• Robertprescott (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tre Wright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The "Nominations" Section keeps grouping together for some reason. Can you please let me know how to fix this issue? It looks fine in the coding before I Publish.

Robert 02:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robertprescott: - looks like you've fixed it on your own - congrats, I still don't like adding multiple tables! Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaron Justin Giebel (talk · contribs)
  • Kiddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Kiddle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

check it out Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• n.b. to other reviewers - this is post the MfD discussion - it probably is worth examining the close (if only to determine exact reasoning), beyond just encouraging a re-submit. As I was involved in the MfD I don't feel I should do it Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A small amount of information isn't really a decline rationale. Looks notable enough for me, so I've promoted and cleaned. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fackingcat (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hey Travelista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added much more citation to the page to increase the credibility. Thanks Fackingcat (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fackingcat: - thanks for adding the sourcing. You've resubmitted so it will be reviewed again in time. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 118.179.42.54 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Syed Omar Faruk Towaha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you tell me, why this page cannot be added to Wikipedia? Here is the quick url: https://www.google.com/search?q=towaha 118.179.42.54 (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@118.179.42.54: - just showing up on google doesn't prove notability. You've got lots of references but they're functionally all unreliable. Like Wikipedia itself, wikias can't be reliable. Neither can blogs, linkedIn etc. The original decline notice (the lower red box) has blue links setting our the four things you need your sources to be - Secondary, reliable, independent with Significant Coverage. Click through them and get an idea of various issues. Look for sources (especially reviews) in newspapers etc Nosebagbear (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Livinginthepink (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kevin Wendell Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Livinginthepink (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki page in question was approved and about 2 months later someone came through and did an AFD. He won the top musical band competitions in the Military that was covered by Stars and Strips in Germany that is a verifiable source. Looking to see what else is needed to get the page approved again. Livinginthepink (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Livinginthepink, The result of the AfD is delete - see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Wendell Jones and its reasons and believe subject fails musician notability requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sami Ullah Jutt (talk · contribs)
  • Sami Ullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Sami Ullah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sami Ullah Jutt (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sami Ullah Jutt: - This draft, which is being used as a resume, is currently facing deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sami Ullah Nosebagbear (talk)

• NOTNWiki (talk · contribs)

Please i have been informed this article didn't meet certain standard. How can i right this wrong. NOTNWiki (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTWiki - The reviewer commented on not having enough inline citations for a Biography of a living person. You have done so in certain parts, but not later in the article. You also need to remove the external links in the body of the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 124.253.98.65 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sofia Chaudry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

124.253.98.65 (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@124.253.98.65: - Hi there. Unfortunately the decline and then rejection notice (along with the comments) explain why this was not suitable for acceptance.

It lacks suitable sources needed to pass musician notability requirements. This is usually done with multiple reviews of their music, but there are a few other possible methods you can read about. Any of the sources you use for this need to be "In-depth, secondary, reliable, independent" - none of these 4/5 conditions are met with the current sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Woywodt (talk · contribs)
  • Boje Postel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Boje Postel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Woywodt (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can I ask for advice on why this was rejected and what I need to do to get it accepted? kind regards Alex Woywodt

The article currently only has one source. Wikipedia articles must, generally speaking, demonstrate notability which is evidenced by significant coverage. To your question "what I need to do to get it accepted" - the most likely thing is add more sources that would demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. Chetsford (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KatieGPO (talk · contribs)
  • Pimlico Opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Pimlico Opera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Can you please tell me why our subject topic can't be approved on Wikipedia?

KatieGPO (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KatieGPO. Please clarify what you mean by "our". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals.

Your choice of username suggests you have a connection to Grange Park Opera (GPO), a sister concern of Pimlico Opera. Depending on the nature of that connection, you may have a conflict of interest when writing about Pimlico Opera. Editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. If you do so anyway, be transparent about it.

Creating a new encyclopedia article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating endeavors a novice Wikipedian can attempt. Given that you have been unable to bring the draft into an acceptable state despite advice from five different reviewers, you don't appear to be prepared for the task. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for alternatives.

---

Attention reviewers (Chetsford—AngusWOOF—Atlantic306—KylieTastic—Bkissin): I agree with Chetsford's rejection comment that, "it's clear this is going nowhere", at least under the hand of the original author. However, searches turn up ample independent, reliable sources containing in-depth coverage of the organization's activities (some of which I've added to a "further reading" section). The topic meets WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT; Wikipedia should have an article about it. If no one has time to rewrite it, what do you think of stubbing the draft and kicking it into mainspace for independent development? --Worldbruce (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it and promote. If the topic is a good topic it should be in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have always understood the AfC reviewing instructions, we have to evaluate the article based on what is presented (unlike AfD where a BEFORE is expected prior to nomination or !voting). However, I have full faith in Worldbruce and Legacypac's good judgment and no objection to the proposed solution. Chetsford (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is correct for declines. If we are going to reject than I think a before search may be a good idea. I don't find this page very promotional or problematic as it is. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks significantly improved since I last reviewed, although still needs improvement happy with it being accepted. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nirupammathur (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Miraj Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been waiting for a reply since I've resubmitted my draft for a review again. I'm looking forward for any corrections, if needed. So kindly look into the matter soon. Nirupammathur (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted twice now as spam/advertising. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lepeterson23 (talk · contribs)

I am hoping for more clarification on why the sources I selected were not appropriate. Are there just sections of the content that aren't passing the criteria (and if they are removed or revised it will pass) or is it the full thing? My sources include articles in newspapers and magazines where Build & Imagine is the focus of the analysis. I'd love guidance on how to improve. thanks!

Lepeterson23 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lepeterson23 - I didn't check each of them, however, on a cursory review I note a few issues: sources like Kickstarter, QVC and Crunchbase are considered user-generated or in other ways WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject; press releases, likewise, are not really usable (except occasionally to source uncontroversial facts). (Also, just a friendly reminder to make a WP:COI disclosure, if required!) Chetsford (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lepeterson23 - Your draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, and is about what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what others have written about the company. Many of the sources that you have listed restate what the company says about itself. The issue is not so much one of verifiability as of corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• CacHA (talk · contribs)

There is currently a Norwegian Wikipedia entry about Christoph Cox. It seems to me there should be an English-language entry. CacHA (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CacHA - while it may be true that there should be an English-language entry for Christoph Cox, our WP:BLPSOURCES policy has a brightline requirement that articles on living persons have sources of some type. The draft, in its current form, has none aside from external links in the body of the article which would likely be removed, leaving it prone to WP:PROD. Chetsford (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• John West (X) (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John West (Actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

John West (X) (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Bangin Hard in the School Yard)

    (Power to the People's Court)

    (No Place Like Hell)

    (Sideways)

    (Cop or Not)

    (The Outspoken King) 

    (Strange Day) 

@John West (X): Please stop posting copies of Draft:John West (Actor) in various places. It does not help you and is disruptive. If you have a question, state it with a link to the draft, not a copy.

Based on the available information, West is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). The relevant notability guidelines are WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. Although signed to various teams, he never ended up on their regular season playing rosters. Although he has appeared in notable films and television shows, his roles in them have been minor, not significant ones.

If you add citations to multiple, independent, reliable sources, containing significant coverage of West, then his notability can be re-evaluated. Otherwise, you may wish to explore alternative outlets for your work, ones that have different inclusion criteria, such as FamilySearch. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 108.231.202.181 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sofia Chaudry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What can I do to get this page published? 108.231.202.181 (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do to get the page accepted here, because the subject is not notable. As her career progresses, she may become notable, but now it is WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]