Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 3 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 5 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


October 4

[edit]

02:11, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Wootdee

[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to query why my article submission has been rejected when I have met the following criteria: 'The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]'. The books are being taught in AT LEAST 10 schools, both private and public and Wikipedia only requires that they be taught in two.

I can see in the editor's rejection that he has discredited the validity of the Echo news paper from my region as a source, but it is basically the last bastion of journalism on the Far North Coast of N.S.W. in Australia.

I realise the article is not of a huge magnitude globally, but it is significant locally. It promotes an awareness for the Nyangbal Aboriginal people and their culture that has largely been wiped out as a result of the British invasion in the Ballina area. I am working hard with the Bundjalung Elders to promote the Nyangbal people's culture and language before it disappears entirely. Wootdee (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wootdee: the draft has been declined (not rejected) due to insufficient referencing which is not enough to establish notability or to support the draft contents. You assert notability on the basis of the being taught at school, but there is no evidence of that, as the claim is unreferenced. (I think we would also need to see some detail of what "being taught" means here: are these books actually being discussed and analysed in some detail, or are they merely on a reading list, or something else?)
I don't think the reviewer "discredited" the Echo, but made the point that local papers obviously have more interest in, and therefore considerably lower publication threshold on, local matters than would a national one. And especially when both references (and in saying that, I am very much discrediting Goodreads as a source) are to the same publication, this doesn't really show that the books have received such attention as would be required for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I should be able to address the first issue with some guidance, I think, if you can advise me on the type of evidence required? I'm an English teacher so I wrote the books to be taught in Stage 3 and 4 of the N.S.W. syllabus. I have orders and tax invoices from the schools, who purchased class sets of 30, or I can contact them for photo evidence or affidavits or something if that would suffice? Any other suggestions? I understand the Goodreads review issue so I can delete those comments entirely as a source. As far as the newspaper source goes, I think my latest book (and maybe this series) is about to be reviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian newspapers, would those reviews be rigorous enough to use? I'll see if I can get some reviews elsewhere to, like the NSW English Teachers' Association, maybe? Do you think that would be okay to use? Any advice or suggestions would be much appreciated. Wootdee (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:23, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Uddhabadhikari

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Moderators,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the creation of a Wikipedia page for Mr. Uddhab Adhikari, a notable and influential individual in Nepal. I believe that such a page is essential for authentic documentation and recognition of his contributions in various fields, including beauty pageantry, business, philanthropy, and social impact.

Here are the reasons why I believe Uddhab Adhikari's Wikipedia page is of significant importance:

Notability: Uddhab Adhikari has played a pivotal role in the beauty pageant industry in Nepal. As the owner of Miss Universe Nepal and Miss Grand Nepal, he has provided a platform for Nepalese women to showcase their talents and advocate for important social causes on the international stage. His influence extends beyond entertainment, making him a notable figure in Nepal.

Philanthropy and Social Impact: Uddhab Adhikari's commitment to philanthropy and social impact initiatives deserves recognition. Through his pageants, he has raised awareness of critical issues and empowered young women to become advocates for positive change. His work in these areas is inspirational and aligns with Wikipedia's mission of providing accurate and verifiable information.

Cultural Significance: Uddhab Adhikari's contributions to Nepalese culture and entertainment have left a lasting impact. A Wikipedia page would serve as a valuable resource for those interested in the cultural and entertainment history of Nepal.

Documentation of Achievements: Creating a Wikipedia page for Uddhab Adhikari would allow for the documentation of his achievements and contributions in a neutral and verifiable manner, ensuring that his legacy is preserved for future generations.

Educational Value: Such a page would provide valuable information for researchers, students, and enthusiasts interested in the fields of beauty pageantry, business, philanthropy, and social impact.

I kindly request your consideration of this request to create a Wikipedia page for Uddhab Adhikari. I am prepared to assist in providing verifiable sources and information to ensure that the page meets Wikipedia's guidelines and standards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your positive response.

