Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 6

= October 6 =

07:02, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 105.113.68.134
Hi, can I get a list of acceptable submissions references? 105.113.68.134 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure quite what you mean. If you go to WP:YFA, you should find pretty much everything you need there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec)I fixed the link to your(now deleted) draft, it was lacking the "Draft:"); the bigger problem you have is that the draft was deleted as blatant promotion. Articles must be written in a neutral point of view, summarizing what independent reliable sorces choose on their own to say about a person, showing how they are notable as Wikipedia defines it.
 * There is no list of acceptable references, but a list of commonly discussed sources may be found at WP:RSP; this should give you an idea of what makes a source acceptable(and not). 331dot (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

09:03, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Kueth nyanuor
dear Editors kindly review my recent edition of the article on my Sandbox and please looking forward to Advises. Kueth nyanuor (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kueth nyanuor your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It's completely unacceptable for Wikipedia.  Qcne  (talk)  09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

12:28, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Giftntreat4u
Why Showing Spam. Giftntreat4u (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

13:52, 6 October 2023 review of submission by ShearwaterNY
My first article was rejected. Is it redeemable or should I give up? I suspect that maybe my sources are not solid enough to get it over the line, but if it's possible to amend it and get it approved I'd very much like to try!

Thanks! ShearwaterNY (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed your post so the link is properly displayed. We don't need the url.
 * If you are associated with this company, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
 * Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I have no association with the company. I was under the impression that the company would meet the notable company threshold on the basis of the Fast Company awards and the accompanying articles. Fast Company is not listed among the unreliable sources. There is also an AdWeek article, although I'm less confident of that being a considered a reliable source. ShearwaterNY (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

14:52, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Curious curious7
I was applying my article about FS Group multiple times and all of them were rejected due to "marketing" reasons. The frustration of multiple rejections is compounded by the fact that the review process has dragged on for nearly one month. With every passing day, my enthusiasm for using Wikipedia continues to wane.I need to re-consider it urgently and I require detailed explanation what exact text didn't pass your filters in the previous version. The last one I tried to make as much neutral as possible. Thank you. Curious curious7 (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Curious curious7: I haven't looked at the sources yet to see if they establish notability, but I've scanned through the text and I was left with the distinct impression that this is a rather ROTM company that does some stuff and collaborates with others and services some clients. Can you tell me why an article on this business should be included in a global encyclopaedia? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers, doing what they can when they can. As stated on the draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,550 pending submissions waiting for review."
 * Do you have a connection to FS Group? 331dot (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

15:51, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 41.13.104.85
i was trying to add some information about Agnes Pareyio 41.13.104.85 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why did you title the draft Draft:Bishop Thembani Mukoki??? Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

16:05, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Flagship1537
Hello. I drafted this article two months ago. An editor refused to allow it to be published as it used a blog on Irish aviation for some references. However, I have sources other local printed newspaper references to improve the article. These are not available online however, but I am looking to get permission to upload scans of these to Wikimedia, and link them from there. But all of the other current references I have used in the drat are linked to credible sources or civil record documentation. How can I move this on so this article (my first) can be published. Thank you for your advice. Flagship1537 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Flagship1537: you shouldn't be uploading scans of anything, as a) there is a risk of copyright violation, and b) we do not need to see scans of offline publications, you simply cite them as described in WP:OFFLINE.
 * This draft has been resubmitted and will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up, which could take days, weeks or even months; please be patient. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

16:15, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Rathorenareshrathore
when can I submit draft of Adel Rahman. Rathorenareshrathore (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rathorenareshrathore: given the fact that this draft was rejected, and given the comments about why, I'd say only when something has fundamentally changed and there is a reasonable prospect of the subject being genuinely notable. (And then you need to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected this latest draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

16:17, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Rafiul Officail
Sir This is The Original Article Of RAFIUL ISLAM SAGOR Rafiul Officail 16:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rafiul Officail: a) that's not a question; b) this draft has been rejected; and c) what is your relationship with the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

16:21, 6 October 2023 review of submission by TheShubh77
Hi,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently submitted a Wikipedia draft for "ZongMu Technology," and I received notification of its rejection. I understand and appreciate the rigorous standards and guidelines that Wikipedia upholds to maintain the quality and accuracy of its content. However, I believe that the ZongMu Technology article has valuable information to offer and should be included on Wikipedia.

