject is notable per WP:ORGCRIT. There are several other issues with it, as well, but lack of apparent notability is the main thing keeping it from being accepted.

You should also please respond to the COI query posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:5D49:1A4D:7F6E:EC8D (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Why was a article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

my article about kogama was declined.2404:4402:23F7:2B00:5D49:1A4D:7F6E:EC8D (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, the only content was "KOGAMA IS A COMPANY FOUNDED IN 2011 IT IS AN AMAZING WEBSITE" which reads nothing like a potential encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Whitelove (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fundación The Better World / Un Mundo Mejor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, What kind of things do I need to add this page? I wanted to add news souse of a charity concert, but the news souse was not on the web. Thank you. Whitelove (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitelove: you need to add sources which show that this organisation is notable per WP:GNG. Currently you have two primary sources, one that doesn't support anything in the draft, and two instances of the same news report about a minor incident, none of which contribute towards notability in the slightest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kuldeep Kumar Actor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Kuldeep Kumar Actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need assistance in Article creation. I wrote the entire content in word.

Looking forward for your support. Kuldeep Kumar Actor (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuldeep Kumar Actor: if you mean Draft:Kuldeep Kumar, then that draft has been deleted for being both promotional and a likely copyright violation.

In any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, for all the reasons enumerated at WP:AUTOBIO.

In view of all that, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kuldeep Kumar Actor This isn't a place for you to tell about yourself and your career- please do that on social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is created for Biography of Kuldeep Kumar. I am not telling anything about myself and my career. Please tell me the exact problem and what i have to do to publish this page. Kuldeep Kumar Actor (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not Kuldeep Kumar, you will need to change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dani Playà (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Table of electronic music record labels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand why this draft page it's not ok.

i don`t see the diferencies with this other page. List of tango music labels And that other seems be ok Dani Playà (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Playà I've fixed your link, we don't need the whole url. Beware in citing other similar articles with regards to yours, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this. In this case, I think that is correct. The tango music is is poorly sourced and has few links to other Wikipedia articles. I might suggest that you first discuss the need of such a list at Talk:Record label and see if it could be incorporated into an existing article before attempting to create a new one. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ithau23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Ithau23/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Need assistance on the article 
Ithau23 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ithau23: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WesJoiner (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sorg & Napoleon Maddox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was declined, with following statements:

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

However, the inline citations are all from external reputable sources (regional, national and international publications). Perhaps the tone of the article was not considered neutral due to the use of affirmative adjectives, thus the reviewer did not actually view the citations.

The references to the artists work has thus been neutralized; presented more objectively. However all citations remain the same as they are all legitimate and DO NOT come from the artist, but DO INDEED come from external sources.

Thank you for your consideration.

WesJoiner (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WesJoiner The first sentence of your draft is highly promotional. Please read WP:NPOV; articles must be written very matter of factly, very dry, with no embellishment. "Sorg & Napoleon Maddox are a musical duo", for example. It's also not clear to me how they pass WP:BAND. Do you have an association with this duo? 331dot (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply 331dot

Is it more appropriate if I say, "Sorg & Napoleon Maddox are a Hip-hop Electro duet" and eliminate "Sorg & Napoleon Maddox are a musical duo that blends electronic beats with live vocal performance." ?

I've changed that, simplified the article and made the overall tone more "matter of fact".

I've also seen flags on the draft RE: the external links but none of the links lead to the pages controlled or created by the artists in the article so I don't understand. Please explain.

Thank you

WJ WesJoiner (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• HMGelani (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sajjad Jani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I had submitted a detailed draft 2 months ago and I got a notification this week that it has been declined because the subject if this article already exists though that article was directly created a week ago i.e. almost two months after my submission. HMGelani (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HMGelani Submitting a draft about a topic does not mean that other users are barred from creating an article about the topic directly. You are welcome to edit that article. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. I just wanted to clarify the point that a detailed draft submitted for review can be declined for the reason that later same subject article was directly created by someone, instead of helping improve that draft or reviewing it. HMGelani (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm not sure what it is that you are asking for. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article already created in main space Sajjad Jani is likely to be deleted as it is VERY poorly sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read in a recent comment by a reviewer here that a draft was declined because an older draft with same subject was under review, while in my case my draft was declined because someone directly made an article with same subject, after my submission. And as per your observation, that article might get deleted so please guide that what should I do now ? HMGelani (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HMGelani: depends at least partly on whether it is more important for you to have an article on this subject published, or to have an article on this subject created by you published? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had researched on the subject and waited for review, in order to have the article published but I am happy to contribute in any way. HMGelani (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HMGelani: okay, in that case I would suggest that you incorporate the salient points and relevant sources from your draft into the published article, to improve and hopefully save it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest version of the article rather shows that all that data was copied from this draft and then edited to publish as an article DoctorOfData (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Priydarshini.R.mujagond (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Swaraj Shetty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why this page got rejected and what to add in this page

Priydarshini.R.mujagond (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Priydarshini.R.mujagond: it didn't get rejected; I declined it, on the basis that another draft on the same topic is already being reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• BEB8299 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:AWA Wiffle Ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am trying to create a page for the AWA wiffle ball league. It looks like it got taken down and I am trying to figure out how to improve it to meet your expectations. I started by using only reliable secondary sources. For the rules, however, I used the actual website as it was the only place for primary information on that matter. Please let me know what else I can do!