Sincerely, Uddhab Adhikari 

Uddhabadhikari (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uddhabadhikari: you may have misunderstood things, we don't create articles here at the help desk, we advise article creators whose drafts are undergoing the AfC review process. Your draft has been deleted as promotional, therefore there isn't much we can help you with at this stage. If you wish to rewrite your draft, you may do so, but please make sure to do it in a factual and neutral manner, and only summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously published about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:10, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Anjakrend

[edit]

The german wikipedia got accepted about a month ago (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Krendlinger) with the same criteria checked for "significant coverage" and the Name "E. Krendlinger" appears in the article about sugarcane wax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane_wax) aswell. I just translated the article and added links of proof etc. Do the two points mentioned above help with the significants maybe? Anjakrend (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anjakrend: sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, could you rephrase please?
I will just mention, though, that having been accepted into the German Wikipedia means nothing in what comes to being accepted into the English-language one, as each language version is entirely separate with their own requirements and policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah alright, thank you. That basicly answered my question. :) Anjakrend (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 4 October 2023 review of submission by 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73

[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure why my draft page for Solita (company) was declined due to inadequate sources, could you please help? In my opinion the sources qualify to your criteria, as in the article, we have used multiple different Finnish independent news media articles. The articles in the sources have been written in Finnish as Solita is a Finnish company, but all of the sources excluding Solita's web page (that has not been used that much) are in-depth articles about the company, reliable, secondary and independent. What should I do? 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please highlight three strongest sources in terms of being independent and reliable, and providing significant coverage of this company. Please note that interviews or where someone from the company is commenting on things, routine business reporting (appointments, M&A, financial results, opening of new locations or markets, etc.), and any sort of sponsored content or anything based on press/promo materials does not count. We can then take a look at those three sources; that will be far easier than evaluating 46 (!), which is definitely in the WP:REFBOMB territory.
This draft has various other issues as well, but let's first establish whether it is notable or not. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the quick help! Just to add, I'm not being paid of writing the page, there is already a Finnish page for Solita, and thought it would be important to have also an English one as Solita has grown into a multinational enterprise and helped, for example, by developing an app that was used by 90% of Finns during the COVID pandemic (saw the comment in the draft). I have made the English page according the Finnish one.
Also saw just now, that the editor would like to have the news article headlines to the sources, would that help?
The three strongest sources would perhaps be
1. Tivi: https://www.tivi.fi/uutiset/it-firma-kovassa-kasvussa-henkilosto-26-liikevaihto-35-/9087ed4b-48fa-3ee9-82f1-7e1a785dff12 (headline translated: IT company growing fast - staff +26%, turnover +35%). The article highlights Solita's importance in the Finnish market going through its' business in numbers, without any interviews etc. It also shortly reports the history of the company's numbers.
2. Tivi: https://www.tivi.fi/uutiset/solita-kierratti-johtajiaan-ja-pani-rakenteensa-uusiksi/6fb39b4b-a587-439d-a8b6-366e24c05bbd (headline translated: Solita shuffles its leadership and restructures its business). The article reports about the leadership of the company as well as the business areas on which Solita developed its operations.
3. There is also a few articles about the acquisitions that Solita has made (I've used them to report Solita's history), most important ones are the ones reporting about Solita expanding its business abroad, for example Kauppalehti's article: https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/solita-ostaa-ruotsalaisen-it-talon-ja-laajenee-samalla-tanskaan-ja-belgiaan/ddbe8626-984e-41d2-bafe-2fd3c790fdc3 (headline translated: Solita buys Swedish IT house and expands into Denmark and Belgium).
No interviews in these articles. Some of the articles have interviews with Solita's leadership, but there is no commercial cooperation marked in the articles (Finnish media always tells, if the article has been written as an ad), so I would rely on the thought, that the interviews have been made in order to get more info about the company.
Also, just to clarify: Tivi is a Finnish, independent technology media, which has been written a lot about Solita as Solita's business area is tech. 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks; I'll have a look at those sources, just need to walk our pooch first. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) Just tell if there is some issues with the articles, as they may be behind the paywall 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are exactly the sort of routine business reporting I mentioned: the KL article even says it's based on the company's press release, and I'm pretty sure the two Tivi articles also come from the company one way or another. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also just check something? You said you are not being paid to write this. Do you mean that you do not work for this company, or have any such relationship with it? Or only that you aren't being expressly paid to write this English-language article specifically? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the Finnish Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors and policies, and that what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so although the article is written by the independent choice of the media outlet, I can't use it as a source at all?
I don't work for Solita, or have any other connection to it except that I'm interested in Finnish tech companies and has been following it from the news. Thought it would be a nice touch if Solita would have also an English page since, as I also said before, it is a really nice example of a Finnish tech company that has been able to expand it business (we don't have it a lot here in Finland) :) 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checked also the Tivi articles, there are no mentions of them relying the info on Solita's press release, although it is natural, that they somehow get the info from the company as they are reporting about its numbers, leaders etc.
What kind of sources would you recommend to use then? When writing about a company, the news articles are best that I got, if Solita's web page can't be used that much (which I totally understand). I thought that reliable, independent Finnish media outlets would fit to be used as sources. :) 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources that don't merely discuss the activities of the company- they must go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about the company, not what the company sees as signficant about itself. If you only have sources that discuss the activities of the company, it would not merit an English Wikipedia article, even if it merits a Finnish Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reliable and independent media is what we're looking for. But there's more to it: the media should be writing or broadcasting about the subject of their own volition, not just filling their pages by regurgitating press releases or other materials put out by the company's marketing or comms team. The basic WP:GNG notability standard already requires this, but as WP:ORGCRIT makes clear, in what comes to articles on businesses, the bar is higher still.
This is probably as good a time as any to raise some of the other issues with this draft. I have a feeling that the fi.wiki original has been largely written by editors associated with the business. In doing so, they've presumably written what they or their bosses wanted to write, and then found some sources that may or may not fully support what they've written. That is how you end up with an article that has more marketing blurb and general fluff than actual encyclopaedic content, and that's also why it is then difficult to identify sources that actually establish notability. This is known as WP:BACKWARD editing. What you should do instead is find 3-5 solid sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria, and simply summarise what they have said, citing the sources as you go. That is how you end up with an acceptable article and the necessary referencing.
None of this is a criticism against you, as you haven't (presumably) written the original, only translated it, but by so doing you've become a victim of someone else's mistake (or at least what is considered a mistake here on en.wiki, even if it isn't on fi.wiki). What needs to be done now is, rather than translating the fi.wiki article per se, a new article should be written on this subject in English, following the process I've outlined here. That would have a much better chance of being accepted. Which is probably not at all what you wanted to hear. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidelines! I'll check if I can find sources that you described and edit the draft! Have a great day! 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 4 October 2023 review of submission by AshlyMel

