(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


August 14

[edit]

01:36, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Walijordan

[edit]

Requesting assistance with all editors to get one of my articles accepted. The editor that rejected the article notated that there were only mentions of the subject in question however, majority of the major articles focus on the subject. Additional articles have been added to support notability of the subject to include an award winning film the artist has original music in. I would like assistance from established editors to issue proper corrections and additions for article approval. Thank you. Walijordan (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walijordan: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
You have one usable source; the rest is junk. One source is not enough to support an article on any subject, let alone one on a biography of a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:52, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Mohasafa00

[edit]

I'm a little confused as to why this article wasn't published. Another article followed the same protocol and it was published but this one did not. I have updated the draft with more esteemed publications surrounding the title although I don't believe it was necessary. I'm asking for help with this article. Mohasafa00 (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:15, 14 August 2024 review of submission by ClassifiedBagel

[edit]

I need to add more references. How do I add more references? I'm a PS5 user. ClassifiedBagel (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REFB for how to add references inline.
Distractify is not regarded as a reliable source: see WP:RSP
I cannot see the portalvirtualreality.ru source - it gives me a 404 - but unless it is a discussion about the suicide, published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial control, and fact-checking, then it is worthless for Wikipedia.
Unless you can find several sources which all meet the triple criteria of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42) then you will be unable to establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense. and every minute you spend or have spent on trying to write about it will be time wasted.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Ricarda.O.Huch

[edit]

Feedback for submission English translation: Page Clemens Apprich Englisch Ricarda.O.Huch (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review. As stated at the top of the draft, there is a significant backlog so it will take time for someone to get to it. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ricarda.O.Huch While you wait, you can disclose your connection to Mr. Apprich, which you must have as you took an image of him and he posed for you. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Karnish 16

[edit]

I have done research and added reference as well but where am I going wrong ? Karnish 16 (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karnish 16 Are you associated with Affinity Global?
You are summarizing the routine business activities of the company, not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that discusses how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company as they see it. Press releases are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot No i am not , I am working with Justdial limited company . Karnish 16 (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Affinity Global is your client? 331dot (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No , not in any ways connected Karnish 16 (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Phenomenon 10

[edit]

Hello,

The second version of the article I submitted meets your criteria for verifiable, reliable sources (please see reference section of article). The sources are (also) published, reliable, secondary, and independent of the article subject.

Why, therefore, specifically, was the article rejected?

Thank you. 

Phenomenon 10 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phenomenon 10: the referencing doesn't sufficiently support the draft contents, with some of information either unreferenced or referenced with citations that don't actually reliably verify it. Many of the sources also seem to be primary, which is probably why the reviewer felt they didn't establish notability. (I'm only speculating here, as I wasn't the one who reviewed this one myself, so if you want further elaboration you should ask the reviewer directly.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 14 August 2024 review of submission by IFDProductions

[edit]

declined for just saying reason for advertisement when that is not the case, I am certainly not getting paid to do this and I just want this page documented. Can you give me a real response and not an automated message on to why or what I need to do to get this page accurate. IFDProductions (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IFDProductions: Regardless of whether the page is promotional, we don't cite YouTube unless the video is produced by an outlet we'd consider to have editorial oversight (such as Kerrang!) and is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel, and anything the subject themselves puts out is useless for notability (connexion to subject). We are looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that have discussed the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to editorial oversight and fact-checking. Without sources of that calibre we can't even begin to discuss having an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Submission

[edit]

I recently have finished most of my Sandbox, and I have wanted to submit it, but there is no place to submit it at! I have checked different articles on Wikipedia on how to submit it, but so far no luck! Can someone help me? Xuppu (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have now successfully submitted it. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Timtrent managed to add a submit button Xuppu (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 14 August 2024 review of submission by RNGHit

[edit]

Hi! I'm pretty sure I linked somewhat independent sources to show notability of the person. Please let me know if I need to include more independent citations. Sorry for any inconvience! (And sorry if I misspelled anything :( ) manwithafriend1 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment that @MarcGarver left on your draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:06, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Kalinators

[edit]

I cannot see the submit button after the latest achievement by the subject (me) and multiple media reporting about the subject (me) and the links were added. Please submit and approve the draft as I don't see the submit button. Kalinators (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: The only change to the draft, since it was rejected on 5 August, was the addition of a reference to a wixsite. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the wixsite is there not to prove notability, but to prove the factuality of the subject leading the ranking in the Ulm Backgammon Open yearly.
If you look more closely, you will notice the added last paragraph combined with 3 seperate independent website reporting on the subject's achievement of the Master M3 title. Kalinators (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the rejection reason in the first place was a personal bias from one editor directed towards the subject, hence it was not a truthful review. Kalinators (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kalinators The submit button no longer appears because the draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. You should focus your efforts on a personal website or social media where you can tell the world about yourself and your accomplishments. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can add it back, or I will have to create and submit a new one. As you can see, there are now 10 independent media having reported about the subject. So it clearly must be on wikipedia. Kalinators (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Kalinators (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kalinators If you have fundamentally changed the nature of the draft and addressed the concerns of the reviewers, you should first appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, the editor who rejected it multiple times has a personal bias against the subject. This is why I kindly requested another editor to approve it. Kalinators (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the reviewer did not tell you what you want to hear does not mean that they have a personal bias against you.
You have not demonstrated that you are notable as Wikipedia uses the word. A runner up to a youth competition is not likely to draw the significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Again, I advise you to abandon this effort. Typically, articles are written by independent editors, not the subject themselves. That's the best indicator of notability- a person trying to force the issue and do it themselves is not usually successful- I've never seen it happen in my many years here(though it probably has, it is rare if it does). 331dot (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll go back 2 months when I first posted it. I posted links to the reports of the tournaments and stuff like that, then someone told me that references should be independent media, so I posted the two that were there already, but then someone told me they need 3, so 1 more.
Last month, a main Stuttgart media wrote an article about me (source no. 1 in the draft), so I added it and resubmitted. The same editor who had in the first place approved the other 2 articles, jumped in to say that they don't approve them now. So they were contradicting themselves. Then the personally biased CFA jumped in and refused to review it, rejecting it directly.
Anyway, since then, a further achievement has been added to the draft, and a further 3 media reporting about the subject. This was added to the draft and a new one was created to be submitted. CFA was quick to decline it, stating as a reason "No improvements since last decline at Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon_player).".
However, if you look at it, you will notice that a whole paragraph was added reporting on the recently achieved mastership title, with the 3 new independent media reporting about the latter, and also the Bulgarian news agency, which had in the past already reported on the subject's successes, so was already in the sources.
So basically, if you look at it, you will see that the editors' comments just don't agree with reality. Kalinators (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:49, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Addresstour

