Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
TalkBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
  • For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
  • Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
  • Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page.
Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

June 2Edit

04:30, 2 June 2023 review of submission by Guman1008Edit

Hmm.. Because of links I provide Guman1008 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Guman1008: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media platform where you can tell the world about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:11, 2 June 2023 review of submission by Mechanical pkEdit

i created an article on my village. I Provided all important info in article but its get desclined?? Why Mechanical pk (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mechanical pk: I declined your earlier sandbox draft because it was inadequately referenced and promotional. Your latest attempt is at Draft:Mahori, India awaiting review, although I will have to go and decline it also, as it seems to be a copyright violation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ohhh man fucker wheri i violate the rights plese explain/ Mechanical pk (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personal attacks are not tolerated. We will help you only if you remain civil. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:27:17, 2 June 2023 review of draft by (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What have I done wrong?

It appears that there is insufficient notability for the company, but some content could be included in the article about Xuxa herself. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:06, 2 June 2023 review of submission by WebdevelopersujanEdit

Hi Team

This draft is rejected. So please accept this draft. Webdevelopersujan (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Webdevelopersujan: it isn't rejected, only declined. Although that being said, I will go and attend to it.
Please see WP:N about the core concept of notability, and WP:AUTO for all the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:13, 2 June 2023 review of submission by Texasforever1320Edit

Can you explain why our draft does not meet the requirements of wikipdia's grammar formatting with examples from our draft page? Texasforever1320 (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Texasforever1320 So who is "our"? Your account should only be operated by a single individual who may not give others access. Do you represent Mr. Hopper?
Before you get to grammar the first problem you have is that Mr. Hopper does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician- which generally requires one hold public office or have at least won election to public office. Mr. Hopper ran for the Texas House but lost in the primary, so he does not meet that definition. The article calls Mr. Hopper a conservative activist but does not detail much about his activism or what makes him meet the broader Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Has his influence led to a particular policy or law? Has he been influential in the campaigns of others? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I emphasize the comments of a reviewer, "the sources you have are either not independent (affiliated with Hopper), database entries or similar, or have only brief mentions of Hopper. Are there newspaper articles from independent sources with at least a couple paragraphs of substantive content about him?". 331dot (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Language like Andy was in the headlines for calling out the leftist infiltration of the Texas State Guard is a clearcut violation of the Neutral point of view. This is advocacy language that does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 3Edit

05:45, 3 June 2023 review of submission by DevanshuTSAEdit

I want to know what I add or what I do for successfully added my page in Wikipedia. Please guide me DevanshuTSA (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DevanshuTSA: the absolute very first thing you need to do is formally disclose your relationship with the organisation in question; this has been requested several times, but so far I've not found your disclosure or any other response to this matter. You are at a risk of being blocked for undisclosed paid editing.
As for this draft, it has been rejected as the subject does not appear to be notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The draft will therefore not be considered further at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:06, 3 June 2023 review of submission by AsadsaadisEdit

I am currently experiencing difficulties in getting my draft for "Star Marketing Pvt Ltd" approved on Wikipedia. The company has been operating since 2005 in Pakistan and has gained recognition through its notable presence in various national and international news websites. Despite these credentials, I am unsure why the draft is facing obstacles in the approval process. I would greatly appreciate a detailed guide on how to navigate this situation. Thank you. Asadsaadis (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asadsaadis First, if you are associated with this company in some way, please read conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes general employment) for information on required disclosures. Declaring a paid relationship is a Terms of Use requirement.
The sources you have provided are all documentation of the routine business activities of the company. This does not establish that the company meets our special definition of a notable company. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage- coverage beyond the mere activities of the company- have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets that notability definition. Wikipedia wants to know what sources consider important/significant/influential about the company, based on their own views and not on materials from the company like press releases, interviews, announcements of its activities, and the like. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asadsaadis: the draft is promotional in tone and content, and the sources are just routine business reporting and churnalism, which do not establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asadsaadis, Marketing activity is not allowed on Wikipedia. Advertising is not allowed. Public relations is not allowed. Promotion is not allowed. I hope that is clear. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:53, 3 June 2023 review of submission by GdhayeEdit

My article submission keeps being rejected It states the reason is that there aren't enough adequate "reliable sources". We've created a Wikipedia page for our narrative podcast series... we've provided links to the podcast, individual episodes and also media coverage on the podcast from The Telegraph (UK) and The Athletic (UK). Both are very well respected and relaible media outlets.