[edit]

Please help to improve the article AshlyMel (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no. you improve it. ltbdl (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AshlyMel: just to unpack ltbdl's crisp reply, that's not the way the system works. We are not here to co-create/-edit articles, we're here to advise on the creation especially in what comes to getting the draft through the AfC review process. You submitted the draft, and it was declined. It is now your job to address the reasons for that decline, and then resubmit the improved draft, at which point a reviewer will again take a look at it and determine whether it can be accepted or not. This is true of any editor submitting drafts for review, and none more so than an editor who is actually paid to write their draft (unlike us here at the help desk who are all unpaid volunteers). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:46, 4 October 2023 review of submission by 80.155.22.6

[edit]

I am part of the communications and PR Department of Neumann Gruppe GmbH and my target is to translate the German Wikipedia article about the group in English. I do not understand why you don´t accept the article and why our own website isn´t a valid source since there almost does not exist other sources and the German article is accepted since years. 80.155.22.6 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the German Wikipedia has accepted an article on this subject is irrelevant. Each language version is a completely separate project. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we have our own policies and requirements, which you need to comply with for your draft to be accepted here.
Your company website is a valid source for verifying completely non-contentious facts (eg. location of your HQ, the names of your senior management team, etc.), but it contributes nothing towards notability, which is the reason why this draft was first declined and then rejected. We need to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the business, and if, as you say, such sources do not exist, then the subject is by definition not notable enough for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the English version of the German Wikipedia. This is the completely independent English Wikipedia, with its own policies and guidelines. Acceptable English language Wikipedia articles about businesses are based on summarizing references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the business. I recommend that you open an account and immediately comply with WP:PAID. Doing so would be a sign of good faith, and would facilitate collaboration with English Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion I used all other sources existing about facts that are non contentious. For other facts I used newsletter or press articles especially talking about the critics. Is there anything I could do? 80.155.22.6 (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion I used all other sources existing about facts that are non contentious. For other facts I used newsletter or press articles especially talking about the critics. Is there anything I could do? 80.155.22.6 (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Origagari

[edit]

Hi again,

Seyidullah Nebati is a known and loved businessman. It is quite normal for their information to be on Wikipedia and it has nothing to do with advertising or promotion. I truly and wholeheartedly convey to you that this article is not for advertising or promotional purposes. Can you help get it published?