BEB8299 (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BEB8299: of the four sources cited, the first only makes a passing mention, the second is a close primary source, and although I cannot access the other two, even if they both provided significant coverage of the subject (AWA Wiffle Ball, specifically), they wouldn't be enough to establish notability, especially if, as you say, the latter one is only a local source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Betarhobeta (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Inna Jane Ray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My page has been declined for lack of secondary sources. My sources are proved by links to respected research library catalogs. Like many women artists, Ray did not receive full recognition during her life. Her work is now being recognized and has recently been added to the collections of UCSD Geisel Special collections, The Bancroft Library ad UCBerkeley and the Huntington Library. Chapman University also holds 24 of her paintings. This is significant recognition from secondary sources. Betarhobeta (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Betarhobeta I am not sure what links to which you are referring but the references are largely her publications which are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. What is needed is in-depth coverage about her by secondary independent reliable sources. If some of her works are now receiving critical attention, such as reviews or other analysis, I actually suggest articles about those works first before attempting an article about her. S0091 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ray's work is collected by respected institutions such as the Huntington Library. Here is one example of her work on their research archive.

https://search-library.ucsd.edu/discovery/fulldisplay?context=L&vid=01UCS_SDI:UCSD&search_scope=ArticlesBooksEtc&tab=ArticleBooksEtc&docid=alma991023606067806535

Her work is also in Chapman University's eMuseum and is part of the Escalate collection of Public Art https://chapman.emuseum.com/people/1433/inna-ray

Footnote # 8 shows that her Master's Thesis on theology was published as an issue of the Women in Religion of the Berkeley Graduate Theological Union. Betarhobeta (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Betarhobeta there is no footnote #8 in the References section. Hmm...I suggest posting a note at WT:WikiProject Women in Red to seek assistance which is very active project with experienced (and new) editors dedicated to covering women. S0091 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, it is footnote #6. thank you for the Women in Red contact I will pursue. Betarhobeta (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Betarhobeta fyi, I redirected Draft:Inna Ray to Draft:Inna Jane Ray as there should not be multiple drafts about the same subject. The title can be changed if the draft is accepted. S0091 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am not sure how I managed to create two drafts. It was not my intent.

Inna Jane Ray is the correct title Betarhobeta (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• HiDot94 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:VoxPop Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trying to get this draft page deleted so the submission button can comeback when we have better sources but the deletion keeps getting blocked? HiDot94 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HiDot94 since you were not the draft's creator, you cannot request it be deleted so another editor removed the deletion request. Why do you want it be deleted? S0091 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft will be automatically marked for deletion after six months of no edits. If you obtain appropriate sources in that time, you may ask the reviewer to reconsider. There is no need to request deletion. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rapmarocedit (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tazi Habiba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I had submitted a detailed draft, please how to move drave intro page ? Rapmarocedit (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rapmarocedit the draft is declined. Please read through all the information in the decline message and the reviewer's comments. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DoOnlyGoodEveryday (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shami Vriksha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Being new to the Wikipedia community, I would greatly value your input and guidance on whether the article meets the necessary standards for submission. Your expertise and experience would be immensely helpful in improving the article and ensuring its suitability for publication.

DoOnlyGoodEveryday (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoOnlyGoodEveryday: I'm afraid the draft could not be accepted, as it's currently written. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, but none of the three sources cited meets this standard.

Also, the last three sections of the draft are entirely unreferenced, raising the question where is all that information coming from? Please note that everything you write must be verifiable from reliable published sources – in fact, what you write should only really be a summary (in your own words) of what such sources have said. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Maormer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gelsomino's miraculous voice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. The article I proposed was rejected for the third time. Last time, the reason for the refusal was the lack of reliable sources, and from the discussion with the moderators, I determined which source was in doubt, and replaced it with a more reliable one. To all the others (as far as I understand) there are no complaints. I would like to clarify what exactly I am doing wrong, and whether it makes sense to edit the article or it is better to abandon it. If some sources are in doubt, I can replace them, if some facts seem inappropriate, I will try to remove them. Thank you in advance for your help Maormer (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DanielCro (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vigilare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tried to publish this article earlier, but the article was moved to draft with the explanation that it is not yet ready for public publication on Wikipedia and that I need to edit it to comply with Wikipedia rules, especially regarding the neutrality of the article and reliable sources of information. I have been working on this article to improve it and meet the wikipedia criteria for publication. Can someone check my article before I send it for review and tell me their opinion, is it good enough to be published on Wikipedia or does it need to be further improved and if so where and how? I would like to point out that I could not find English sources (only Croatian) for this article, because it is a local Croatian organization, important for public life in Croatia. Thank you very much for your help and understanding. I really appreciate that DanielCro