We've also provided links through social media profiles for the producers as a way of validating them.

What other sources can I provide to avoid this being rejected again?

Many thanks in advance for any comments and assistance. Gdhaye (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gdhaye I've fixed the formatting of your comment(you had a comment where the name of your draft should be, for linking purposes). The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that resubmission would not be possible. Declined means that resubmission is possible.
Who is "we"? Only a single person should be operating your account. Do you represent the podcast or those that make it? The draft should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the podcast and its importance/significance/influence, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notable web content. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for reaching out.
When I say "we" I just mean the team, but I'm operating the account.
The sources provided do explain the significance of the podcast, outlining how it's revealing new details about Chelsea FC, from ownership to events that happened behind the scenes at the club that haven't been amde public until now. The podcast has made news headlines on account of this, some of which I have also referenced. Gdhaye (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you represent the team?
Every podcast reveals details about its chosen topic. That doesn't make it particularly important or influential. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss what they see as significant or important about this podcast, please offer them. The sources you have in the article currently do not do that. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:58:33, 3 June 2023 review of draft by Tiwarisk009Edit

Tiwarisk009 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't ask a question; you submitted a blank draft. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles for creation process , review of submission draft:Anzor_AlemEdit

Hi, I fixed the issues you mentioned for my draft

but I am not auto confirmed so please can you can write that article

If you click the link to the draft, you should be able to create it. Congopro (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Congopro: you have resubmitted Draft:Anzor Alem and it is awaiting review. What is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to know if it will take how long to be examined Congopro (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Congopro Your draft will be reviewed when it is reviewed- there is nothing you can do to speed this process up. Please note the message on your draft page: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,667 pending submissions." (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:22, 3 June 2023 review of submission by Martin821Edit

Submission rejected on 3 June 2023 by Mcmatter (talk).

Martin821 (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about a company. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:27, 3 June 2023 review of submission by ThenamemahiEdit

I'm confused about the editing

Thenamemahi (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thenamemahi: that isn't a question; what would you like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 4Edit

05:44, 4 June 2023 review of submission by Krishnakumar1216Edit

May I know why my article did not get accepted?? Krishnakumar1216 (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Krishnakumar1216: your draft Draft:Kalamandalam Sheeba Krishnakumar was deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:33, 4 June 2023 review of submission by Syed Laique HaiderEdit

i want this article not to be deleted , plz because i have first created this and publish directly

and now i just got notification on my user account that my article is rejected.  Syed Laique Haider (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Syed Laique Haider: nobody has requested deletion, as far as I can see. The draft has been rejected, however, as you simply resubmitted it without any attempt to address the reasons for the earlier decline. As it stands, the draft remains entirely unreferenced, which is completely unacceptable for an article on a living person.
This being the case, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your rejected draft of a biography of a living person is entirely unreferenced and therefore fails the core content policy of Verifiability. Wikipedia is not for promotion. Please try to promote this person on other websites, not on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:37, 4 June 2023 review of submission by CavanaughsEdit

I added a few additional sources to this article and I was going to submit it for mainspace but I don't see the button based on how the notice at the top of the article is structured Cavanaughs (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cavanaughs: this draft has been resubmitted already, and is awaiting review.
That said, the sources aren't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. The first source is primary and non-independent. The other two are clearly based on some publicity materials, and in any case are identical save for the last para, therefore count as one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:19:04, 4 June 2023 review of draft by LMW-editEdit