Good Work. Origagari (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@origagari:
this is 100% promotional.
here's your lead paragraph:

Since 2000, he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of B&G Store, which has made its name known to the masses in the field of modern children's clothing and is the address of quality in the children's clothing sector today.

ltbdl (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Origagari What is your connection with him- which you must have since you took a picture of him? 331dot (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Origagari you completely ignored our strict requirements to use in-line citations? I declined the draft three times because you failed to do this. Qcne (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Tod888

[edit]

I have recently written an article about this company, but it was declined due to lack of sources and not being encyclopedic. I have done research on Google and used every source there was regarding the company and also mentioned their 0% commission policy, if this was the reason that it got declined I removed that part and re-submitted the article, also I checked similar articles on wikipedia, I couldn't spot any difference regarding the tone of articles, if there is anything else need to be done, I'll be happy to know, cause I also want to add couple more articles from the food industry. many thanks Tod888 (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tod888: I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, exactly, but this draft was declined as there is no evidence whatsoever that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can we make it notable? if you check on google I believe there are enough sources regarding the company, and also there are no claims about anything regarding the company, the article only contains information about the company and that's all, here is the additional info about the company: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC705051 Tod888 (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888 your usage of the word "We" suggests to me you are employed by Mealzo. You have been asked twice on your User Talk page to make a paid editing disclosure. You must do this immediately. Failure to do so will result in your account being blocked. See WP:PAID.
Note, companies house pages do nothing to establish notability. Qcne (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
by WE I mean YOU & I Tod888 (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888 you still have not confirmed if you are employed by the company or not. Please do this now. Qcne (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not employed by this company, I used to work in food industry for many years Tod888 (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming. Qcne (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't 'make' a subject notable; notability either is there, in which case this needs to be demonstrated through sourcing; or it isn't, in which case no amount of editing can magic it out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tod888. Of your three sources, two were sponsored by the company and one is probably sponsored. That means there isn't enough to establish notability under WP:NORG. Qcne (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do you recommend?
as I said I tried to check other related articles to make sure I'm not violating any rules & etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodhub
like what is the difference with this article? I'm asking just to know what needs to be done to make it valid Tod888 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888: drafts are assessed with reference to the relevant guidelines and policies, not by comparing to other articles that may exist out there (possibly with problems of their own). See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comparison is to know what is the issue with the article, if my article is almost same with the an already verified article, then it must have a reason, either they paid you to verify it or it's written by someone with authority to publish it by themselves. Tod888 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have millions of articles, many are unfortunately of poor quality and should have been deleted years ago. But we are volunteers, with limited amount of time to check every single article. Wikipedia content guidelines have also gotten tighter over the years, so what might have been acceptable in 2008 is no longer acceptable in 2023.
If you do want to compare to an existing article, choose an article from WP:GOOD.
Please answer if you are employed by Mealzo or not. Qcne (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not employed by this company, I used to work in food industry for many years
so long story's short if an article has more text it's considered as good article?
I can somehow agree with that, but when talk about a company, I don't think it's possible to write a large article about it, as It's not a person.
but if we get back to know the whole purpose of wikipedia, it's about a free information about stuff right? what is wrong to have an article about an information for a company? as there are many companies I know is not on wikipedia, like Order YOYO, What the fork & etc... I don't know why? Tod888 (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a business directory nor an indiscriminate collection of all the information in the world. Please have a read of WP:NOT. Articles about companies should only exist if there is evidence the company passes the WP:NORG criteria. So far, your sources in your draft do not prove how the company passes that criteria. It's as simple as that. Qcne (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888: the Foodhub article has much better sources than your draft; it demonstrates notability, whereas yours does not. That is the difference. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with respect, that's your opinion, check the sources:
https://techround.co.uk/news/touch2success-announces-big-foodie-acquisition-in-multi-million-pound-deal/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/shopping-deals/heres-how-free-takeaway-meal-22520910
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/how-two-school-friends-stoke-4553363
as both of these companies are part of the food industry, that's the only place you can find about them, NEWS, don't expect to find a an article on other sources? like where you want to find a source? president Biden's speech?
I know we are not going anywhere with talking here, but this kind of treatment is very suspicious in my opinion, your point is not valid Tod888 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NORG guideline genuinely explains what sources must exist to show if a company is "notable" by our standards. If the only sources you can find for Mealzo are sponsored, primary, or trivial mentions then there is not enough out there to warrant an article about this business. Perhaps there will be in the future if it expands and has more stuff written about it, but for now there is no evidence of notability.
The FoodHub article sources all contain significant coverage which are not sponsored by the company itself, unlike your two sources which were. I don't actually think the sources are great on the FoodHub article either- they're borderline - as some are PR statements or interviews with thee founders. But the key thing is that they weren't directly sponsored by the company. Two of your three sources are literally adverts masquerading as articles. Qcne (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I didn't notice the sponsored content on articles, I'll remove the sponsored links from the article and I'll add new information if there was any, appreciate your help Tod888 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888: you've now accused me twice, first of accepting payments, and now saying there is something "very suspicious" about my behaviour. Present your evidence, or withdraw the accusations, please. And either way, let that be the end of this line of personal attacks.
If you don't think the Foodhub article's sources demonstrate notability, feel free to propose that it is deleted. After all, that is no more, no less than what would happen to your draft if it were to be accepted in its current state. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody accused you for anything, I only raised my concern about the absence of clarity on your explanation, I won't propose to delete the article of Foodhub as I'm against censoring the so called startup companies.
Your judgement to not have these companies on wikipedia is questionable, and defeats the whole purpose of wikipedia. Tod888 (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you are mistaken. DoubleGrazing is an incredibly experienced reviewer who has a very good grasp on the guidelines that set out notability for topics on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888 I have left a warning on your talk page about your issuing of personal attacks. This behaviour must cease.
If you have any evidence to back uo your accusation "either they paid you to verify it" then present it by email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org without delay. The community takes a very jaundiced view of people who make false accusations.
It is in your interest and that of DoubleGrazing that you either present your evidence any once, or that you withdraw your accusation, ideally apologising. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Ajayksfg

