• Emilkpaul (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pentecostal Church Bethel AOG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Emilkpaul (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emilkpaul: You need to provide in-line citations to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are primarily and specifically about Pentecostal Church Bethel AOG. This Adherents.com page only mentions Pentecostalism in general, not specifically Pentecostal Church Bethel AOG. The other two sources don't discuss PCB AOG either.

You can find detailed but simple instructions here on how to write an article that will be approved in no time. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian,

Reference 3 clearly sites Bethel Assembly of God Church. How many reference do I require to get the page approved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilkpaul (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emilkpaul: Ok, yes, the horse club reference does mention the church just once in one line (out of dozens) on one page (out of dozens again). That reference is not primarily about the church and it provides no real information about it whatsoever, so it's just as much dead weight as the other sources. You still need at least three sources that are specifically and primarily about the church.

Again, if you just follow these simple steps, the article will be ready in no time. This will also prevent the next concern that will come up: promotional and non-neutral language.

And in the future, respond below the post you're responding to. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Emilkpaul (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pentecostal Church Bethel AOG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Made necessary changes as requested, please let me know if any thing more need to be done get the page published Emilkpaul (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Emilkpaul (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pentecostal Church Bethel AOG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear David,

Made few changes as per the guidelines provided. Please advice if any changes are required to get the page published.

Emilkpaul (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emilkpaul. Three trivial mentions do nothing to show that the organization is notable. They also can't support any content to speak of, only that the church exists and Binuraj is the pastor. That isn't an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not a directory listing of organizations. You may wish to consider alternative outlets with different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N.K.Monda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkmonda12 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IP JG (talk · contribs)
  • Suzuki Marine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Suzuki Marine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A draft article that I submitted was rejected. I'm hoping to find out why it was rejected and if there's anything I can do to improve it's suitability for publication.

IP JG (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that rejection. I've accepted the page. Obviously notable. Legacypac (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jtfoxx9826 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Jtfoxx9826/sandbox/JT Foxx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need advice or tips on how to get approved. This is wikipedia pages is for person Jtfoxx9826 (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't spam Wikipedia with your promotion. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Revanth Yadav 116 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ramakrishnapuram Neredmet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Revanth Yadav 116 (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No question. No references. Page not ready for evaluation. It is a place so it will be accepted once you supply proper references. Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 144.178.14.10 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jack Cook (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

144.178.14.10 (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not submit this. My original article for Jack Cook was erased. This is illegal censorship against Federal Laws on non discriminatory tax deductions used for non profit donations to Wiki Foundation.

@144.178.14.10: - firstly, per No Legal Threats - if you make legal threats against either Wikimedia or another editor, you have to pursue those actions in the courts. They cannot be pursued on-wiki - any non-retracted legal threat is grounds for a block while legal action is ongoing.

I assume you are referring to Jack Cook - where you attempted to create a disambiguation page without the pages it would link to actually existing yet? Disambig pages only really need to exist once you're up to three articles (not drafts).

With respect to this specific draft, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. The two sources are only one, as they are duplicates. The one source is questionable, as it doesn't actually cover Jack himself in a great deal of detail.

Believing that your draft did not meet our article requirements is not an act of censorship. Look for more sources in reliable secondary forms that cover him in detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Liff182 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Roberts (EDAPT) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I have used multiple, reputable sources for this article. Sources include national newspapers in the UK and Edapt is a nation-wide organisation supporting thousands of teachers. We believe it should be published. Can you outline your reasons why you are not letting it be published and we can edit the article accordingly.

Thanks, Andrew

Liff182 (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liff182. Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Zeno Gantner (talk · contribs)
  • We Love MMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:We Love MMA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I do not understand this decision. The last time the article was rejected declined for quality reasons, which are now fixed.

The article describes an ongoing event series that has been running since 2010. Thousands of people attended the events. They have/had media partnerships with major German sports streaming (ran) and the most widely distributed tabloid (Bild), they get reported in general German-language newspapers -- about 10 media mentions are already linked in the article -- there are a lot more, of course. So at least I think there is sufficient media coverage. What exactly is missing for notability?

zeno (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Some "less notable" MMA organizations that have Wikipedia articles (just the letter "A"): Art of War Undisputed Arena Fighting Championship, Association of Boxing Commissions, Australian Fighting Championship, Albanian Mixed Martial Arts Federation, Alliance MMA.