Seeking advice on uploading an image of William Sangster to my draft article. The Photo credit is State Library of Victoria. The original is in an archive box and not available online. I have received a copy of the photo from the Great Grandson of William Sangster. What steps do I need to take to ensure I am including the photo without copyright violation. Thanks LMW-edit (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LMW-edit: this is more a question for the copyright experts at WP:CQ, but just to say that having "received a copy of the photo" from someone says, in and of itself, nothing about whether you have the right to upload that photo and release it into the public domain. The file upload wizard (WP:FUW) may provide some pointers as to whether or not you're allowed to upload this image; otherwise I suggest asking at the copyright questions help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process; I'd suggest that you first focus on getting the draft approved. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:52:44, 4 June 2023 review of draft by SuntoooothEdit

My draft was declined due to lack of proof of notability. I was wondering if a source like this (quote: "Florence Dudley say: 'Wanter play bridge?' Mickey Flynn say: 'Come on. What you lose?'", under the heading "Movie Squaw Tells All to Dorothy") would count as a secondary source and not just a passing mention? All other sources I can find at the moment are just listing her as a cast member in one film or another.

Suntooooth (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Suntooooth: your options for demonstrating notability are either to provide multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG guideline (which neither of the two sources currently cited do), or to explain how this person satisfies the WP:NACTOR standard (and TBH, there's nothing to suggest they do). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Hi Suntooooth in general articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). For this case also see WP:NACTOR. Was she a significant actor in any of those films? The BFI reference does not even give a description for 40% of the roles and the many of the rest sound like supporting roles "witness", "secretary", "woman", "chorus girl in café" etc. As for the source you give it has nothing about her just that she said "Wanter play bridge?" which is hardly notable. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 5Edit

00:05, 5 June 2023 review of submission by NewbardolphEdit

Is there an objective standard to establish "significant coverage?" Please kindly directly me to the manual so I may review it. Newbardolph (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Newbardolph see WP:SIGCOV. Generally, you want about three paragraphs from sources that meet all the sourcing requirements (reliable, independent, etc.). Sources that are about the same event generally count as a single source, in this case his death, and you need at least one or two that are outside the local area. Also, be mindful of peacock words that promote the person. It seems he could meet the notability guidelines but better sources are needed. S0091 (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent information. Thank you! Newbardolph (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:18, 5 June 2023 review of submission by Adem jashari99Edit

Hello can you check the Draft again if you need more sources let me know

Thank you Adem jashari99 (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft has already been rejected. That means no, I'm afraid. -- asilvering (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:23, 5 June 2023 review of submission by KevinMLEdit

What are some reliable sources that I can use for this draft? KevinML (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KevinML: the concept of 'reliable sources' is explained at WP:RS. Note, however, that in order to establish notability per WP:GNG, it isn't enough for sources to be reliable, they must also be independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

02:02, 5 June 2023 review of submission by TrikehunterEdit

Hello! I think Mr. Stein deserves the Wikipedia recognition base on the strength of the article in Tampa Bay Parenting magazine. Mr. Stein discovered, excavated and saved the largest known example of Triceratops. The Triceratops, known as Big John, actually has a Wikipedia page that speaks to Mr. Stein's work in Paleontology. Please offer any assistance you can to help me to strengthen the contribution. Thank you again for your help! Trikehunter (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you copy this text or the references from somewhere? I don't mean "plagiarize", I mean a copy+paste action. I ask because there is language in your footnotes like Archived from the original on January 17, 2023. Retrieved January 18, 2023., but no actual link there. -- asilvering (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am sure I used a copy and paste function. Please tell me how to correct my error so as to create a link to the article. Thank you again for your help! Trikehunter (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where did you copy and paste from? You would just need to go to that place and make sure you opened the source editor, not the visual editor, so you can correctly copy over the wiki markup. See WP:COPYWITHIN for details on whether you need to attribute that copying, and if so how to do it. -- asilvering (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:09, 5 June 2023 review of submission by GengerosEdit