[edit]

Hello dear! I would like to publish article about my business. Please provide any instruction to publish professionally and correct. And please explain reason of rejection publishing article. Addresstour (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

[edit]

05:55, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Omworld786

[edit]

We want to Publish This article But Not Getting Approval How we can Approved this article Kindly Guide us Omworld786 (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omworld786: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.
Who is "we" in your question/comment?
Why have you created three different drafts on this subject?
And what is your relationship with the subject? This has been queried on your talk page earlier, but you have not responded to the query. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 15 August 2024 review of submission by 102.90.58.104

[edit]

Please what should I do? 102.90.58.104 (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can return to your original account and get unblocked. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will look into it 102.90.65.219 (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you are not allowed to edit even when logged out of your blocked account. The block is personal to you, not to a particular account or IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining this, I need to understand the issue. Thank you for making out your time. 105.113.12.102 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Kalinators

[edit]

Hello all. This article clearly requires to be on wikipedia, as the subject is a succesful sportsperson who has been reported my multiple independent media in his country of origin and country of citizenship. The draft was rejected multiple times on the accusation "You cannot write an article about yourself", however, this was not after a fair and honest review of the article, hence it was rejected on no basis. Please kindly review, resubmit, and approve the article. Best regards. Kalinators (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's not why it was rejected and 2) nothing is "required" to be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators: your autobio was rejected. You then created another one, which was rejected. You're now badgering editors to review the rejected draft, which is tendentious. All this to promote yourself on Wikipedia, which is not allowed in the first place. I would ask you to drop this matter now, or risk getting blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, I am not promoting myself on Wikipedia, I am adding an article that fits in wikipedia's guidelines. CLEARLY.
Whoever rejects it, does not do a proper review, as simple as that, they just reject it because it's me writing about myself. Without an actual valid reason. Kalinators (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly are, given that every single one of your edits has to do with you. What would you call that if not self-promotion? You evidently aren't here to help help build an encyclopaedia. But fine, if you want to carry on and run the risk of sanctions, on your head be it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer who rejected the draft stated "No improvements since last decline". This was not true, as additional information about the subject, plus additional multiple independent media reports about the subject, were added. Additionally, 2 months ago, in the first review, I was told that as soon as 3 independent media have reported about the subject, it will be approved. Furthermore, an editor who approved 2 sources in the first review, came back to review the updated draft as soon as the 3rd source was added, and rejected it because apparently the sources he had approved before, were not good enough. He also stated that a main Stuttgart newspaper is not independent, clearly untrue. We come to now, when the draft has 6 independent media reports, plus a few additional links which prove factuality. All this comes to show that that the review was improper or violated policy, so I kindly ask for a consensus that the review was improper or violated policy. Kalinators (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not said which policies were violated. Please provide diffs or other evidence to support your claims, specifically where it was said "as soon as 3 independent media reports about the subject it will be approved"- which is absolutely not the case, so if you were told that, the person who did was in error. I'm trying to help you, to get you to see what you are doing wrong and what assumptions you have that are wrong, but you aren't listening because it's not what you want to hear. Yet another reason why editing about yourself is problematic- it's difficult to hear criticism of your own work when its about you. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no valid reason for the decline listed. The reason listed was "no improvements since last decline", which was visibly untrue, as I clarified that additional information about the subject, plus additional multiple independent media reports about the subject, were added. Unfortunately I cannot show you the discussion from 2 months ago, but I remember that it was @DoubleGrazing and @Qcne both saying that, after approving 2 media reports, the response from both was "Ok, we have two, so we need one more and then it will be approved". Later on, Double grazing was the first to reject it, contradicting his own comments from before while stating that the initial 2 media were not good, adding that the third one, a main Stuttgart newspaper, is not independent, again, clearly untrue. Kalinators (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If (purely for the sake of the argument) you have two acceptable sources and we say that's not enough, it doesn't mean that if more are added then the draft must be accepted. Especially as you seem to have a rather fundamental misunderstanding of what is an acceptable source. (And I really can't be bothered to go yet another round over the sources.)
The bottom line is, you can wikilawyer about this all you want, but it doesn't suddenly make a rejected draft about a non-notable subject appear in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that you once said that source X and source Y are good, but one more is needed. Then, once another was added, you backed off saying that source X and source Y are not good. This is a clearly not neutral review, as if it were, you wouldn't contradict yourself. The article is about a notable subject, clearly proven. Kalinators (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not- a runner up (i.e. someone who did not win) a youth competition in a niche gaming event is not getting the coverage needed for an article- which must go beyond merely documenting your activities. You gravely misunderstand "neutral" as well as what it is we do here in general. You are just wasting your time at this point and I highly advise you to abandon this effort voluntarily before you are forced to with a block. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I won't be the one to make it, as I'm too deep into this. But that's the course you are on. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, your boss will fire you after I report your activities to him.
The article MUST and WILL be on wikipedia. So, you meet world youth runners-up every day on the street?
It is not a "niche gaming event", whatever this means, it is a world championship. I know you are envious, but sorry, not everyone can go to a final of a world championship. As I said and you know, the media will not report my credit card number or stuff like that, they can only report my activities and achievements. [Blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for advertising redacted] Kalinators (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This blatant advertising will only get you blocked. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you are threatening someone and blatantly advertising? I am quite sure none of our bosses care about what are we doing on Wikipedia. Do you really wanted to be blocked? ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the guy's wikipedia boss. Kalinators (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one. Wikipedia does not operate that way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is indeffed, no TPA. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:44, 15 August 2024 review of submission by WikiWonka888!

