Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 9

= January 9 =

01:42:56, 9 January 2023 review of submission by Presto222
Presto222 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I request a review because I am working on projecting researchers working on eliminating malaria and therefore. My job is to give them the recognition they deserve and to help sell their amazing work. I ask for more time to get this through.
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to honor or recognize someone. It definitely is not a place to talk up someone's work for the sake of doing so. I must agree with the comments left by reviewers. If you have a connection to this person, please read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Presto222 The draft is also devoid of inline references (in the first 3 sections).  And 331dot is right, of course. David10244 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

06:21:49, 9 January 2023 review of draft by 41.116.126.169
Hi there, I keep getting a page declined but the subject is an extremely well-known producer who has been working over 20 years with many award nominations including an Oscar list. Not sure what I need to do to get it accepted as many less reputable people have pages. I have 10 high quality references as well. Thanks

41.116.126.169 (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This has been declined for lack of apparent notability. Most of the sources cited provide only passing mentions of the subject. The three exceptions being #7, 8 and 9 (as the refs are currently numbered; one of these wasn't there when the draft was last reviewed), of which the latter two are just appointment news (equivalent to routine business reporting), and 7 alone isn't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. So respectfully, I will have to disagree about the refs being particularly "high quality".
 * Alternatively, the WP:DIRECTOR special notability guideline has four possible routes to notability — which one does this person, in your view, satisfy, and what evidence is there to support that?
 * Finally, please log into your account, assuming you have one, so we can address you. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

08:40:33, 9 January 2023 review of submission by Shadysbook
The company is one of the top three fertility clinics in India. Not sure why its is getting rejected. It has presence across India with 30+ branches. Need to reconsider once again Shadysbook (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted on the draft, your company does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company at this time. The sources offered are not significant coverage of the company- coverage that describes on their own, and not based on materials from the company, how it is significant or influential. The sources offered are brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, or glowing promotional pieces by the company or paid for by it(the "Prime Insights" one lacks a byline, a strong indicator of promotion). This draft will not be reconsidered in the near future, absent newer, appropriate sources being found for this draft to summarize instead of its current content. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

14:28:16, 9 January 2023 review of draft by Lazarmarkovic112
Hello, i am making a page about my friend who is professional football player here in Serbia, idk why you declined it last time.

This is him. https://www.transfermarkt.com/filip-mirkovic/profil/spieler/763766 https://www.srbijasport.net/player/8640-filip-mirkovic

Thank you very much. Lazarmarkovic112 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Lazarmarkovic112: this draft has no references, and therefore no evidence of notability. Please see WP:REFB for advice.
 * Given that, as you say, you are writing about a friend of yours, you also need to make a conflict-of-interest declaration; I will post a message on your talk page with more information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

18:58:36, 9 January 2023 review of submission by MKL123
I am am requesting re-review because other less successful drivers have articles exactly like this. MKL123 (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @MKL123 Please see Other Stuff Exists. Maybe those other articles should be deleted. David10244 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

19:55:46, 9 January 2023 review of submission by Fluffysandbox
Fluffysandbox (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I probably need help fixing what ive written
 * Not sure you can fix a hoax? Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

22:13:35, 9 January 2023 review of submission by 32.219.212.180
Requesting the submission review to add more content to and provide more references for Cyber Protect, going forward. 32.219.212.180 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)