Requesting someone to review and approval Draft:2022 Ms. Olympia. No reason what so ever for it not to be approved as there is already a 2022 Mr. Olympia, a 2023 Ms. Olympia, and 1980-2021 Ms. Olympia articles. So zero reason for there not to be a 2022 Ms. Olympia article. Been waiting for over four months now. Gengeros (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gengeros: please be patient, this draft will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to come across it; there are 4.6k+ other drafts also awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:55, 5 June 2023 review of submission by Khalilkhan bengali model1Edit

my page is not show on Google please help me and upload my page on google soon as possible Khalilkhan bengali model1 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Khalilkhan bengali model1: your draft, such as it was, has been deleted.
Note also that you should not be writing about let alone promoting yourself; if that is your only intention, you are heading for a block. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:58, 5 June 2023 review of submission by QuyentrunggaEdit

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and I need some helps.

I was trying to translate the page WebMD (corp.) to Vietnamese language, but somehow it was declined.

Reason: language is not English (but i translated it to Vietnamese by myself).

Any help? Thanks. Quyentrungga (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Quyentrungga: that's because, as it says in the decline notice, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept content in English. If you wish to submit it to the Vietnamese Wikipedia, you need to do that there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:50, 5 June 2023 review of submission by WWBMEdit

Greetings. In January 2023, I created a draft of an article about the comparison of road/traffic signs in post-Soviet countries. The idea for this article came to me not by chance: readers need to be shown how road signs have changed in various post-Soviet countries after they declared their independence from the Soviet Union between 1990 and 1991 and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I am from Russia and I have information about road signs that are used in Russia and CIS countries. However, on June 4, 2023, my publication was rejected.

I spent a lot of time creating this article between January and May 2023. Despite the fact that my publication was rejected, I wrote a lot about road signs in post-Soviet countries, referring to sources. User @Fry1989 approved my idea for an article about the comparison of road signs in post-Soviet countries. What can you advise me in this case to make this draft article better? WWBM (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but rejected typically means a draft will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may additionally also fall foul of the WP:OR / WP:SYNTH rules, as most of the main body content is unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:25, 5 June 2023 review of submission by Jammywalter7Edit

Hi there, I see that this draft has been rejected for a lack of reliable sources. Is it the case that I simply need to find more supporting sources (and so could potentially turn this article into a stub if I struggle to find more) or are the sources and citations currently used unsuitable? Jammywalter7 (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jammywalter7: this draft has only been declined (meaning you can resubmit), not rejected (which would have meant you cannot). In order to resubmit, you need to find multiple independent and reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage about this person, to demonstrate WP:GNG notability. What he himself has written or said is not relevant in that respect.
Whether the article initially is a stub or longer, either way the same notability standard must be met. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:29, 5 June 2023 review of submission by

I edited the page and I just made this article for informative purposes. (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah okay. Leave it at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:33, 5 June 2023 review of submission by Mcbit3972Edit

What can I do to make this better to get through submission? Was making an English version to link to the Italian ( and have far more sources cited than the original. Mcbit3972 (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:36, 5 June 2023 review of submission by YuvalengineerEdit

Dear editors, I wrote an article about a professor who published high impact articles and won prestigious prizes, and it was declined for not showing the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Can you please tell me what else am I missing to qualify? Thank you! Yuvalengineer (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yuvalengineer: did you actually read the decline notice, esp. the grey box inside the large pink box? As it says, you need to show that this person is notable by either the WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG route; currently neither is shown.
Also, as this is an article on a living person, inline citations are required to support all material statements, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family information. (This wasn't a reason for declining, but I'm mentioning it anyway as the draft is lacking in this respect.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:03, 5 June 2023 review of submission by Ian JensonEdit