I would like to request a reconsideration of my draft for inclusion on Wikipedia. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and am willing to make any necessary changes to ensure the article meets the community's standards. Furthermore, I plan to expand the article by adding more comprehensive and well-referenced information to make it a valuable resource for Wikipedia users.

ZongMu Technology is a significant entity in its field, and I believe that having an article about it on Wikipedia would be beneficial to the community. It can serve as a reliable source of information for those seeking to learn more about the company's history, products, innovations, and contributions to the industry.

I kindly request that you reconsider the ZongMu Technology draft for inclusion on Wikipedia. I am committed to collaborating with the Wikipedia community to ensure that the article meets all necessary criteria and contributes positively to the platform's content.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to work together to make this article a valuable addition to Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Shubham Bhamare TheShubh77 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @TheShubh77: this draft was not rejected, only declined; that means that you can resubmit it for "reconsideration", once you have addressed the reason(s) for declining. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done! I resubmitted the draft after doing necessary changes. TheShubh77 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

16:25, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Rafiul Officail
Sorry Sir We Have Mistake Rafiul Officail 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rafiul Officail: that's still not a question; did you have one in mind you would like to ask? And please don't start a new thread each time, you can just reply to your earlier thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

16:42, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Ahmed.bn.hossain
Help on a draft Please help me understand the reason for the rejection of the draft that you edited.

I've added sources from reliable sites and I don't know the reason for the rejection. Ahmed.bn.hossain (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If you mean, then that has not been rejected, only declined. And it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice – have you read them? In any case, this has been resubmitted and is awaiting a new review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ahmed.bn.hossain I have now rejected the draft, it will not be considered further.  Qcne  (talk)  22:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

18:15, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 2600:4041:5CB4:D700:542A:746B:730F:80E
Hi there, a few editors have made changes and weighed in on the draft which I really appreciate. My question is if the copyright violations still exist? and for which text? If I'm interpreting the edits correctly, I believe the submission was cleaned of the noted copyright violation.

I would also love more clarity on making the draft less 'singing own praises' per Utopes editor comment. The mission statement is a legal requirement of nonprofits, and I completely understand this organization's mission seems very lofty, but I can't change it since it is what it is. I'm happy to leave it off of the page per the editor's removal but wanted as much clarity as possible and to share that is why it was included in the first place! 2600:4041:5CB4:D700:542A:746B:730F:80E (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Mission statements are of no interest whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Mission statement are wholly unencyclopedic, as they are written by the organization to describe itself, and can be changed at any time. Nonprofits are treated no difficulty than for profits by Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

20:03, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 173.66.208.221
My draft has been rejected multiple times now because of the sources used. How am I supposed to find in-depth sources when the technology that is being used is relatively new? I have been following instructions and reviewing other sites tackling similar issues around cleaner energy production and distribution and I'm seeing links to PDF articles that have been archived. Do I need to go back and find unpublished sources? 173.66.208.221 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your inability to find sources is a strong indication that it is WP:TOOSOON for us to have an article at this time. Theroadislong (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted.  "Declined" means it may be resubmitted- but in this case, if there are not yet sources available to summarize, the topic would not yet merit an article. That doesn't mean forever, just not now. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

20:44, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Shout4Serenity
The article has been declined due to some unreliable sources. I would like to know which sources they are so I can make improvements to the draft Shout4Serenity (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

21:50, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Sandeepgahlot
I really want this WikiProject published and I want to know what I need to do to correct the errors I made from the last review which says that my submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Sandeepgahlot (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your connection with the doctor? (since you took a photo of him)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You had no sources with significant coverage of the doctor. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sandeepgahlot you didn't bother to read any of the decline notices which explained what was wrong with your draft. After four reviews I rejected it, as you clearly had no interest in writing to our guidelines. The draft will not be considered further.  Qcne  (talk)  22:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No improvement to in-line citations, and written in a promotional way.
 * I just found out that you included this comment in your review. I will make the corrections, Kindly give one more chance Sandeepgahlot (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your connection to this doctor? 331dot (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)