• Vietcuongdao (talk · contribs)

Dear Wikipedians,

Regarding to my article 4000 Years of civilization, I would like to explain to Wiki readers that the figure of 4000 years is written and calculated through historic periods with concrete evidences. As most of readers talk much about 4000 years but do not know how it is developed and shaped ^[1]. Moreover, some readers have doubt on this figure (We have how many years of civilization?)^[2].

The phrase of 4000 Years of civilization is true fact based on the historic development in East Asia countries.

Thank for your kind assistance,

Đào Việt Cường--vietcuongdao (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References:

vietcuongdao (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mikellysgri (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Prabhash Subasinghe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have edited this document to make it look less like advertising material. Prabhash is a pioneer in the Sri Lankan business world and an highly commended individual, i believe that he is a noteworthy businessmen who has achieved local and global success at a very young age. He is on several Board committees in leading organization and corporate around Sri Lanka, thereby adding value to all verticals of business, including leading Banks, Insurance Agencies, Government Organizations, Industry related Chambers. Prabhash has been invited to professionally addressed several local and international seminars, AGMs and conferences, thereby adding value to the marketplace. Mikellysgri (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikellysgri. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic. What is needed is quality, not quantity. If there aren't 3 solid sources, having 15 poor ones won't get the draft accepted, and if there are 3 solid sources, having 12 other weak ones will only obscure that fact. Examining five of the cited sources at random:

• GRI Tires is not independent.
• TVH is a primary source interview in which Subasinghe talks about his company with no independent analysis by the interviewer. It is neither independent nor secondary. It is also published by a company in the trade instead of being a scholarly or journalistic source. With no reputation for fact checking or accuracy, it probably is not reliable.
• Daily FT contains only two sentences about Prabhash Subasinghe.
• SDB Bank is a capsule bio supplied by Subasinghe, so not independent.
• Daily News contains a single sentence about Subasinghe.

Of these, Daily FT and Daily News are the best, but they are far short of being significant coverage. An example of significant coverage of a businessman in an independent, reliable, secondary source is this article about Freedman. If you can't find significant coverage of Subasinghe, he may not be as noteworthy as you feel he is. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Vnarsimhan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pixstone Images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a company which is more than 6 years in the Visual Effects industry (VFX) and highly recommend this company because it is contributing significantly to the industry with the latest technology. Let me know what else needed to get it accepted? Thammudu (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thammudu (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vnarsimhan. The cited sources don't show that the company meets the primary criteria for notability (for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Most businesses do not, regardless of their age or whether they are "contributing significantly" to their industry. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 72.132.28.246 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sean Borg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

72.132.28.246 (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get help wit the article?

@72.132.28.246: - the article doesn't have multiple high quality sources about the individual. Reading about the style of article (the psILoveYou), it looks like the subject actually provides the content themselves. As such, this isn't much use as a source. Basic criteria set out the minimum needs for a biography Nosebagbear (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Davies717 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:RLC Ventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Davies717 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Davies717, there's an empty heading above that says "Delete this page". Did you mean to add it as part of this entry? If so, it will not be deleted. It was created by another user long before you started yet another version yesterday at User:Davies717/sandbox and submitted it for review. It was rejected because of the existence of the other draft. You need to work on improving the existing Draft:RLC Ventures. It's fine to replace the existing content there with the contents of your sandbox. However, note that it is still highly unlikely to be accepted. The references are not of the quality needed to establish the notability of a company. Also, if you have been paid to write this article either as a contractor or as an employee of the company, you are required to declare this. Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure for more information. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Davies717, another point. You do not appear to have written the contents of User:Davies717/sandbox yourself. You copied it verbatim from Draft:RLC Ventures. Please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Given that your version is virtually the same as Draft:RLC Ventures and that draft has been permanently rejected as a hopelessly unsuitable topic, I think you are wasting your time trying to pursue this further. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lekkala R Reddy (talk · contribs)
  • User:Lekkala R Reddy/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi team,

Namastey from India.

I've created a page was rejected by user: CNMall41 on 24 July.

It was flagged saying that this submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is previously deleted article about the same person and the protection log. I agree, may it was deleted earlier lack of reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient sourcing). Now, he has handsome reliable sources and notability. Google is showing his notability too https://g.co/kgs/6TLjbg

Kundan Srivastava is a noted human rights activist and working since many years from the young age featured in BBC World Service and International media for his fearless and selfless works. Secondly, Please help me to know that on which ground Kundan’s article was actually rejected now? Only because the article about him was deleted earlier many times created by different contributors? I have mentioned the reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient).

I’d request you to check the draft once. https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/User:Lekkala_R_Reddy/sandbox Please help me to get this article published; if meet all the guidelines. I'll be highly grateful to you.

I believe Wikipedia is for those people who’re doing some notable works in respective fields. Kundan deserves to be included in Wikipedia directory because of his notability.

Many thanks,

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been answered above in your many other identical posts. Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnadaniels (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:NEXTGEN SANDBOX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I took a lot of time to write this wiki article which may help someone if they wanted information on a video game named NEXTGEN SANDBOX. I searched Wiki and did not find any information on this game so I thought it would be helpful for people. It was rejected with no reason and no recourse.

Johnadaniels (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given was clearly stated as "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnadaniels (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:NEXTGEN SANDBOX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Wiki,

When would a video game be considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Here is a PS4 game named P.T., why would it be on Wiki but NEXTGEN SANDBOX cannot be on Wiki? https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/P.T._(video_game)

Sincerely, John

Johnadaniels (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnadaniels The article P.T. (video_game) has 70 reliable sources, your draft has none. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D47:FAC2:8CB2:A484 (talk · contribs)
  • Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz HD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz HD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is this taking so long?

2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D47:FAC2:8CB2:A484 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D47:FAC2:8CB2:A484: - it's taking so long because more editors than we've ever had before are submitting drafts for review. This is great, but all reviewers are volunteer experienced editors and there's only a limited number of us and a limited amount of time we can give to reviewing them. As such, the max time to review goes up.

More importantly for you, currently this draft would not be accepted. You need multiple sources talking about the game itself. This is generally difficult before it comes out (they can't just say it's being made, they've got to talk about it), though not impossible. It may be preferable for it not to be reviewed until pre-release reviews start being made. When they do, add them as sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]