[edit]

This article about filmmaking duo Siegel & McGehee was intended to replace sub-standard stub articles, for individual filmmakers Scott McGehee and David Siegel. Can someone help to reset those two pages as "redirects" to here to complete this effort? WikiWonka888! (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWonka888! This help desk is to ask about drafts, not existing articles, you want the main Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! WikiWonka888! (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 15 August 2024 review of submission by MorganKBrowne

[edit]

i want to write an article that helps inform peeople about Enterpryze MorganKBrowne (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MorganKBrowne: if you do, don't do it like that; this draft has been deleted as promotional.
What is your relationship to Enterpryze? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im the CEO. first time creating an article on wiki MorganKBrowne (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MorganKBrowne: thank you. In that case, you have a conflict of interest which must be disclosed. I'll post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MorganKBrowne "Inform people about Enterpryze" is exactly what promotion is. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Pagemaker14

[edit]

How do I get my drafts accepted? Pagemaker14 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemaker14 I think you meant to put Draft:Andrew Deliberis, your only draft, in your request. You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It got declined. Pagemaker14 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pagemaker14: yes, I declined it, because it is completely unreferenced with zero evidence of notability. (There are two alleged citations, but both return 404 errors.)
You appear to have subsequently resubmitted the draft without any attempt at improving it. Please don't do that, as it suggests that you're unable or unwilling to improve the draft, and this may result in it being rejected outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Jfowler4368

[edit]

Hoping to get my draft approved. I have made the edits as requested by the reviewer, but it will not let me resubmit for review. Thanks! Jfowler4368 (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfowler4368: there is a blue button at the bottom of the previous decline notice, which says 'resubmit'; click on that.
Having said which, the sources are insufficient for demonstrating notability per WP:NCORP, so this draft would still be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 15 August 2024 review of submission by YunusEmret

[edit]

Hi, i cant change the title as The Religious Syncretism in Ephesus: A Confluence of Cults i have no iddia how the topic name added as "Draft:Yunus_Emre_Tekin" i was try to add new content but now i see the title is not The Religious Syncretism in Ephesus: A Confluence of Cults. How can i change the title? Thank you for your help. YunusEmret (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YunusEmret: your draft has been deleted, so there is nothing to be done here, but for future reference, changes to page titles are effected by moving the page to a new title. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft titles are also provisional at best. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 15 August 2024 review of submission by ArtInspiration4all

[edit]

The majority of citations are from well-known third-party news organizations. Can someone help me edit this? ArtInspiration4all (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtInspiration4all: the media outlets are secondary sources, but when it's the artist herself talking about her work, that makes it a primary source. We need to see what entirely independent and reliable sources have chosen of their own volition to say about this painting. (Also, The Mail is a deprecated source and mustn't be cited.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I removed the deprecated source and added primary sources to the article as requested. ArtInspiration4all (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtInspiration4all: we don't need more primary sources, we need more secondary ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sorry. I thought more primary sources were needed. ArtInspiration4all (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added additional secondary sources as requested ArtInspiration4all (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Your user page states that you are a paid editor, but the disclosure doesn't make it clear to what subjects this refers. Is it to do with the subject of this draft? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtInspiration4all: An alternate method is to not create a new article at all and use the edit request wizard instead to specify what information and sources be added to an existing article on a related topic, such as Akiane#Prince of Peace. Then, if the topic gains more coverage later on, it can eventually be split or spun-off into its own article.
Again, just my opinion; another Wikipedia editor may have a differing view. Thanks for reading, and good luck. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Elephant1997

[edit]

Hi! I would like help in understanding why this page got rejected. The citations are from independent, secondary, and high-authority sources such as The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The articles discuss the subject in depth (are not just brief mentions) and discuss negative aspects about the company and carbon market. Elephant1997 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephant1997 Have yu asked Jamiebuba who declined this draft? If not I recommend that you do first. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - yes I messaged @Jamiebuba and he archived my message without responding. Have you actually read the sources? The NYT, WSJ, and United Nations articles are entirely about the organization and / or how its founder went about setting up the company. I've extensively reviewed the notability page, and all of the sources meet the criteria. Thanks Elephant1997 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first few sources mention Wildlife Works, but do not say very much about it - they are about individuals associated with it. I haven't looked further, but if they are all like that then you have not provided the requisite set of reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject to establish that the company is notable in Wikipedia's sense. See WP:42 for the criteria which every source must pass in order to contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Thanks for your response. Been off for a while. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Jimboson

[edit]

I am reaching out because I do not think the reasoning given for declining this submission came from a genuine place. This is one of the most well-known rabbis of the past 200 years, known by all different sects of Orthodox Jews. I think it should be looked at again by someone else. Jimboson (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimboson The reason given was a paucity of correct referencing. That someone is one of the most well-known rabbis of the past 200 years is neither here nor there, because the references do not show it. If he is that well known, please find references which meet the statement in the decline notice.
On another matter, "I do not think the reasoning given for declining this submission came from a genuine place." is not appropriate. You, we, any editor at all, are required to assume good faith at all times. Instead of expressing this thought you might have held your peace. This is a lack of civility and is likely to make some excellent reviewers think twice about reviewing this draft. This is shooting yourself in the foot.
I can also infer all sorts of things from your statement, as can others. More than one of those things is, at best, distasteful, for more than one reason. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock. Stated on their user talk page that they were making unfounded accusations of racial/religious prejudice. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 15 August 2024 review of submission by EkRahgir

[edit]

How can I add this person on Wikipedia, He's Genuine and popular in field of homeopath in India, Bihar & Kolkata specially. Please suggest. I can add more references EkRahgir (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, rejected means that resubmssion is not possible. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "genuine" nor "popular" is of any relevance to determining notability as Wikipedia means it: this is basically, "Is there enough reliable independent material available to base an article on?", remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

[edit]

05:50, 16 August 2024 review of submission by 2806:2A0:B18:880C:94D3:1B45:E11E:5143

[edit]

Could you please let us know where we became non-compliant with the article so that we can make the necessary amendments? 2806:2A0:B18:880C:94D3:1B45:E11E:5143 (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"?
If you mean the original author of this draft, then the answer to your question is that blocked users are not allowed to edit from any account or IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why was my article rejected???