DanielCro (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC) DanielCro (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)DanielCro[reply]

@DanielCro: "Can someone check my article before I send it for review" is another way of saying can someone review my draft now. We don't really provide pre-reviews, because they are pretty much the same thing as actual reviews. The draft will be checked when you submit it for review, and when a reviewer decides to review it.

What you can do already now (eg. on the draft talk page) is to highlight the three strongest sources in terms of the WP:GNG notability guideline, namely: being independent and reliable secondary sources, and providing significant coverage of the organisation in question. This will help the reviewers, especially given that you have cited quite a large number of non-English sources (which is perfectly acceptable, just makes the review that much more laborsome for non-Crotian-speakers). Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. What do you think about the text in the article itself? Is it now more in line with Wikipedia rules, from a neutral point of view and not in a promotional style? Is there anything else I can improve in this part? DanielCro (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:4040:9E66:CF00:4929:1E18:8311:35FB (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • AS IF Magazine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I launched my multi-award wining publication in 2012. I have featured exclusive stories on Hollywoods top stars such as Scarlett Johansson, Hailee Steinfeld, Joey King, Benicio del Toro, Jennifer Hudson, Regina King; my publication has been on CNN, CBS, FOX, NBC, etc. I have been trying to get a Wikipedia page for AS IF Magazine, yet my request has been denied. I am definitely a legitimate company. What have I been doing wrong to get a denial? 2600:4040:9E66:CF00:4929:1E18:8311:35FB (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have pages, it has articles. I'm having difficulty finding your draft(the link here does not go to it) but your legitimacy is not in doubt, and not the issue. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do or their products. Notability is not inherited by association. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Not every topic merits a Wikipedia article, it depends on the sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself or its products, or in its routine business activities, we are interested in what sources unaffiliated with it choose to say is important/significant/influential about the topic. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you have a user account (I'm guessing TShoan?), then please log into it.

Secondly, make the mandatory COI / paid editing disclosure, as has been requested on your (TShoan's) talk page.

Then you can request that the G13-deleted draft Draft:AS IF Magazine be returned to you for editing.

Once you're done editing, you are not allowed to publish the article yourself, but must submit it for review via the AfC process.

Let me know if I wrongly connected any of the dots here, or if you have other questions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merry chrus (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pet Simulator X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m making new article for people who need more detail what is the game about. Merry chrus (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merry chrus: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Moxy Rock (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Maddy Walsh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

FULL DISCLOSURE: Very inexperienced Wiki creator here. Can another wiki user collaborate with me on this article while it is in Draft stage, as it is now? If so, how would they find the Draft after they login with their own credentials?

I have a thousand other questions. Is this the right place to come for future questions of all sorts?

Thank you~~ Moxy Rock (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Moxy Rock I left you a message on your talk page with some hopefully helpful links about editing Wikipedia. Sorry to say, but it is unlikely anyone will collaborate on the draft because we are all volunteers and largely already stretched thin. If I misunderstood your question, let me know. Either way, I suggest reading the notability guidelines for musicians and if you have specific questions about that as it relates to the draft, you can come here. For general editing questions, the better place is the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bcampbellisthebest (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Bcampbellisthebest/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why did my page get declined? Bcampbellisthebest (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bcampbellisthebest The reason was left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the reason in the message that said it was declined it only said if I wanted to now why to come here and ask why. Bcampbellisthebest (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bcampbellisthebest You removed the reason, it says "This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you". I restored it as prior reviews must remain on the draft. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• HollyNaylor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Huang Dejian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance. I have had my draft rejected twice and I am eager to correct any errors and publish this correctly. I have updated the structure of the submission, removed any potential peacock terms and followed up on all the points raised in the previous 2 reviews. Please kindly assist to provide specific details on any areas which require improvement and would enable the draft to be approved. HollyNaylor (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HollyNaylor: you're effectively asking for someone to review your draft, but the way the system works is you have to submit it; a reviewer will then one day pick it up to conduct a review, and provide you with feedback if necessary.

