Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 May 28

= May 28 =

00:38:28, 28 May 2022 review of submission by NonzeroCornet34
So I was told my article looked like an advertisement. I'm not sure how, and therefore do not know how to edit said article to make it seem less like that. So how can I change it to make it good? NonzeroCornet34 (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This reads like a how-to guide. An article shouldn't be talking to/at the reader, nor should it be providing instructions. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 00:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was trying to explain the ins and outs of the language, but I see where you're coming from. How do I fix it? NonzeroCornet34 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You fix it by focusing on summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about the topic, instead of telling the specifics of the language itself. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What if only one source exists at all? NonzeroCornet34 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To merit an article, a topic must receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources- typically at least three. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

10:36:57, 28 May 2022 review of submission by Nautilus126
I am requesting a re-review for two reasons. First, the reason that was given for my article's rejection was that the subject is "insufficiently notable" for inclusion on Wikipedia. If this were the case, why would there be so many articles posted about her online, both from her native Malaysia and around the world? Other than the articles I cited in the references section, there are many more that I did not include as they were not relevant. Second, I am being paid by the subject to make this page, and I would like to get this over with after so many months.

I left a similar comment a few weeks ago and received a reply saying that a draft that has been rejected will no longer be considered further. In the event that viewers question why I am requesting a re-review/asking for help, I leave this explanation: under the "Submission rejected" comment, there is an "ask for advice" button, which brought me here. It says nothing about a draft not being further considered once it is rejected- in fact, I was directed to this page upon seeing the rejection comment. If a draft being rejected means it will no longer be considered, why would there be an "ask for advice" button that allows users to request a review?

I would greatly appreciate a reconsideration of the rejection of my draft as well as any recommendations on what I can add/remove to the article so that It can be published once and for all. Thank you! Nautilus126 (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The similar comment I mentioned was replied to with "A knowledgeable editor should answer here soon," but as time passed, my comment was erased before any editor could assist me. Nautilus126 (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read the comments left by reviewers. The sources that are out there are inappropriate for establishing notability, as many are primary sources, or do not have significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you made the formal paid editing declaration, but I may have missed it. The "ask for advice" is not necessarily for requesting a re-review, but for, well, asking about the rejection. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot: FYI, the paid editing notice is here (that's why I tagged the draft, as this was in an unusual location). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the input box for this page explicitly says "Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review."
 * Is there any information/source that can be removed in order to make the page more acceptable? Thank you. Nautilus126 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If you remove sources, you must have sources to replace them with and summarize. If those existed, the draft would not have been rejected, most likely. If you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage (that are not primary sources or brief) that you have not yet used, time to put your cards on the table. If you don't, my advice is to go to Sarah May Lowe and tell her you are unable to complete the task she gave you. If she specifically paid you to create an article, I would also suggest returning her money. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is noted, but what parts of the article do you think are referenced with sources that you consider to be "unacceptable"? I can just remove those portions and keep the other parts that have sources you believe are suitable. I would greatly appreciate your help on this if you can. Thanks, and I hope to hear from you soon. Nautilus126 (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any of the sources are suitable, and if by chance one or two were, that is insufficient. This has been explained to you and perhaps you are too invested in this to see that. I've said how I think you should proceed. You are certainly free to disregard me and see if others feel differently than I, but I think you would to be frank just be wasting your time and their time. I do wish you only the best. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Got this. I will speak to her and get back to you if she wishes me to continue. Thanks. Nautilus126 (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

15:49:30, 28 May 2022 review of draft by RajRum3ls
RajRum3ls (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

16:51:08, 28 May 2022 review of submission by The100%for real
The100%for real (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @The100%for real: because it wasn't an article, or even an attempt at one; it was barely legible, and from what I could gather, some sort of self-promo blurb. FYI, this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * {I F**king know its not a social media site but if you whould get your head out of your A*s then you would see that i am only doing this for other people} The100%for real (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't care. Attempts at using Wikipedia for SEO (which is pointless anyway, as the site is NOFOLLOWed) are always going to be declined. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Why was my artical declined

16:53:59, 28 May 2022 review of submission by 103.124.250.164
103.124.250.164 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

17:25:27, 28 May 2022 review of submission by 194.44.239.128
194.44.239.128 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)