[edit]

I worked hard on my piece of writing. Let me share my take on the rats of NYC with the world!! >-< SKIBIDINOMETAMER (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhuh. Carry on like that, and you will be blocked soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Hey, I must be clairvoyant! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Find somewhere else to post funny junk. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 16 August 2024 review of submission by Lnplohar 388

[edit]

Please my article are true please help Lnplohar 388 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lnplohar 388 The truthfulness of the information is not at issue. It is completely unsourced and you have not demonstrated notability. This is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that you first spend much time editing existing articles to gain experience and knowledge as to how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. Please also consider using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is also within the scope of a contentious topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 16 August 2024 review of submission by TornadoSpeciakost

[edit]

Why is this getting deleted? TornadoSpeciakost (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoSpeciakost Because it's a mixture of a copyright violation and made up stuff. Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 16 August 2024 review of submission by A.reymn

[edit]

Bonjour, Ma récente soumission n’a pas été acceptée. Mais je continue à modifier, selon vos instructions, mon article en complétant les références (citations) dans le Sandbox où se trouve mon article. Je souhaite vous soumettre à nouveau cet article une fois les modifications terminées. Ma question est de savoir si je peux vous soumettre l’article directement depuis le Sanbox ? Merci beaucoup de votre réponse. A.reymn (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceci est le Wikipédia anglais. Veuillez communiquer en anglais. (this is the English Wikipedia, please communicate in English) 331dot (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CFA has added a submission button, but in my opinion, this will not be accepted, as it reads like an essay. A Wikipedia article summarises what reliable sources say on a subject, nothing more. It should never present any argument or conclusion, except to summarise an argument or conclusion wholly contained within one of the sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your opinion. I will try to modify and turn it into a compilation of different sources instead of essay. A.reymn (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A.reymn: I added the submission button to your sandbox. C F A 💬 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 16 August 2024 review of submission by OliveRacc

[edit]

I need help from qualified Wikipedians who know about Lifesteal and are dedicated to make the articles top quality. OliveRacc (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OliveRacc The draft has been rejected. This means that, as written, it is not a top quality draft. Wikipedia has been improved by not accepting it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


August 17

[edit]

Sourcing questions

[edit]

EDIT: Uh, nevermind I guess I passed review so I guess my sources were ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urchincrawler (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm working on this draft, but it's the first article I've created that's medicine related. I tried to use reliable sources (NHS, stuff from PubMed, NIH, etc.), but there are some cases where I used non medical sources. In the history section, I used a law journal, in the advocacy section I linked to some advocacy groups to prove that advocacy supported those positions, and in the nomenclature section I provided some arguments on why parents of intersex people may prefer DSD using a paper writing by a professor with an interest in intersex topics. Is that ok? Or do all sources have to be medical even for more historical and social info?


Additionally, I was wondering if more local government health departments would be acceptable sources, or does it have to be strictly national sources like the NHS and CDC. For example, I used a document from the State of Victoria Department of Health and Human Services. Is that ok?

Ultimately I'd just really appreciate if someone could take a quick look through my sources since I want to make sure it's up to par. Thanks.

Urchincrawler (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Urchincrawler Accepted by a reviewer. Well done. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:03, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Injusticegod

[edit]

Hi iknow an artist and i need someone from help desk to publish hm Injusticegod (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Injusticegod I know several people, none of whom qualify for an article. If you think your acquaintance does please read HELP:YFA. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:58, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Jackhh2004

[edit]

This article is very worth publishing, in my opinion, and I want help making it good enough to get published. Jackhh2004 (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackhh2004 no Declined This is a candidate, and fails WP:NPOL 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:18, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Mohasafa00

[edit]

I have updated the draft with more esteemed publications surrounding the title. I'm kindly asking for assistance from other editors for this title. Mohasafa00 (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohasafa00 You have submitted it for review. Please wait patiently for that review. In the meantime you should continue to improve the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Ribinshad

[edit]

hi, can you help me with this, I want to write in wikipidia, this is a new phone brand am currently using when I search on wiki I didn't find about it that why I added this brand, is the details I given wrong or the writing style of mine is wrong , what is the issue, can you help me with this Ribinshad (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribinshad: the draft is very promotional and offers no evidence that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms.
And once a draft has been rejected (as opposed to merely declined) you shouldn't resubmit it anymore. You may discuss the rejection with the reviewer who rejected it, but looks like you haven't done that.
Do you have a relationship of some kind with this business? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:23, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Apnswami

[edit]

Can you please advise what other things do you expect for acceptance. All the information provided has a sufficient external link and I am surprised that this is rejected. Apnswami (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more you can do, rejection means that resubmission is not possible at this time. Note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Apnswami: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources that I can assess are any good, which is why the draft has been rejected for failure to address reviewers' concerns and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Kshitij Vats 001

[edit]

Taking a lot of time Kshitij Vats 001 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kshitij Vats 001: you submitted this a week ago. Don't know if you noticed, but it says on top of the draft "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,594 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Shaansaren

[edit]

Would like to know what this message from the article reviewer means.....not clear how they pass WP:NACTOR?.

Is it regarding the hyperlinks i used or citations i gave?? Shaansaren (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shaansaren! I think your main problem is that your draft is only a couple of sentences long, and tells us almost nothing about your subject. Your sources are also both interviews, which we don't accept as evidence of notability. Have you read through Your First Article? If not, I suggest you start there. If you've read that, then move on to WP:NACTOR (which will tell you what we're looking for to establish an actor is notable) and WP:42, our 'golden rule' for sources (which will tell you what you need in a source). Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

[edit]

04:36, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 122.52.65.67

[edit]

Hello HurricaneEdgar submit the draft can review the draft? 122.52.65.67 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 18 August 2024 review of submission by SDsharkie

[edit]

Sorry, my article on a musician in the metal band Dark Angel got declined by an editor who says its not worthy of wikipedia but this musician is already listed in wikipedia through the band and her prior band and most of the article is valid, the editor just cited issues with a few of the sources, not the majority. So, why decline the whole article and how do you fix this? I also do not know how to link to the existing wikipedia page articles that exist, but since the musician is already listed in wikipedia in a couple spots and clearly as worthy as the other musicians in the band, not sure how it can be deemed not worthy of wikipedia?? 