One thing I can tell you immediately, though, is that you need to demonstrate that the subject meets the special WP:NACADEMIC notability standard, because the sources are all close primary ones and therefore do not establish WP:GNG notability at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DoOnlyGoodEveryday (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shami Vriksha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am unsure if the article meets the necessary standards or if it requires further information or improvement. If there are any specific areas require additional information or clarification, please let me know.

DoOnlyGoodEveryday (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DoOnlyGoodEveryday You haven't yet submitted it for a review, we don't do pre-review reviews. When reviewed, the reviewer will leave feedback if they don't accept it. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Willardthe dump (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:FFF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why, you can search it in YouTube, I like watching his/her videos. Willardthe dump (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willardthe dump You liking this person's videos is not on the notability criteria for web content. You offer no independent reliable sources at all to summarize about this person, a must for any article, but especially for articles about living people, where all information must be sourced. This is why your draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Not every "YouTuber" merits a Wikipedia article- the vast majority do not. If independent sources write about this person and describe their importance/significance/influence, please offer them. Your own opinion is insufficient. If you just want to tell the world about this person or their videos, you should do that on social media. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Easyvic (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rhoda Makinde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I got the comment "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" on my submission. It is my first article creation and I am wondering what the reviewer meant by this comment after referencing all sources of the information in the article.

Kindly advise if you have useful information about this.

Walter Easyvic (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Easyvic: there is a lot of unreferenced content in your draft. What source gives her DOB? What about the info in the 'Personal life' section? The citations in the 'Early life and education' section look like references, but they just point to the institutions' website home pages, and thus support nothing in this draft. In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, many thanks for the clarification. I will attempt to revise the draft and hopefully get a positive nod this time around.

Cheers Easyvic (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tayostephen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hon. Joel-Onowakpo Thomas Ewomazino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to find out why this post is rejected. Thank you Tayostephen (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayostephen: because it is entirely promotional, cringingly so. Not to mention that it is unreferenced, which is wholly unacceptable for an article on a living person. Furthermore, it seems to consist of copyvio or closely paraphrased content. For all these reasons, I will ask that it is deleted. Thank you for flagging it up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Newlywo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zvi Landsman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, can someone please explain why the review is taking so long?.. I am referring to Draft:Zvi Landsman

Newlywo (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newlywo: I was going to say that it is only a month since your most recent submission, and we have nearly 5,000 drafts to review, not just yours; that's why it's taking time. However, it was such an obvious decline that I've gone ahead and done that. The 'Biography' and 'Personal life' sections are completely unreferenced, as is the DOB. Please read and understand the guidelines regarding articles on living people at WP:BLP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sun Annie (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ong Ai Li (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, may I ask what do I have to do and how can I get this article to be published publicly? Thank you Sun Annie (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sun Annie: you no longer need to do anything, as I have rejected this draft. What was needed was proof of notability, which despite several chances provided wasn't forthcoming. (Also, most of the content was/is unreferenced, although that wasn't why I rejected this.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Shuffle44 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dale Pollak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings. I am wondering about next steps for this draft. I reworked the original following its initial rejection, trying to address the source references and tone concerns. I resubmitted the updated version for review but haven't seen any feedback. Are there any additional steps I should take for a second review, or perhaps a step I've missed? I'd welcome your guidance. Thank you! Shuffle44 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shuffle44: this draft was reviewed and declined on Apr 11, since then you've edited it but haven't resubmitted it, so currently it is not pending a new review. You need to click on that blue 'resubmit' button to send it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your direction and help. Shuffle44 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mikeylowe77 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Queue-fair.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The basic facts about Queue-Fair.com are only being registered here as an introduction and will be updated as time goes by especially with our high court case against another company who have a wiki page full of inaccuracies!!! Mikeylowe77 (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeylowe77 Wikipedia articles are primarily about what others have written about something, not what organizations have written about themselves. It *might* be possible to write an article if there is any coverage of the High Court Case, but at this point, it isn't even close to being ready.Naraht (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kc0uuf (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:KLZY-LP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