Why has this entry not been placed? This is impacting on my friends revenue and taking money out of his children's mouth. A Wiki page is needed for professional musicians. Who gets to decide who lives and who doesn't? First thing a promoter asks, where is the Wiki page. I know JP grew up in poverty in Middlesbrough. Is this how you treat working class stories on this medium? Is it just for nepotism and rich people? Ian Jenson (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ian jenson: i'm sorry, but wikipedia is absolutely not the place to promote your friend's career. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ian Jenson We don't have "wiki pages" here. We have articles. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be for the benefit of the subject in any way. Wikipedia has no control over third parties seeing the presence of a Wikipedia article as a benefit to a client. You should promote your friend on social media. Wikipedia isn't the place to improve someone's career- their career must already be in the place where they merit a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And quite frankly it is very disingenuous to claim that Wikipedia is taking food/money from his children. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, if the first thing a promoter asks is "where is your wikipedia page", you or the venue probably need to fire that guy and get a new one. -- asilvering (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:46, 5 June 2023 review of submission by

Can you tell me what should I add so that they accept the draft (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft was deleted as blatant promotion. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:47, 5 June 2023 review of submission by Maura91Edit

Hi! I am wondering if there is anything else we can do to edit this page? Or, are we unable to continue to make edits? Maura91 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gather that "we" means that you are associated with this business. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:11, 5 June 2023 review of submission by NancygeretteEdit

I believe my article was declined due to a mistake on the part of the reviewer

In the decline message, the reviewer asked if there were reviews ABOUT the subject instead of BY the subject. But there are no reviews BY the subject in my article. I believe the reviewer misinterpreted the title of the article. For more: Nancygerette (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also see: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancygerette (talkcontribs) 21:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nancygerette, your first two references are promotional listings of her books on her publisher's websites. Those references are not independent of the author and are of no value in establishing notability. References to significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the author are required. Cullen328 (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I followed EXACTLY the layout used for an accepted article about another author, Ladette Randolph. So either they are both wrong, or neither are. Nancygerette (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see other stuff exists as to why that is generally a poor argument. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this does not mean more should be added; we can only address the problematic articles we know about. If the article you used as a model is also inappropriate, you might be unaware of that. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) That is a poorly-referenced start class article. If you want to model an article on another article, then I suggest that you choose a Good article or a Featured article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 6Edit

03:51, 6 June 2023 review of submission by StavindzoaEdit

He has acted in the movies and He is an singer. Stavindzoa (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anybody answer to this. Stavindzoa (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stavindzoa: answer what? You haven't asked a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

04:19, 6 June 2023 review of submission by SylviaLardnerEdit

Hi, this page keeps being rejected and I really can't understand why. Can anyone help? SylviaLardner (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SylviaLardner The draft has been "declined", not "rejected". "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that resubmission is not possible. "Declined" means that resubmission is possible. Have you seen the message left by the reviewer? I restored a prior review; all reviews must remain on the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05:40, 6 June 2023 review of submission by 2A02:A03F:E0F5:D200:2198:F0BE:C3A3:4D6Edit

Can it be more clear what needs to be changed for the page been published? 2A02:A03F:E0F5:D200:2198:F0BE:C3A3:4D6 (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft has been deleted. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:55, 6 June 2023 review of submission by DecasurgerEdit

Hi, I'm curious about when this article, Draft:National Dong Hwa University College of Science and Engineering, will get reviewed. Thank you! Decasurger (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decasurger We can't give you a specific date. As noted on your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,612 pending submissions waiting for review.". 331dot (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will say that it reads very much like a promotional brochure for the college, and doesn't seem to summarize what independent sources choose to say about it. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your further explanation and suggestions! I'll fine tune its tone Decasurger (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:20, 6 June 2023 review of submission by SmstarckEdit

the page was recently reviewed with this comment: "No independent source listed in the draft discusses the organization directly; just the projects that this organization did 6 June 2023 (UTC)"

Would it be helpful if this association was already listed on an existing Wikipedia page, such as one that lists historical associations in Texas, or oral histories of Texas? Would that qualify as an independent source?