SDsharkie (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Laura Christine StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SDsharkie! I've just gone through your draft and named some references so your ref list isn't encumbered by multiples of the same thing - giant ref lists, especially with duplicated sources, make life harder for reviewers and thus your draft takes longer to be reviewed. More info in WP:REFNAME if you add any more sources!
The thing with biographies of living people is they have incredibly strict requirements - see WP:BLP for more information. Among other things, this means that every single statement must be sourced. You can only use interviews for basic things like her name, her birthdate, that kind of stuff. To show she's notable, you're looking for sources that fit Wikipedia's 'golden rule', WP:42. In short, you need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). The reviewer has said Encyclopedia Metallum is not reliable because it's user-generated, YouTube is also not reliable (no oversight, not a reputable publisher), and interviews are all primary sources. This is excellent advice for you and also, unfortunately, means most of your current sources can't be used. I suggest having a go at replacing all the sources that have been flagged and trying again. Your other option is to remove any information that doesn't have an acceptable source, but I think you'd be better off replacing the sources since without them most of the draft would have to be deleted.
Sorry I don't have better news for you. Please feel free to ask any further questions and someone - maybe me, maybe another of our lovely AfC helpdesk volunteers - will be back to answer soon. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this detailed response. I did edit and add new sources, and remove ones that were not up to snuff, and removed just a little bit of the article to make it fully credible and cited properly. I do hope this gets accepted, as it is my first article and I worked hard to try to make a good one! SDsharkie (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome @SDsharkie! If your article isn't accepted this time around, please feel free to come to my talk page and I'll do a more thorough source check for you. Good luck and happy editing to you! StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65

[edit]

local public like this Company, more then 5000 farmer helping 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 year helping local farmer 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence whatsoever that this company is notable, not in this attempt, and not in any of the previous ones. If you keep spamming, this title will be protected.
Also, please note that once your user account has been blocked, you are not allowed to register new accounts, nor to continue editing from an IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I will delete your spam post you've just added to a new thread below. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 24.101.104.246

[edit]

Well ... my article was turned down for lack of a reference. But I made no statement in the article that was not "common" knowledge. Everyone on the planet who has any interest at all in the history of the number Pi is aware of the Liebniz series. And that is why I did not give a reference to it. There are TONS of other articles in Wikipedia that I could refer to. If I choose one of those articles already accepted by Wikipedia, will my article then be accepted. Was there any reason (other than lack of a reference) that my article was rejected? If that was the only reason then I will go back and put in a reference. I obviously cannot give proof that a teacher 100 years ago presented this to his second grade class -- so I can just eliminate that fact from the article and let the numbers speak for themselves. This is an important contribution to the body of human knowledge because most articles regarding the Liebniz series do not mention the power of averaging that this article illustrates. 24.101.104.246 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a viable encyclopaedia article draft, this is more like a personal essay or exposition, and completely unreferenced at that. With all due respect, we are not interested in your reflections on some mathematical problem, we want to see what reliable and independent published sources have said about a subject, appropriately summarised and referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Perfectcheck373

[edit]

My article had actual information and reliable sources, unfortunately it declined for no apparent reason, can someone help me tweak the article, so I can submit it again. Perfectcheck373 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfectcheck373: There is no evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Her LinkedIn is neither reliable nor independent. This is an interview, a primary source, and does not count towards notability. This is another interview. C F A 💬 14:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has very likely been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user who has attempted to create this article in the past [1]. User reported to SPI [2] Barry Wom (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that account tried to create the article, but was blocked indefinitely. Perfectcheck373 (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked 331dot (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:17, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 103.138.11.0

[edit]

WISPAP has been instrumental in representing the interests of wireless and internet service providers across the country, advocating for fair policies, and fostering innovation and competition in the industry. Given the relevance and impact of our association on the telecom sector, I am surprised that an article about WISPAP has not yet been included in Wikipedia.Could you kindly provide insights into why WISPAP is not featured on Wikipedia? If there are specific criteria that need to be met for our association to be considered for inclusion, I would appreciate any guidance or recommendations on how we can fulfill those requirements.Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response 103.138.11.0 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced, and summarizes routine activities.
You must disclose your relationship with this organization, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 136.55.28.55

[edit]

The reviewer said the references where unreliable sources. MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC, and other sources used are very credible sources.

I think this reviewer has a personal bias against Patrick Bet-David.

Considering I have in the span of two days edited live wikipedia pages that have no sources at all. 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Claims of bias need hard evidence.
Google Books is not a source itself, you should be citing the book/publication directly. Interviews do not establish notability.
If you're aware of articles with no sources, you are free to point them out so action can be taken. That cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles, see WP:OSE. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is just letting people know the book was published and has an isbn number. What you said is not even applicable to what is being discussed.
And how is Google Books not a reliable source? It is filled with books... All types of books
If that is the metrics. Wikipedia is not a reliable source
"A wiseman speaks because they have something to say. A fool speaks, because they want to say something."
~Plato 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need mere documentation that a book exists. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We know this. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I went to the reviewer's creation page. This reviewer literally has pages published with the same type of sources I used in my article. News Media and Newspapers. How are my sources not credible, when this reviewer uses the exact same type of sources to publish their articles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Bogensee

Look at the sources in his article. They are all media outlets and newspapers. Either this guy is biased or very unfamiliar with credible United States based media sources

By the metrics used by this reviewer, his own article should be rejected.