• Gato63 (talk · contribs)
  • .350 Legend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:.350 Legend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think the .350 Legend is the hottest new caliber since 6.5 Creedmoor, but since it's had even more advance buzz and enthusiasm than 6.5 Creedmoor, it may even surpass the 6.5 Creedmoor to be the hottest new caliber of this century! There are already rifles, barrels, and uppers in .350 Legend available from CMMG, Winchester, Match Grade Machines, etc. Was I just too early in creating the article, considering .350 Legend ammo won't be available until April (even though you can pre-order it now at MidwayUSA)? By the way, someone already added .350 Legend to the Wikipedia article List of AR platform calibers, so I'm sure someone else will create an article for .350 Legend, but it sure seems a waste if they start from scratch and disregard my research and that of User:Cavalryman V31 about .350 the Legend.

Gato63 (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gato63: - hi there. There's a couple of issues with this draft that led to it being declined.

The first of these is that we usually loop products into their overall company's page, unless their company page has been getting too long. Winchester's page isn't too long, and this article isn't too big, so it could reasonably be included in that.

It also is somewhat promotional, giving a positive viewpoint of it without sufficient consideration of pros and cons. This is probably somewhat linked to the next point.

Finally, it doesn't have sufficient independent (ruling out the Winchester sources), secondary (ruling out Saami's), reliable and in-depth (probably ruling out shooting illustrated, as the long quote from Winchester won't count) sources. Obviously you'd imagine it would gain more coverage after it comes out. You'd need fewer sources to support it as a section of Winchester's page, which would let you resolve several of your issues at once. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ezubanova (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Beyond Analysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

I am looking for help on understanding why my draft Wiki article has been rejected and what changes I can make in order for it to accepted once I resubmit. A reason given for the rejection was that the references provided did not provide 'significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject'. The subject of my article was 'Beyond Analysis', the data analytics management consultancy. Here is a list of the references I used: https://www.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/g-cloud/supplier/703715 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06059028 https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=42461664 https://pressreleases.responsesource.com/news/37551/beyond-analysis-enters-the-australian-market-with-acquisition-of-enzyme/?export=print https://www.realwire.com/releases/Visa-Europe-invests-in-Beyond-Analysis-to-strengthen-data-analytics-capabilities https://www.research-live.com/article/news/beyond-analysis-buys-out-visas-shares/id/5018152 https://www.research-live.com/article/news/stw-invests-in-beyond-analysis-australia/id/4009383 https://www.consultancy.uk/news/14640/pwc-partners-with-beyond-analysis-to-bolster-data-visualisation-offerings https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/beyond-analysis-scoops-top-data-analytics-award-for-delivering-incremental-value-by-putting-customers-at-the-heart-of-a-major-retail-business-198764971.html https://www.information-age.com/uks-top-50-data-leaders-2017-123465710/ https://www.dataiq.co.uk/dataiq100-17 https://www.sme-news.co.uk/2018-beyond-analysis

I would just like a bit more of an indication as to why some of these references (and which ones) do not match the criteria. Are the sources not reliable enough? Is the coverage not significant enough? Do press releases on the exact subject of the article (a company) not qualify as references? Or is it something else?

Any help would be much appreciated. I believe the name of the page is currently 'Draft: Beyond Analysis' so if you are able to, please have a look through the page to get a better idea of how to answer my question.

Many thanks.

Ezubanova (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• PrijateljNani2015 (talk · contribs)
  • User:PrijateljNani2015/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

PrijateljNani2015 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my article has been rejected duet to the reason that W has no interest of the topics of the article. There are many articles on W with the same topics I do not understand how if the reason is blank article ? PLS answer ASAP. R N

It is a blank page. What are we supposed to do with it? Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• AndreaBunks (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kisure Sports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

AndreaBunks (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly rejected and now deleted. Give the history of recreation in main and draft I've requested SALT. Legacypac (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]