Smstarck (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid not, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:21, 6 June 2023 review of submission by Shashwat185Edit

Help me publish this draft. Shashwat185 (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source. Breathless tone is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia it will need a complete re-write, unacceptable content includes “a prominent figure” “she possessed a deep-rooted passion” “her creative journey” “displaying her talent“ “renowned Iranian filmmaker” “exceptional collaboration” “ability to select intriguing and compelling content” “captivating stories” “acclaimed auteurs” “boasts an impressive collection” “visionary producer” “a leading figure in the world of film” etc etc. Theroadislong (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 7Edit

01:31, 7 June 2023 review of submission by DaycoleEdit

I have reliable sources but need help citing the info in the article to the sources listed Daycole (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@daycole: see our guide on referencing. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:19, 7 June 2023 review of submission by

I want to know what’s wrong with it. It’s a real thing going on. (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you prove it's a real thing? without citing their social media? lettherebedarklight晚安 07:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:00, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Larrybuckley12Edit

kindy, tell me why did you reject my article. Larrybuckley12 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Larrybuckley12: your draft has been deleted because it was promotional. Promotion of any sort is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Also, what is your relationship with this subject? I will post a message on your user talk page about conflict of interest (COI) and how to manage it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's writing about himself, he posted on the Teahouse. Larry, please only use one help forum at a time. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:24, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Shashwat185Edit

Please help me out completing this article. I need your assistance publishing this draft Shashwat185 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shashwat185 the draft was rejected. This means it is, definitely, not notable. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 14:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:32, 7 June 2023 review of submission by GetmekrishnaEdit

Please check this draft. Is it good for submission ? Getmekrishna (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Getmekrishna: that's not how it works, we don't provide pre-reviews here. When you feel the draft is ready, including having addressed any reasons for earlier declines, you can submit it for review. A reviewer will then one day pick it up, and check whether it can be accepted for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:37, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Pierre BoltoukhineEdit

I'm truly sorry that the article is not suitable as submitted. I've done my best not to promote the company but only to promote facts with multiple, different sources not related in any way to our company; following guidance from other similar corporate pages. Would you be so kind to show me the parts that are Wikispam to you so that I can edit or remove the troublesome sections from the article? Pierre Boltoukhine (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pierre Boltoukhine: the draft has a vaguely promotional tone throughout, but more than that, it is written in an odd narrative style; these two features combine to make it read like something out of the company's marketing department. Which it may well be... on which point, I've posted a message on your talk page about paid editing; please read and action it ASAP. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pierre Boltoukhine It is usually very, very difficult, for company representatives to write about their companies as Wikipedia requires, because your or your company's interests are different than those of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, their products, and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say is significant/important/influential about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. What are your three(and only three, please) best sources that give significant coverage of the company, discussing its importance?
Additionally, logos cannot be in drafts, because they are not "free" images in terms of copyright. As such, they also cannot be on Commons and must be uploaded to this Wikipedia locally. You claimed the logo as your own work- this would mean that you were the designer of the logo; licensing it as your own work would also mean that anyone could take it and use it for commerical purposes as long as they provide attribution and your company would not be entitled to any money from the sale of its logo. You will need to upload the logo to this Wikipedia locally and use it under "fair use". 331dot (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot thank you for your feedback. I've selected a few sources below:
I've also noticed that I forgot to put another source but as I was told to no more edit the article here it is
I'll also note that Nuvu does have an important scientific relevance, as we've cited multiple peer-reviewed scientific articles authored by employees regarding technological advancements. Unfortunately, there is a lot of relevant information regarding the unique aspects of the technology & developments that is relegated to these sources, which are admittedly hard to understand for the general public; hence the interest to create a wikipedia page.
Regarding the logo, thanks for the heads up. Once we will have cleared what I must edit in the draft, I'll take the time to repost it properly. Pierre Boltoukhine (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pierre Boltoukhine The last two sources you describe are interviews with company staff, which are useless for establishing notability. The claim to notability you seem to be making is that NASA buys your company's products. This could work, if independent sources discuss how that shows your company is significant. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot I think it becomes relevant to present you the technology through some scientific articles published by researchers unrelated to Nüvü, though the content is quite technical. I’ll provide a brief summary:
: PhD thesis using the technology towards the development of quantum computing platforms. In particular, section 4.4 highlights that the technology is crucial for single atom detection and has contributed to improve imaging sensitivity by two orders of magnitude. : Peer reviewed article on the use of the technology in the coronagraph of the Roman space telescope. A highlight would be that the instrument reaches 2-3 orders of magnitude higher contrast than current state of the art coronagraphs for exoplanet imaging. The Roman coronagraph also serves as a demonstrator for future dedicated exoplanet imaging missions, such as HabEX and LUVOIR, further strengthening the case of the technology in the long-term. : Peer-reviewed article characterizing the technology back in 2014. Here, the authors obtained performances equivalent or lower than reported by Nüvü, validating the technology’s advantages. The technology is also presented as a prime candidate for exoplanet imaging mission, which illustrates the role of the technology in the evolution of this area of research since 2014.
Of course there are many other articles published by researchers using the technology ( Although these articles will of course focus on their author’s innovations, these are made possible with the unique characteristics of Nuvu’s technology. Pierre Boltoukhine (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:52, 7 June 2023 review of submission by KevinMLEdit