Make it make sense 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, IP, "this guy" here.
"Same type of sources" means nothing. You can cite the most reliable source in the world, but it may not support what you say in your draft, and/or it may not contribute towards notability. And either way, citing that source may still leave a lot of the other content in your draft unsupported.
If you have a problem with the Villa Bogensee article, by all means start AfD or other deletion proceedings, that's your prerogative.
Oh, and BTW, please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature below as "critiques"):
None of your sources are any good. We do not go entirely by the outlet to determine how useful a source is; we have to read the source as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about the subject, plus possibly a small amount of uncontroversial factual data from reliable published sources connected with the subject. Nothing else. ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Saksham Singh Yogi

[edit]

Why is this article written on Swami Avimuktesdhwaranand Saraswati (The Current Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth) who is the topmost saint in Hindu religion and is the most famous and holds the supreme dignitory amongst saint of Sanatan dharma, Article is getting declined by Wikipedia team again and again kindly look into it and help me to make this article public in interest of hindus and indians Saksham Singh Yogi (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saksham Singh Yogi: We have zero tolerance for proselytising and hagiographies. And that includes what you wrote in this section. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:47, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Injusticegod

[edit]

i want someone to help me create Marko Meko article please Injusticegod (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Injusticegod I do not believe he qualifies for an article. There are no sources that show any notability. It may be too soon in his career 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well how can we make him notable?
i see there's also many people on wiki they are not notable! Injusticegod (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Injusticegod You cannot make him notable. If you cannot find references which prove him to be notable then it is time to give up. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Injusticegod, we cannot make anyone notable - the rest of the world does, and it takes time. Maybe Meko will produce a world-famous track, or will DJ some major events and become famous for that. What needs to happen is for independent people - people who write news articles, or books, or who make documentaries - to notice him and write about him. If enough people do that, he becomes notable by Wikipedia standards, and then you can write an article about him. StartGrammarTime (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
got it, thank you it's time to give up Injusticegod (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to ask for co-editors; please see the advice left by reviewers. Do you have more specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

[edit]

03:20, 19 August 2024 review of submission by FROZENMAGIC

[edit]

I need to know why its rejecting and what should i do to avoid that? FROZENMAGIC (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FROZENMAGIC: the draft (such as it is) remains completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability whatsoever; and this, after three submissions in quick succession. One can only conclude, therefore, that either the subject is inherently non-notable, or you have no interest in improving the draft to demonstrate notability, and either way it is pointless to continue the review process when we have over 2,500 other drafts to review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 19 August 2024 review of submission by MLachsteiner

[edit]

Hey there,

I’m a new and infrequent contributor, and I’m feeling a bit discouraged. My draft was quickly rejected, and the feedback I received was quite vague. After researching the issues, I made all the necessary corrections and politely asked the reviewers to take another look. Unfortunately, I haven’t received any further response, and my follow-up questions seem to have been archived even.

Could you please advise on what steps I should take next?

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Michael 

MLachsteiner (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MLachsteiner: there isn't any next step required, now that you've resubmitted the draft; it will be reviewed again when a reviewer happens to pick it out of the pool. (A technical detail: your draft has been declined, not 'rejected'. Decline means you're welcome to resubmit it after addressing the decline reason(s). Rejection means resubmission is not possible.)
I can tell you already now, based on only a quick glance, that the draft will almost certainly be declined again, for insufficient referencing (if nothing else). Articles on living people have strict referencing requirements, and your draft contains far too much unreferenced information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much. the german version of this article has been online for years, I didn't expect so many roadblocks. thanks for your quick and clear reaction anyway. could I trouble you for some advice regarding referencing? MLachsteiner (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MLachsteiner: pretty much every material statement you make has to be supported by an inline citation; ditto, any private personal and family details. Which source gives this person's WP:DOB, or the fact that he is married with two children? Where do the discography, filmography, and awards and nominations come from? Etc.
Each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own rules and requirements; what is accepted into one version may not be acceptable into another. AFAIK the English-language version has the strictest requirements in what comes to referencing and notability, therefore what you're experiencing is not uncommon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Sheringsaraeorge

[edit]

i tried to publish a well-known person who is an educationalist in India and the EU but unfortunately, it was rejected recently.

Hopefully looking your advice Regards Sherin Sheringsaraeorge (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further- that there is nothing more you can do. You essentially posted his resume, not a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable person as sources see it. We don't want just a list of his accomplishments, but significant coverage by sources that go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about him. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Matt46665

[edit]

Declined? New theories are not Wikipedia material? Matt46665 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt46665: exactly so. Wikipedia is never the first, or even among the first, to report on anything. We only summarise what other sources have previously published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matt46665 No, Wikipedia does not host original research or new theories. If independent reliable sources like the news or academic publications write about your theories, maybe then. To put it another way, Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 19 August 2024 review of submission by 204.111.113.8

[edit]

Can you tell us exactly why this keeps getting declined? What other references could you be looking for? This is an actual journal. 204.111.113.8 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to study the WP:NJOURNALS notability guideline, and figure out whether and how this journal qualifies; then produce evidence thereof. (Hint: a couple of those indices look like they probably satisfy NJOURNALS C1.b, but the source cited against that claim could be improved – much better to cite the actual indices themselves.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log in whilst editing and please respond on your talk page to the impression that you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic. Who is "us"? User accounts are strictly single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 19 August 2024 review of submission by 173.196.137.238

[edit]

While we understand the requirements, we feel the draft has met the criteria as it includes reliable sources and mentions what his work has done for the industry.

It would be great if we could get better insight into how to improve the draft and get it approved as soon as possible. 173.196.137.238 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting, and only a single person should have exclusive access to your account. Are you on some sort of deadline? Wikipedia has no deadlines.
Please see the messages left by reviewers. It seems likely it is WP:TOOSOON for an article about him. We need more than a discussion of his activities. As odd as it may sound, you have too many sources. Concentrate on summarizing your three or four best sources. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 19 August 2024 review of submission by 74.56.143.227

[edit]

I would like to know what is needed for this page to be published 74.56.143.227 (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the pages linked to in those messages. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:26, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Theatrebuff1989

[edit]