article and subject matter reference multiple Federal links and 3rd party links for reference establishing and need to know about an educational radio station duly licensed. this is the 3rd time our station page has been removed! our official wikipedia worked was permanently banned the other day for attempting to create the page and was flagged his account as spam! then someone redirected our station call letters klzy-lp to kqmy creating a conflict of interest and rerouting any possible reference to klzy to them and potentially a financial loss if wikipedia was used to verify the existence of KLZY. So I get involved the agent of the board and present a new copy with more then adequate federal and 3rd party references. KLZY, KLZY-LP are under the ownership of Chloe Broadcasting Inc and have NO AFFILIATION with kqmy and further no reason the page sohould not be published on the basis of referance. Kc0uuf (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hgnmusic is the username that was perm blocked as spam when he was doing our official wiki work. not only should the page be be create and reference or redirect to KQMY should be remove and Hgnmusic should have there account restored so someone that know wikipedia can continue work on our publication! Kc0uuf (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comments, it appears you would have a financial interest in editing Wikipedia. As such, please see WP:PAID and WP:COI and make the appropriate disclosures. In addition, please only edit and submit a single draft. There is one located at Draft:KLZY-LP so no need to submit anything you are working on in your sandbox. You can edit and submit the draft that already exists. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• TronPuzzle (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pol Corpas Cuatrecasas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to have some help in create an article about Pol Corpas Cuatrecasas, how can I make the news reliable TronPuzzle (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TronPuzzle: it's not a question of "making the news reliable" (whatever that means), it's a question of supporting the article contents properly with referencing – for example, which source gives this person's date of birth? And that's just one example, most of the information is unreferenced. This may be partly because you perhaps don't know how to construct references correctly, and for that reason I've suggested that you should look up WP:REFB for advice. (I also have my doubts whether this person is notable, but I'll reserve judgment until proper referencing is there.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Surendaragarwal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Sri krishnayan gaushala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Shri Krishnayan Gorakshala Goshala  Courtesy link: Draft:SHREE KRISHNAYAN DESI GAURAKSHA AVAM GOLOKDHAM SEWA SAMITI

Surendaragarwal (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Surendaragarwal: do you have a question you would like to ask? (I will delete most of your post, this is not the place for such content.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Brar7 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vyom Yadav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has been rejected twice due to references and notability. I have added 3 references from news articles. I could not find notability issues as there are several news articles covering this actor. Can you help to resolve issues with this article and make it go live on Wikipedia. I want to resolve issues before resubmitting for review. –Brar ^(Talk) 11:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that resubmission is not possible. Declined means resubmission is possible. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews do not establish notability, as by definition an interview is the person speaking about themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ABDALLA BIN SAEED1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:ABDALLA BIN SAEED1/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request for Assistance in Writing a Wikipedia Article

Dear Wikipedia Editing Community

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek your valuable assistance in creating a Wikipedia article for the notable individual, Mohd Kaif, also known as Kaif Yamaan. I believe that Mohd Kaif's significant achievements and impact warrant a comprehensive and informative article on Wikipedia.

Mohd Kaif, a prominent Indian actor and influential social media personality, has captivated audiences with his exceptional talent and creative endeavors. Hailing from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, Mohd Kaif has emerged as a leading figure in the digital world at a relatively young age. His dedication to producing quality content that ranges from motivational messages to evocative poetry has garnered a substantial following and inspired millions of people worldwide.

Throughout his career, Mohd Kaif has demonstrated a unique blend of authenticity, creativity, and a passion for making a positive impact. His videos, which are known for their inspirational messages and heartfelt expressions, have resonated deeply with his audience, empowering individuals to embrace their true selves and pursue their dreams. Mohd Kaif possesses an exceptional ability to connect with his followers on a personal level, making them feel seen, heard, and understood.

Apart from his digital presence, Mohd Kaif has made significant contributions to the acting industry. Renowned for his natural acting style and his ability to bring characters to life, he has garnered recognition and a strong fan base within the industry. His performances have showcased his versatility, dedication, and undeniable talent, further solidifying his position as a remarkable actor.

Furthermore, Mohd Kaif's influence extends beyond entertainment. As a practicing Muslim, he has used his platform to promote inclusivity, diversity, and cultural understanding. He has been a vocal advocate for unity and has leveraged his popularity to raise awareness about important social issues. Mohd Kaif's impact on individuals and communities goes beyond his artistic endeavors, positioning him as a trailblazer and a source of inspiration.

Given Mohd Kaif's significant accomplishments, his influence in the digital realm, and his contributions to the entertainment industry, I believe that a comprehensive Wikipedia article would provide an accurate and well-rounded representation of his life and work.

I am committed to providing reliable sources to support the information in the article, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I kindly request your assistance in structuring the article, properly citing sources, and ensuring that it meets the standards set by the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for considering my request, and I sincerely appreciate any support or guidance you can offer to help create a well-researched and well-written Wikipedia article on Mohd Kaif.

Warm regards, Abdalla Bin Saeed

ABDALLA BIN SAEED1 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ABDALLA BIN SAEED1: this draft was deleted because it was promotional, with no evidence that the subject is notable. You are welcome to write about this topic, but you must do so in a neutral and factual manner, referencing independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. In fact, combining both those points, you shouldn't write what or how you want to write about this person, you should only really summarise (in your own words, but without putting any sort of spin or slant on it) what published sources have previously said about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Abidalikashmiri (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to create an article for a fictional book. I have already submitted for review but it has been declined and I don't know the reasons. May you help please Abidalikashmiri (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abidalikashmiri: you're welcome to write about any topic (within reason and some qualifiers) that is notable. If your 'fictional' book (which I assume means just that, not merely a book of fiction) only exists in your imagination, then it won't have received any coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources, let alone won any major literary awards etc., and therefore is rather unlikely to be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:A War Already Lost - I think they meant this draft McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thanks; seems I caught the wrong end of this particular stick... apart from the point about lack of notability, perhaps. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posting this on behalf of Bplewe as I'm invested in this as well and a bit frustrated.