I need help with uploading an image of the album cover. KevinML (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KevinML Non-free images(like album covers) cannot be in drafts, so you don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted. The draft submission process only considers the text and sources. Most articles about albums have at least one independent review of the album described. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to get the image ready for placement in the article once it is placed in the encyclopedia, you may see WP:UPIMAGE for instructions. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:08, 7 June 2023 review of submission by 2A01:C22:A40C:1000:F97B:9453:9E15:9604Edit

proessional team is working to address all detailsand links and reliable sources regarding this subject. We would appreciate more time, cooperation and guidance for this article that is to reach out millions through your most valuable infformation 2A01:C22:A40C:1000:F97B:9453:9E15:9604 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your "professional team" will need to make the required paid editing disclosure ASAP, your draft was rejected and I have tagged it for deletion as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

our most professional team are also creating a much more informative wiki page for Daryush Shokof that has somehow been repeatedly deleted in the last 10 years. Our information, links, and descriptions are absolutely reliable also on Shokof which that too will be repaired and submitted soon.

2A01:C22:A40C:1000:F97B:9453:9E15:9604 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your "professional team" will need to learn much more about Wikipedia before attempting to edit further. You should all create accounts, and declare as paid editors as the Terms of Use requires. This draft was rejected and is now deleted. If you have further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:19, 7 June 2023 review of submission by Sahil023Edit

I don’t know much about wikipedia its my ist article please help me Where i did wrong creating this article Sahil023 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sahil023 Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; it's best to learn more about Wikipedia first; please read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and use the new user tutorial.
That said, it's unclear to me why the draft was rejected. Dan arndt could you elaborate? 331dot (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:47, 7 June 2023 review of submission by GohealthgoEdit

How do I make this article not sound promotional? Gohealthgo (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gohealthgo It's purely academic, as the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. All of the sources are related to the company. A Wikipedia article about a company must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic and how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:05, 7 June 2023 review of submission by IrisSpineEdit

Hi there! Thank you for reviewing my submission! I seriously appreciate the feedback. I am curious what would make this topic qualify for Wikipedia. Are more independent sources required at this time? Thank you for your help! :) IrisSpine (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @IrisSpine, after several declines the draft is now rejected meaning it will no longer be considered. You have asked similar questions here before but ultimately no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability which appears the case in this instance. You did try but at this point best to move on. S0091 (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries! Sounds great! IrisSpine (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:42, 7 June 2023 review of submission by WWBMEdit

I'm here again. Where can I find reliable sources about road signs in Russia and post-Soviet countries? Since January 2023, I have been working on creating an article about the comparison of road signs in post-Soviet countries, and during this time, I and other users have managed to make a huge contribution to the creation of this article. My idea arose only to show readers how road signs have changed in various post-Soviet countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. WWBM (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WWBM: it seems you may be going about this the wrong way. You don't first write whatever you want, and then try to find sources that support what you've written. You find reliable sources that cover the topic, read and understand what they say, and summarise (in your own words) the salient points they have made, citing those sources as you go. Therefore your question "where can I find reliable sources" should never arise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WWBM: DoubleGrazing is correct, see WP:BACKWARD. A comparison by definition is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia, because you are drawing conclusions. That isn't done here, Wikipedia summarizes conclusions that have already been made. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:51, 7 June 2023 review of submission by DownUnder36Edit