Hi - I created a new bio page for the theatre producer Dafydd Rogers but it was rejected because it was too similar the page for David Pugh (Theatre Producer). This is because the two were partners and originally had a shared page. Someone edited the shared page to make it only a page for David Pugh and removed all mention of Rogers (in bad faith I think). I added back Rogers' name to their shared productions and made a separate page for Rogers. The advice upon submitting this was to re-merge the pages. Does this mean that the David Pugh page should not be a self standing page either? In my opinion that page had been subject to some kind of personal/political editing to remove Rogers from the record. It would be good to get some expert advice on whether the two pages should be remerged or remain as two independent bios. If Pugh is work his own page than surely so is Rogers as most of their careers were shared. I do not think that the pages should be merged because both men are now continuing to work independently in significant areas of UK Theatre production and administration. Thanks! Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether they work independently, but whether there is reliable independent published material for each of them separately.
With two people who work together, there are three potential subjects: person A, person B, and the partnership. It is perfectly possible for one or two of those three subjects to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability but not the other(s): it depends almost entirelyt on what has been published about them.
(I haven't looked at these particular examples: this is a general statement). ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this makes sense and has been the standard I've been following. I wonder if you could look at the specific entries please of David Pugh (which was edited by someone else from a shared page of David Pugh and Dafydd Rogers) and the draft for Dafydd Rogers? In this specific example Person A (Pugh) and Person B's (Rogers) notability was for more than 20 years through a partnership that has now ended (and all the sources are equal for both of them). since the dissolution of the partnership in 2019 both are continuing to work independently. This suggests to me that there should be two separate pages going forward but that each page might have some overlapping content from the partnership phase (which was the reason that Dafydd Rogers entry was declined). It would be good if you were able to let me know what you think if you had time? Thanks in advance. Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Liyabelll

[edit]

Hey, i've added more refrences to the article, Cobra baSalon was added to Barak Obama's playlist so it's very important to approve Dima XR article for his wider exposure and it's my first article so i need assistance Liyabelll (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liyabelll Wikipedia has zero interest in this musician's exposure. Being on Barack Obama's playlist is not one of the listed notability criteria. The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Br advised that what is acceptable on the Hebrew Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:34, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Grant Drewyor

[edit]

After the latest admin feedback, multiple links that could be considered biased or non-independent were removed, and page content was once again updated for this page draft. Before resubmitting this page, I was hoping that an admin could assist me with determining whether or not the page is close to being reasonably approved for submission, or if further changes will need to be made.

More specifically, I was hoping for feedback on which specific citations do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Since the last denied submission, citations have been changed again, so I am hoping that these newly updated citations do meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

I truly appreciate your help, and my only goal is to get this page to a point where it can be accurate and helpful for the users of Wikipedia, so I will be grateful for any feedback you have that could steer me in the right direction for further re submission. Grant Drewyor (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews; you should submit it in order to get feedback. Any editor may help you with this, not just admins. Admins have no more authority than any other editor, just extra tools. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grant Drewyor, the most important thing is that all your sources need to pass WP:42, the 'golden rule'. This says that you must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). The third criteria simply says that nothing related to the topic can be used to establish notability - so nothing from their website, nothing an employee's written, no interviews, etc. Your subject is a company, so you're trying to show - via your sources - that the company meets WP:NORG, the guidelines for organisation notability.
The first thing a reviewer will do on opening a cited link is ctrl+F (for "find") the subject of your draft. If any of your sources don't mention RightBio Metrics, they're no good to you. It looks to me as though some do mention a product of the company, but that's not the same thing - those sources might be suitable for an article on the product, though. My suggestion to you would be to go through each source and find out if any discuss the company, rather than their products or the field in general. Remove any that don't comply, and then go find ones that do.
I hope that helps you, and wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:46, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Guy Zapoleon

[edit]

This theory has appeared in the New York Times and is a well respected theory adopted by both the music and radio industry why is it not acceptable?

How can Wikipedia help me make this article acceptable?

Thank you,

Guy Guy Zapoleon (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Zapoleon: We do not publish original research. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeske,
If this was a new theory(research) that was being published I could understand, but this is a widely accepted theory thats been published inside and outside my industry 32 years (music and radio). Wikipedia has other pieces discussing radio(and music) that contain theory that its published? So I'm trying to understand why its been declined please see that it was written about
in the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/21/arts/pop-view-birth-and-rebirth-on-the-airwaves.html
and many other sources
https://www.google.com/search?q=zapoleon+music+cycle&sca_esv=ad3cebe3ffb4734a&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIKVgOkXtsdehPCMcm1lAJ9fLMqhzA%3A1724111058699&ei=0tjDZsifKoea0PEPyIq8yQM&ved=0ahUKEwjI0NOZnoKIAxUHDTQIHUgFLzkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=zapoleon+music+cycle&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFHphcG9sZW9uIG11c2ljIGN5Y2xlMgoQIxiABBgnGIoFMgQQIxgnMgQQIxgnMgYQABgFGB4yCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRI5hxQtBpYtBpwAXgAkAEAmAGrAaABwAKqAQMwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgKgAtkBwgIOEAAYgAQYsAMYhgMYigXCAgsQABiABBiwAxiiBJgDAIgGAZAGBJIHAzEuMaAH9w0&sclient=gws-wiz-serp Guy Zapoleon (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Zapoleon: it's no good saying it has been "widely accepted" and "published inside and outside [your] industry"; we need to see evidence of this. If it has been discussed in multiple reliable and independent sources, you need to cite those sources in the draft. There is now one link to a NYT article, plus another couple of links mentioned in the draft, but they're not properly cited, and it's not clear whether they actually support anything in the draft.
For future reference, Wikipedia articles should be composed by summarising what reliable and independent sources have published about a subject, citing those sources against the information they have provided. This makes the information verifiable, and provides evidence that the subject is notable, which are both core requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia features subjects like the 20 year fashion cycle where different fashions reappear. My articles state the facts of the repetition of music in the same way, the individual articles from year that the article was updated, show this evidence of how over a 9-10 year period(except in 90s) the core genres of pop music(Rock, Pop, R&B) grow more pop flavored(Rebirth), then harden(Extremes) then soften(Doldrums. This effects the Arbitron/Nielson ratings and mass popularity of the music discovery gatekeeper, which was radio for 60 years. This occurs most dramatically during 3rd phase which is the Doldrums. Here are some of the links including a few international ones in Australia(themusicnetwork) as well as in Germany (my-radio.biz)
https://www.allaccess.com/consultant-tips/archive/34349/music-cycle-updated-part-1
https://www.insideradio.com/free/guy-zapoleon-2023-marked-fourth-year-of-worst-music-doldrums-for-top-40-radio/article_6b1a4eb4-9e48-11ee-827f-9f9c3f6c47db.html
https://colemaninsights.com/tag/guy-zapoleon
https://themusicnetwork.com/whats-happening-to-chr-unpacking-the-music-cycle-theory/
https://www.insideradio.com/free/best-of-the-blogs-coleman-tackles-90s-music-conundrum/article_7e185512-b65c-11e8-abf5-2fc7576c64ab.html
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Archive-RandR/1990s/1992/RR-1992-10-09.pdf/page 34 and 36
https://www.billboard.com/pro/country-hits-on-pop-radio-morgan-wallen-luke-combs/
https://my-radio.biz/musik-zyklen-akzeptieren/
Please let me know what I need to do to get my theory published in Wikipedia. Or if I need to employ someone from Wikipedia to edit my work so it meets Wikipedia standards Guy Zapoleon (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Zapoleon: I think we're talking at cross purposes. I'm telling you that we only publish articles which summarise what other sources have previously said. You're wanting to publish some new theory (of yours?) here as the first platform. This is not possible, as we do not publish original research or even synthesis, and are never the first channel to publish anything.
I don't know what "employ[ing] someone from Wikipedia" even means, given that we're all volunteers, but just to say that getting someone else to write this on your behalf will face precisely the same obstacle.
The only way around this is if you can get this theory covered in reliable and independent publications, that would give us something that could potentially be summarised into a Wikipedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing,
I'm not sure what you mean as the theory has already been published in mainstream media as well as industry media. I just sent you multiple sources the Ten Year Music Cycle is printed in. The Music Cycle theory has been published in books "The Hits Just Keep Coming" by Ben Fong Torres and newspapers- The New York Times Neil Strauss https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/21/arts/pop-view-birth-and-rebirth-on-the-airwaves.html as well as Industry Periodicals-Radio & Records, Inside Radio, as well as International publications The MusicNetwork(Australia) and My-Radio.biz(Germany). I explain my theory in my original submission to Wikipedia and in my original articles(links to these are listed above) If my explanations above are not valid for Wikipedia I'm not sure what else I can do to get this published in Wikipedia. Any help or recommendations would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Guy Guy Zapoleon (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Zapoleon: You need to actually cite your sources, sticking to what those published sources explicitly say. The problem isn't a lack of sources, the problem is you aren't citing them and are expecting us (and by extension the readers) to accept what the article says on faith. We do not operate that way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for clarifying this, Jéské. I believe I've now corrected my submission to cite my sources for the article. If it's possible I'd like to resubmit Ten Year Music Cycle article and have you review it for errors and hopefully you can help me get it to a place where it qualifying as a Wikipedia article
Guy Guy Zapoleon (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