Among GIS users, Geodatabases are one of the single most common file types. There are textbooks on them from both ESRI and 3rd party publishers.^[1] Geodatabases are designed to largely replace the Shapefile, another ESRI file type that has its own page. The page Spatial database mentions them briefly, but geodatabases are among the most common types of spatial database. While they are an ESRI file format, open source software like QGIS uses them as well.

In my opinion, the page Draft:Geodatabase (Esri) is a good start in describing these. As a professional geographer, I use these every day. As a TA, I've helped teach an entire course titled "Geodatabase design," and every GIS class I've taken, taught, or helped teach has involved them to some degree. While the draft needs work (as does all of Wikipedia), I argue that this is an incredibly important topic for someone trying to understand the current state of GIS.

Failing this, the content in the draft of Geodatabases should be merged into a very large section on the spatial database page.

I fail to understand why this page is declined when other similar pages, that are less well cited, exist.

Thank you for your time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GeogSage: taking your last point first, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't assess drafts with reference to existing articles, but with reference to the applicable guidelines and policies. There undoubtedly are articles out there which are not perfect, but that does not mean we should intentionally create more such problems. (And if you have come across any that you feel don't meet the required standards for publication, feel free to improve them or else start deletion proceedings.)

This draft has been declined for apparent lack of notability. As I'm sure you know as an experienced Wikipedian, notability doesn't arise from how 'popular' or 'important' or 'commonly-used' etc. something is; it arises (in most cases, including this) from significant coverage the subject has received in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. If the authors of this draft can cite sources which are sufficient in quality and quantity to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, this draft may be accepted; otherwise, not. As noted by the reviewers, primary sources aren't enough to establish notability. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. The point comparing to existing articles conceded, I strongly disagree with the decision that this topic is lacking notability.

In the document, we attempted to be both accurate and cite outside topics. ESRI Press in GIS produces textbooks and media on their software, which can be hard to avoid as they are often the best sources to actually describe the topic. Where it wasn't awkward, we did try to bring in outside textbooks and journal articles, however. We included one textbook that was 3rd party^[1], and two peer reviewed journals^[2][3] that use the word "geodatabase" in the title. We also included several textbooks that touch on the topic but don't use it in the title. A quick search on google scholar here shows many peer reviewed journals using the word "geodatabase" in their title. While the article might be a start class, I think there is enough information to show that it is noteable. According to Wikipedia:Notability, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." I believe that the scope of the topic demonstrated by a casual search on Google Scholar should be enough to meet this criteria. Digging deeper into the literature, we could look at the studies that employ geodatabases anywhere in their methodology and include many redundant citations. In future iterations of this article, an "applications" section could be included that could reference these articles in more detail, but I believe that is unnecessary for notability.

The notability already demonstrated with just the two peer reviewed journal articles, combined with multiple textbooks, 3rd party postings, and documentation from ESRI seems adequate in my opinion. According to the Help:Referencing for beginners page, the two peer reviewed journals and textbooks are good sources. My concern is that if we were to simply remove the ~19 ESRI citations, and leave the 2 Peer reviewed journals, ~5 independent GIS textbooks, and independent websites, this would appear more noteable to editors but drop in quality. ESRI Press text books are published by the company that created geodatabases, but are authored by highly authoritative GIS professionals and are widely used in GIS classes and by professionals (and heavily cited on various GIS Wikipedia pages). Based on the Referencing for beginners wiki, while these textbooks are published by ESRI, they are authored by autoreactive sources and can be able to help establish notability. Based on Wikipedia's definitions, many of the ESRI press books are not primary sources, and are either secondary sources or tertiary. Secondary sources do not need to be independent of the topic to be secondary sources. In terms of content, the ESRI press books often provide better actual information on the topic then many of the assorted peer reviewed journals that make extensive use of them, but don't actually describe them in much detail. These books are often cited in peer reviewed journals to define key topics, and excluding them would make it difficult to write about many GIS topics. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage: I'm not entirely sure what you want us here at the help desk to do? There is little point in debating the matter; the reviewers have expressed their opinion, and I've tried to expand on that, but if you're convinced that we're all wrong and the subject is genuinely notable, then you don't need to convince us – assuming you or the draft creator don't have a conflict of interest, you're welcome to move this to the main article space, given that you have extended confirmed rights. New page patrol will then run the ruler over it (and if it helps, I'm more than happy to recuse myself from that task) and decide its fate. Just be aware that if NPP sends it back to drafts, you're then stuck with us again; alternatively, they can propose deletion, and if that goes ahead then that in itself will make it more difficult to publish an article on this topic in the future). Having said all that, please proceed as you see fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for the feedback and assistance. I'm not the originator, but have been helping, so I don't know if it was already bumped from a mainspace page to drafts or not yet. I don't particularly want it and move it to mainspace unilaterally when it has already shown to be controversial, especially since the majority is not my personal work, and came here for I guess second/third opinions on the matter. I'm just a bit frustrated with this process at the moment, and am a bit dumbfounded that this of all topics is having a hard time making it. I'll create a section on applications and add to the talk page on the draft the link to the Google Scholar search results, and we'll go around submitting it again. Thanks again for the help. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 13:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Brar7 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vyom Yadav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have rewritten this article to include more information and also addressed copyright and references issues. Can you please review this again and move to Wikipedia from Drafts. Submitted for review. –Brar ^(Talk) 16:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brar7: now that you have resubmitted it, it will be reviewed when a reviewer comes across it, which may take days, weeks or longer. We don't provide fast-track re-reviews upon demand. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was rejected twice. I just want to know if the issues are addressed or anything more need to be done. I can still edit the article to improve it while waiting for approval. –Brar ^(Talk) 16:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Three suggestions;