Dear friends of Wikipedia,

I have a question concerning the prospective article on Prof. Wolfgang Meid, obviously a worldwide respected linguist and one of the leading celtologists. - The article I wrote on him has been refused on the following grounds:

"References to the web sites of institutions for which he has worked, or to which he is personally connected in other ways, are not independent sources. References which only briefly mention him, or merely include him in a list, are not substantial coverage."

Well, if you are a university prof, of course you work for your university and maybe its website will publish a CV about you - no suitable source for Wikipedia? If you publish 120 scientific books and these books are registered in independent catalogues like German National Library or in independent online resources on Celtic studies - are these no suitable sources, because they "only briefly mention him, or merely include him in a list"? If you are a member of Austrian Academy of Science and this institution writes something about you on its website, is that no suitable source for Wikipedia, because the person under discussion "is personally connected in other ways" - membership, indeed - with this institution?

Of course Wolfgang Meid's huge scientific work is quoted in the works of hundreds and perhaps thousand other scholars. One can call up something like 45 of these quotes just by searching "Wolfang Meid" in english-speaking Wikipedia. Perhaps such quotes are indeed the most independant sources for an article about a scientist. But I doubt that it is possible to write a CV with such sources and obviously very many (if not almost all) articles in Wikipedia about scientists are mainly based on other sources.

In a nutshell: I fully accept the call for independent sources. But I think this correct criterion is misapplied here. The sources with which the draft works are sufficiently independent.

Last but not least: I am not new to Wikipedia as has been suggested in January. In German Wikipedia I did almost 3000 edits since 2011, in 15 other Wikipedias another 830+ edits. Many of them relate to biographies. In no other Wikipedia have I seen the criterion of independence of sources applied in this way. Best regards! DownUnder36 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @DownUnder36, while this is not specifically addressing the issues you noted, an issue from a Wikipedia perspective are claims like "one of the leading", "he was instrumental", etc. with those claims either being unsourced, source cited does not support the claim or the source is not independent. Please see peacock and note extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. S0091 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DownUnder36: you need to distinguish between two things here: close and primary sources can be cited, they just cannot be used to establish notability. For example, when referencing the person's DOB (which, incidentally, is currently unreferenced), you can perfectly well use a (reliable) primary source, such as the university's own website. However, that source contributes nothing towards the subject's notability.
If you cannot find sufficient independent and reliable secondary sources to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, then you may still be able to establish notability per the special WP:NACADEMIC guideline, but in that case you need to clearly show that at least one of the criteria 1-8 is met (and not just met in your opinion, but objectively and demonstrably so) and include reliable evidence to support this.
Regarding your final point about other Wikipedias, each language version is a separate project with their own rules and guidelines, including but not only in what comes to referencing and notability; and yes, the English-language Wikipedia's requirements are probably the strictest. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 8Edit

00:00, 8 June 2023 review of submission by 23DougEdit

Why did this get banned. Everything here is factual. The team is in fact in production, and is attempting to join the league. 23Doug (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have zero independent reliable sources that discuss this alleged team. Anyone can say they are a hockey team and want to join the NHL, but are sources discussing it? 331dot (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:18, 8 June 2023 review of submission by Ankur singh03Edit

Based on your feedback, I understand that the article may have contained promotional content. I apologize for any promotional language that may have inadvertently made its way into the article. I assure you that my intention is to provide an objective and encyclopedic overview of UnknwnAayush and his YouTube channel. To rectify this, I plan to revise the article by focusing on providing factual information supported by reliable and independent sources. I will avoid using subjective or promotional language, instead presenting the channel's content and its creator's achievements in a neutral tone. Ankur singh03 (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]