Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 29

= January 29 =

05:04, 29 January 2024 review of submission by CognitiveMMA
Can you please specify any of the criteria that the article violates in response to the reason for rejection being cited as "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) and in response to the comment WP:NOTESSAY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOTESSAY and is there any Wikipedia policy that discourages the same group of editors from blocking publication of an article repeatedly without providing adequate justification of their reasons? CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

05:46, 29 January 2024 review of submission by CognitiveMMA
The talk page of the editor @Seawolf35 who rejected the article clearly shows that he was cooperating with the editor @MrOllie that I raised the ANI complaint about. Wikipedia is supposed to be about disseminating knowledge, not a personal club to settle vendettas. I don't even understand what vendetta they have other than telling me they thought I was just trying to publish an article to get my name in Wikipedia. However, I have no conflicts of interest whatsoever. Neither my name, nor citations of my work, nor mention of any organization I have ever been connected with appears in the article. I don't mind if they provide legitimate reasons for rejecting the article, but the ANI complaint shows they were providing clearly false reasons like saying that I've cited my own work, and then refusing to provide any detail to their comments. As I mentioned in the complaint, there has to be some way to address this disruptive behavior. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * op blocked indef. ltb d l (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

07:40, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Unnoon338
This Draft Article has been rejected with no reason. The page creator is not a sock puppet user and i let you know that please review it and Move to the main Space. Thank you Unnoon338 (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI for those reviewing. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Confirmed, Unnoon338 is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

07:59, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Swalahu1212
Why this got rejected Swalahu1212 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Swalahu1212: as it said in the rejection notice, there was no evidence of notability. It was subsequently deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

09:06, 29 January 2024 review of submission by 45.117.64.14
What went wrong? I really did not understand. 45.117.64.14 (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that the subject is notable, and this after several earlier declines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

09:37, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Anurangafernando10
why not upload  Anurangafernando10 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Anurangafernando10: what do you mean?
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you need to find a different site for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

10:43, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Footy031982
Could you please inform me what kind of content and how many separate pieces are required, there are multiple supporting references included but appreciate these may not be the right kind which is what is resulting in the ongoing referrals to be declined. Kindest Regards Footy031982 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Any discussion of this would be academic, as the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Your sources seem to just summarize match results and their activities, no significant coverage as to what independent sources consider to be important/significant/influential about this person. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

13:08, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Coileater
why did my article get deleted? Coileater (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your draft was not deleted, it is located at Draft:MS Postira. It was declined due to the reason given by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

14:05, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Schwepps
My page keeps on getting rejected. There is a through list of credible sources, so not sure what the issue is. Schwepps (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (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.
 * You have just summarized the routine business activities of the company. Any article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article.
 * If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

14:15, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Juanese1990
Soccer Juanese1990 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Juanese1990: if you wish to ask a question, ask a question, but please stop posting these cryptic one/two-word messages, which are not helpful at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

15:39, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Fjnovoa
I would like to resubmit this article, all citations using FamilySearch have been removed as requested. Fjnovoa (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Rejected drafts typically may not be resubmitted. If you believe you have fundamentally changed the draft and addressed the concerns of reviewers, you should first attempt to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How do I appeal and reach 331dot (talk); could you please guide me how to send this person a message? Fjnovoa (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fjnovoa: by going to their user talk page User talk:Star Mississippi and clicking on the 'add topic' button in the top menu; this will create a new discussion thread where you can post your message. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

20:20, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Fjnovoa
I have attempted to reach out to StarMississippi and cannot get through or get a response. I do not want my article deleted, I have made edit changes, please. Fjnovoa (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Fjnovoa give @Star_Mississippi time to respond. We're all volunteers here. As far as I can see you only reached out to them today.  Qcne  (talk)  21:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind response. Fjnovoa (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Qcne and @DoubleGrazing (above thread). I have responded. Apologies for the delay.
 * My weekday on wiki hours are limited Star   Mississippi  01:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

21:58, 29 January 2024 review of submission by LibrariesStillRock
The declination of this draft said it reads like "advertisement" rather than encyclopedic. Can someone show me how that's the case and how I can amend it? I understand the idea and want to fix anything I wrote that came across as an advertisement. I pulled every claim and fact from sources, but it's my first submission, so please do let me know what I should change to reflect impartial research. Thank you! LibrariesStillRock (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @LibrariesStillRock: when this draft was declined, it did have quite a lot of promotional and 'peacock' language in it, some of which appears to have been since removed. But even now, it gives the impression of trying to praise or 'sell' the subject, whereas you should merely describe him in boring, factual manner. And content such as the last para in the 'Sterling Foundation Management' section ("The company's website lists some client-approved testimonials. Those statements include...") is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article, even one on the foundation itself, let alone an indirectly related person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, that makes sense. My thinking was just to give a glimpse at what and who he works with, but I can see how that sounds promotional. I think I was too focused on trying to prove "notability." LibrariesStillRock (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)