1. Facts and citations

Example: You said, "Vyom Yadav is a young Indian actor."

Do you have a reference for someone saying he's a young Indian actor?

How can I, as a reader, check that it's true?

If someone edits the article and says he is old, how will I know the truth?

You said, "Vyom Yadav made his Bollywood debut with the Rajkummar Rao starrer film Badhaai".

Do you have a reference stating that?

...and so on.

2. Plagiarism. You said, "Vyom's parents initially desired a certain level of certainty in his career.". The reference says, "The actor revealed that his parents wanted of certainty in the child’s career.". See WP:PARAPHRASE.

3. Hyperbole. "highly acclaimed", "widespread praise", "gained more exposure and recognition", "a significant impact", "talented grassroots-level actors", etc.

These are opinions, not facts.

WP:WEASEL

Above all, see WP:COI. Best of luck. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Klesatp (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Etf.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been tasked with creating a wiki page for etf.com to coincide with it's rebrand and relaunch. We've been going back and forth with submission declines. After numerous attempts to get the page accepted I'm reaching out to get some assistance on what exactly I can do to get this approved.

This is a task coming straight from the CEO. The article is not meant to read as an advertisement and just background on what etf.com is and help people when searching for us. Many other publications have a wiki that is written similar and they've been approved. Any clarification or feedback that you could provide would be much appreciated. Klesatp (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia your draft was just blatant advertising and will soon be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Klesatp Have your boss read the page Theroadislong suggests too, as well as this message. You and your boss have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do. It also is not a place to help marketing and rebranding efforts, or search results. We have no interest in any of that. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability- such as the definition of a notable company. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field. It depends on coverage in independent reliable sources. A company must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that choose on their own to write about it, not based on materials from the company.

Please read other stuff exists. The existence of other poor articles does not mean that more should be added. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content past us. We can only address what we know about. That an article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other articles you have seen for possible action. We could use the help. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Calverson0204 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Marchel Alverson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page was deleted because of advertising which I plan to fix and put more in a neutral tone so it is accepted. However, I lost all of the code stuff that was already in the source and do not know how to get that back. Calverson0204 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the infobox, I would worry less about that and more about meeting the notability requirements for authors and sourcing from reliable sources to summarize. Please read Your First Article. If you are associated with this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.24.168.231 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lilly Yokoi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help please. This clearly meets GNG, but I've been repeatedly admonished for submitting it. I added appropriate references, and a few more sentences. The big "STOP" message is quite alarming. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be. It was twice declined and now it has been rejected with the message: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia," so, I'm sorry to say, it will not be considered further. ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have eight sources to support a single line; that is reference bombing. I suggest that you review WP:GNG again; if this person meets it, you have not demonstrated that through a summary of what independent reliable sources say about them. That's why it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "reference bombing", because the references are substantially about the person. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Chandrasekharmusic (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Chandu Kanuri(Indian Musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How much time taken to review my page. Chandrasekharmusic (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for promotion. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jolefigliomeni (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jole Figliomeni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is declined the wikipedia page? Jolefigliomeni (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolefigliomeni: this draft was declined because it is promotional, inadequately referenced, and with no evidence of notability. Which is pretty much what it says in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jolefigliomeni, your draft biography of a living person is entirely unreferenced, which is a policy violation. It is extremely brief and written in very poor English. It fails to make a convincing case that the person is actually notable. I recommend thst you read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• JacomeC (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alter Solutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know what I can improve, specifically, in order to get this article approved. From my point of you, the article is written objectively, because it is basically just stating facts and numbers. Also, I have included all the references the company has in the media (most of them are in the Portuguese media, not in English, but they are still valid sources). Can you help, please? JacomeC (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JacomeC: for starters, most of the draft is unreferenced. My guess is you've just written what your employer or client told you to write, which isn't what you should do. You need to find reliable and independent published sources (preferably secondary), and summarise what they have said about this company, citing your sources as you go so that we can verify the information and ascertain whether the company is notable per WP:GNG.

