Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 6

= February 6 =

01:35, 6 February 2024 review of submission by 41.145.193.132
I want to understand why the wiki declin the application of his imperial highness prince Estifanos matewos and want to re sumit 41.145.193.132 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to tell you as you haven't actually linked to such a draft, and it isn't associated with your IP address. If you have an account, log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

02:26, 6 February 2024 review of submission by Yevrowl
Greetings all! I ask for help in saving this article on chess theory. This opening is extremely rare and accordingly there is very little information on it... Yevrowl (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, . When you write, that means that the topic is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. What is required are references to several independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

03:01, 6 February 2024 review of submission by Arun0022
I have submitted the article and it has been rejected. Can u please give me an advice that how can I publish the article? Arun0022 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , your draft is overtly promotional and has been rejected. Please read WP:TOOSOON. Cullen328 (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay.. what's the further step I should take? Arun0022 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Arun0022: there is no further step to take, rejection means the end of the road, for now at least. As the TOOSOON point has been made already, this subject may become notable in the future, at which point you can return to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

06:06, 6 February 2024 review of submission by MarkO2274
Requesting information behind the rejection of my article MarkO2274 (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , an acceptable Wikipedia article requires references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. None of your sources meet that standard. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

09:37, 6 February 2024 review of submission by Jebimathew
Can you please inform, what are the changes required in this page? Jebimathew (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The reviewers left you messages telling you exactly what is needed on the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

10:36, 6 February 2024 review of submission by ShamshanKali
May I know why this was declined and when I am going to create next, what precautions, I have to take. Please guide me. ShamshanKali (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not a reliable source so cannot be used to establish any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

14:55, 6 February 2024 review of submission by Francisi1990
Uyes Francisi1990 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your draft is blank, do you have a question? Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

15:23, 6 February 2024 review of submission by FashionableSavage
In the latest draft rejection, the reviewer said: "Most of these sources appear to be press releases or recycled press releases." The majority, if not all, the sources are reporting from staff reporters at reputable publications. Can you offer guidance? FashionableSavage (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @FashionableSavage: this draft hasn't been rejected, only declined, meaning you're welcome to resubmit once you've addressed the decline reason(s).
 * It is true that most of the sources are primary, including some that explicitly refer to announcements made by the organisation, suggestin that they are indeed based on press releases etc. The first two are possibly the best in this respect, although given that they are the same author at the same publication, they only really count as a single source. Most organisations and advocacy groups are pretty good at getting their message out, and business/trade/sector publications have notoriously low news thresholds and will often accept content put out by such organisations without much editorial input or filtering. The WP:ORGCRIT guideline expressly sets the bar quite high to counter precisely this sort of publicity management. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: I've posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is helpful! Will take a closer look. FashionableSavage (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

17:18, 6 February 2024 review of submission by Lightskinxmarii
Was not published. Why? Lightskinxmarii (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page" Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

21:42, 6 February 2024 review of submission by 79.125.181.73
This article is rejected because of improper sourcing. Is the problem that the sources are not any longer visible? (The older articles from European newspapers are not any more available online). Does this make the sources unreliable/ not verifiable in "Wikipedia-logic" ? 79.125.181.73 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Offline sources are fine, but you should provide detail (date, publisher, author, stuff like that) so we can identify and verify as much as we can that the source exists and generally discusses the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)