[edit]

Not approve Ajayksfg (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajayksfg are you talking about Draft:Suraj_Kumar_Maurya? You have failed to submit it for review.
But there's no point in submitting it for review, as it would be declined. There is no evidence of notability. Qcne (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Ajayksfg

[edit]

How much take time for approval Ajayksfg (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajayksfg There are no drafts under your account. If you mean Draft:Suraj_Kumar_Maurya then you have failed to submit it for review. But there's no point in submitting it for review, as it would be declined. There is no evidence of notability. Qcne (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajayksfg: Draft:Suraj Kumar Maurya has not been submitted for review, so it is impossible to say how long this would take - forever? There is not much point in submitting it as it stands, either, as it would only be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Lndnfr

[edit]

Hi = I"m trying to edit this draft now - to start to correct citation issues as pointed out by Qcne etc = but I'm not seeing an option to Edit at the top of the window as is listed - please can you advise? Or am I completly missing it - I can see Edit Source only... or Read. Thank you Lndnfr (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"edit source" is what you need to click in order to edit the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Charlie Rosenbaum

[edit]

Hi, Hope you are doing well. I submitted an article about my biography. But the article was rejected because of the person is not notable. I am not sure how to write the article right way. Please help me write the article. Kindly, Charlie Rosenbaum Charlie Rosenbaum (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlie Rosenbaum: can I please just refer you to my earlier reply, above. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it for speedy deletion it is full of ridiculous puffery “has tirelessly worked”, “dedication to advocating for fairness and justice”, “Inspired by the wisdom and insights”’ “his remarkable achievements”, “an accomplished engineer”, ”Striving to make a difference in the lives of others”, “distinctive personal touch”, and more and more! Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left him my usual deletion notice. (The thing read like a campaign brochure.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Doodle inc.

[edit]

It was rejected Doodle inc. (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct it is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Fadinoja

[edit]

It's a theory i have and will be adding more details over time. Fadinoja (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for posting our personal theories, sorry. When independent reliable sources write about your theories, let us know.
d 331dot (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:36, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Lw4bdi

[edit]

Draft for new page Draft:Jennie Hudson was declined and clear reasons given. I wanted to reach out for advice on how to improve this for resubmission, if at all possible. When preparing this, I was referring to an existing Wikipedia page as a guide (a page of another academic who works with this person) - this page had only two sources and they were both affiliated with the subject directly. Can anyone shed light as to why a page like that was approved whereas the draft I submitted with a range of many sources is still insufficient? I understand I need more third-party sources, but I had gone out of my way to obtain what I thought were examples of this (mentions on government websites and other organisations, rather than just her current and previous employer). I have got a news article I could cite, but it's not anything in-depth as the feedback suggests I should find. Most news articles that refer to this person are just brief quotes and mentions about her role. I may be able to find something more in-depth to resubmit, but in any case, I am curious to understand where the line is drawn given that I was being guided by existing approved pages. Lw4bdi (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lw4bdi I fixed your link in the header for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:"). We don't need the whole url as well.
Please see other stuff exists. That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. The submission process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and it's not required of everyone. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about, which with millions of articles can be challenging. If you would like to help us, you can identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help.
The article you used as a model was frankly a poor choice if it only has two sources that are affiliated with the subject.
If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. Thanks so much for clarifying. I will have a look at the good ones and see if there is anything to be done. Lw4bdi (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_4&oldid=1179420062"