There is also nothing in this draft that distinguishes the company or tells us why it warrants an article in a global encyclopaedia; the draft simply describes a very ROTM business. As such, I can only assume that the purpose of this draft is to 'spread awareness' of the company, which is another way of saying to promote it, and promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I have written the article in this way because I have seen many other companies' Wikipedia pages written like that. Some of them, in my opinion, are much more promotion-centered.

The references I have used are the only ones the company has in the media - there are a couple more about wanting to recruit new employees for the Portuguese market, but I didn't think they were relevant.

So just to clear this up, a couple of questions:

1) What you are saying is that because this company is not as relevant or referenced as other similar companies, it is not worth having a Wikipedia page?

2) The fact that the company doesn't have anymore relevant independent references means it can't ever get approved unless it grows in that way? JacomeC (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JacomeC: Wikipedia summarises what reliable published sources have previously said about a subject; from this it follows that if no such sources can be found, then it isn't possible to summarise what they have said, and it therefore isn't possible to have a Wikipedia article on the said subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hannydevelop (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:She Code Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'm a first time writer so I'm finding it difficult understanding some of the rules. I started an article for a non-profit organisation that I have no affiliation with. The reason I started the article is because I was reading about Women who code and saw that an organisation like that is present in Nigeria. However, the article's draft keeps getting declined because of a COI. Would anyone be so kind to tell me what needs changing or removing? I have read the notability, advertisement and COI articles. Hannydevelop (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannydevelop: I haven't been involved in reviewing this, but having just looked over your talk page and edit history, I can understand why someone might think you have a conflict of interest – this is the only topic you've written on, you've uploaded photos of the organisation as your 'own work', you keep removing maintenance tags (incl. COI) and moving the draft into the main space without waiting for the AfC process to complete.

And FWIW, I do agree with the last reviewer in that this has a promotional tone throughout: it's not a question of a particular word or expression that needs changing, but the overall POV – it reads like it is trying to 'sell' me the initiative, or convince me how worthwhile and beneficial it is (which it probably is, but an encyclopaedia article shouldn't describe it as such). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that.

1. This is the first article I've written, although I've done some edits.

2. I removed COI tags because they were added without any hint or notice on what I should've done.

3. I read the Wikipedia article on how articles can be moved and realised I could move them.

4. I have never left any message about the article unread or removed in my talk page because I want to be as open as possible Hannydevelop (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your obvious connection to She Code Africa, as revealed by a cursory Google search. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mk78134 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Manish Kumar, MBA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I included all of the sources and from what I can tell they are all reliable. I'm just wondering if I did the submission wrong or do I need to use other sources? Mk78134 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mk78134: firstly, as this is about a living person, per WP:BLP you need to cite your sources inline, not just list them at the end as general references. See WP:REFB for advice.

The sources have to be published, internal documents and the like are not acceptable.

If the sources are only available offline, then you need to provide sufficient details to enable them to be verified if need be. Currently you're providing next to no useful information about the sources.

I must also say that if this is all there is, then the subject is almost certainly not notable enough to warrant inclusion in a global encyclopaedia.

You should also read and understand WP:AUTOBIO for all the reasons why writing about yourself is not a good idea.

And finally, I'm assuming you know that the title Draft:Manish Kumar has been protected, and that's why you've added the 'MBA' to the end (which shouldn't be there, BTW, per WP:TITLESINTITLES); this can be considered gaming the system, and may get you into trouble. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft deleted, user indeffed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Scottalexeden (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Scottalexeden/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was my article rejected?

Scottalexeden (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft biography of a living person is entirely unreferenced, which is a policy violation. Read Verifiability. It is also overtly promotional, which is another policy violation. Read the Neutral point of view. Promotional activity is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 187.252.197.9 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jose Julian Soberanis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Check if it meets the notability and references help 187.252.197.9 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the draft has already been reviewed and rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered. None of the sources are reliable. S0091 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 187.252.197.9 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jose Julian Soberanis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have liked more references and corrected the text 187.252.197.9 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]