August 20

[edit]

00:00, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 158.181.83.238

[edit]

How can Wikipedia ignore this important Professor of Labour Law at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland? Can you help solve this problem? 158.181.83.238 (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't submitted the draft for review? When you're ready, click the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button and a reviewer will check it out. C F A 💬 03:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But on a quick look, it doesn't appear to me as if a single one of your cited sources meets the triple criterion of being reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject (see golden rule. Without several sources which do meet these criteria, no draft can establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and be accepted as an article.
I believe the notability criteria for academics are a bit different, but they depend on evidence of the subject's work being accepted and cited, which again your draft does not do.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 20 August 2024 review of submission by TheDutchArchivist

[edit]

Hi, I'm new to the website, most of my activity is fixing or expanding information on pre-existing Dutch movie articles. (I'm from the Netherlands) A few days ago, I created a draft of SpangaS op Survival, a Dutch film based on the TV series that Disney distributed in the Netherlands around 2009. When I submitted it, it was rejected because of the lack of reliable sources, the sources I originally added to the article were from official websites related to the film. I have a question regarding editing articles in general, what sources/websites are considered reliable for articles about film and television? I'm not an expert on it and I need help regarding this field so that I can improve my wiki skills. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDutchArchivist: my guess is that the reason why this was declined for insufficient referencing is that most of the information in the draft is not supported by citations, so it's not clear where the info is coming from. Personally, I would have probably declined this instead for lack of notability, because it doesn't seem to satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM notability guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question, Do mediums like newspapers, magazines or old archived websites from that report on the film count as reliable and add to the citations? even if it's from a different country that isn't the US? I think that could work.TheDutchArchivist (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDutchArchivist: newspapers, magazines, and other secondary sources are pretty much the gold standard (assuming of course they are reliable and independent), so yes. And they don't have to be from any particular country, or in any particular language; non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. Also, they don't have to be online, although if you're citing offline sources please make sure to provide sufficient bibliographical detail to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification (see WP:OFFLINE for more on this). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you very much! I appreciate your help, I will re-submit the article again once I found enough sources. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Satipem

[edit]

I just created an article about the regional news channel. Can somebody please improve the problems and move the article to the original. Satipem (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite how this works, @Satipem - if you want an article on this subject to exist, you need to do the work yourself. This includes finding and citing sources, as well as writing the draft. If the draft is accepted, the reviewer will move it for you, but first you need to establish that this subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. Read Your First Article if you haven't already, and then see whether you can improve your draft. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Piwiki504

[edit]

Hello my initial draft for this page was rejected a few months ago for insufficient sources, and I can see that some others have since contributed to it, but it's been rejected again. I can see there are now a lot more sources referenced. What more will be needed for approval? Piwiki504 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piwiki504 Note that the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
This draft does little more than tell about the topic. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Notability has not yet been demonstrated. This does not require more sources, it requires better sources. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Ggzion

[edit]

My draft was declined after the reviewer commented that the sources were not reliable. While yes, I had used the school's own website as sources most of the time, I found that the instances I used them as sources were ones were there was no opportunity for any other references to be used. For example, when I was talking about leadership specific to the school (coordinators for each grade), I cited the official website of the school as there wouldn't be any newspaper/other website reviewing this. Ggzion (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ggzion The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic(a school in this case), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, such as a notable organization. An article should not merely document existence. In the past, before current guidelines were developed, many articles about schools were created that merely show existence, but guidelines have become tighter since then, and volunteers have not yet removed older articles.
If you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage, the school would not merit an article, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443

[edit]

i want to create a page or article about my state progress between the period of 2024 to 2029. Please help me 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1241370562"