• Esmaeili.nooshin (talk · contribs)

Hi I submitted my page on Sunday Jan 24th. I am not sure what you mean by 16 days ago. I have checked my article almost everyday since then and the yellow box was there mentioning that it is under review. That is why I send you the note. I am not sure when and why it is declined again. I have ben waiting to get permission for the pictures for the last 2 months and no answer. I also revised the page so it its more like an article and I added valid references and resources. I am not sure anymore what I need to do for my article to be accepted. Now I am not even able to see it in my contributions folder as it is redirected and deleted. I need help on where the article is and how to proceed and publish my article. Thanks ~~ Esmaeili.nooshin (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Esmaeili.nooshin: As far as I can tell, this appears to be what happened:

• Dan arndt moved the Draft from Draft:The Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality Forum (ACSF) to Draft:Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality Forum. The reason was likely that the abbreviation in brackets was not nessesary.
• Orangemike deleted Draft:Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality Forum with the reasoning G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

I am not an admin and therefore cannot see the deleted revisions. Maybe Orangemike or one of the admin folks over here can have a look at the (deleted) edits and tell you further. For other reviewers: Tge images resided on Wikimedia Commons. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ICOMATIK (talk · contribs)
  • Luís Raposo (archaeologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Luís Raposo (archaeologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:00:45:23, 4 February 2021 review of submission by ICOMATIK

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}}

ICOMATIK (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ICOMATIK: You dind't ask a question. I can see that your draft was sucessfully submitted for review today. Please wait until a reviewer gets to your draft (we have a large backlog). You will be notified on your user talk page when the review is complete. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ICOMATIK (talk · contribs)
  • Luís Raposo (archaeologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Luís Raposo (archaeologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • THIS IS A MAZE! This same article has just been published on the Portuguese and French Wikipedias. Please, dear colleagues, publish the article in English as soon as possible

ICOMATIK (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sportmor (talk · contribs)
  • Peyton's Places (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Peyton's Places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there. I'm trying to create a page for the ESPN+ TV show Peyton's Places. I don't understand all this code stuff. I wish it was more user friendly. Anyway it was denied for not good enough sources, but the sources were literally ESPN+; where the show is. Can someone please help me get this? It's not a real long page. Thanks.

Sportmor (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Harley.quintana (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Raise3D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I recently wanted to submit a page titled Draft:Raise3D into Wikipedia. When I originally submitted it, it was declined because it was too product-focused. Just so you understand my logic, at the time I thought that if I simply stated facts about the products the article would be neutral. After using TeaHouse I learned that that was not the case because it sounded like a product catalogue. So I made the necessary adjustments, removed most of the information, and resubmitted my draft.

However, it has been rejected again. This time I was told that my sources are not up to Wikipedia's rules for sources. I am a little confused about that. Before submitting my draft the first time, I had used a Wikipdia-generated page that was similar as a guide for what type of sources would be acceptable. My sources are the same as what is featured on this Wikipedia page:Ultimaker Then can someone explain why my caused my latest submission to be rejected?

Harley.quintana (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harley.quintana Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. In the case of Ultimaker(I've fixed the link, the whole web address is not necessary), it too seems to have a notability issue and I have tagged it as such. Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that yours can too.

Your draft just briefly tells about the company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, product reviews, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, and other primary sources do not establish notability. For example, Ford Motor Company merits a Wikipedia article not because they announce new car models every so often, or open/close a factory, but because independent sources have chosen to study and write about Ford and its effects on manufacturing and business. As noted by the reviewer, please see WP:ORGDEPTH for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Barbaro Reyes Cho (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aguanga Shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don’t have any creation experience so I need help to improve my draft.--Barbaro Reyes Cho (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaro Reyes Cho (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hong12kong (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gulliver's Voyage to Phantomimia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I created a draft page titled "Gulliver's Voyage to Phantomimia," and it was rejected on December 25, 2020. I subsequently revised the page, adding more citations: a total of FOUR reviews of this particular English transcreation, in addition to two (Finnish) sources for its Finnish original and two English sources for the importance of Volter Kilpi as a writer. In 1992 Kilpi's magnum opus Alastalon salissa ("In the Alastalo Parlor") was voted the greatest Finnish novel ever; as his Wikipedia page in English also shows, Kilpi is widely considered one of the greatest writers in the Finnish language. I really can't see why this article was rejected--it seems to me to meet Wikipedia's requirements! It seems as if the editor who rejected it didn't bother to read any of the sources I cited, or even English Wikipedia's Volter Kilpi page. And I'm not sure what I can do to get this page approved--help! Hong12kong (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hong12kong: Since you seem to have addressed the concerns, feel free to resubmit: Just press the "Resubmit" button and follow the instructions. Frankly, it seems to me that the original reviewer was in error. The article should get a fresh look once it's been resubmitted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Virjournal (talk · contribs)

After working on the feedback given by the responding editor, I had resubmitted the page but there's no further feedback given post that. Whom can I reach out to get this page published? Virjournal (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virjournal You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending. As noted in the submission notice, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,069 pending submissions waiting for review." So you will need to be patient; there isn't really anything you can do to speed it up as volunteers conduct reviews, doing what they can when they can. You can continue to work on it while waiting; I might suggest that the entire awards section be removed, unless the various awards have articles about the award themselves(such as the Academy Awards). Any person or organization can give out an "award"; it means, frankly, little unless that award is extensively covered by reliable sources. The article reads as a resume and not as an encyclopedia article with prose. The article should not just list the person's accomplishments, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cijjil1310 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Cijjil1310/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why the article keeps getting rejected saying that another already exists? But I cant find the article on wikipedia.

Cijjil1310 (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a duplicate of this Draft:Abhishek Raveendran declined submission. Theroadislong (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) IMDB is never a reliable source. This keeps getting decliend because it is sustantically identical to https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Draft:Abhishek_Raveendran. I don't have an opinion about which one as the bigger acceptance chances, but with IMDB and Blogspot as the main sources, I am afraid this isn't going to be accepted. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler Incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mviraa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Karishma Chavan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How many citations are generally sufficient to make the new article to be successfully published? Thank you

Mviraa (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Elisadesapinto (talk · contribs)
  • Bibi Smit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Bibi Smit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My last submission was declined because of Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Since the information comes from the same article, I added an inline citation at the beginning and end of the paraphagh, and deleted some information that was poorly referenced. Because all information there comes from the references list, do I need to add the same inline in every sentence or should this be considered good for being published?

All the help possible will be much appreciated. Thank you!

Elisadesapinto (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elisadesapinto. An inline citation at the end of a paragraph (if all the information in the paragraph came from the same source) is usually sufficient citation density. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Guitarfan21 (talk · contribs)

Hi everyone, I'm stuck on my re-submission and asking for help to avoid creating a lot more "back and forth" for your editors: The feedback for my first draft said it read more like an advertisement and the tone was not neutral. It mentioned one particular sentence, so I corrected it, then noticed a few other places I thought might be deemed similar, and corrected those as well.

Question #1) I'm having trouble understanding if my second draft is still deemed "not neutral tone" or "an advertisement"? Please help! (when writing, I tried to follow basic guidelines I saw in WIKI articles--remain as factual as possible, link to other WIKI pages for clarification of terms, use substantial/reliable 3rd party references, and avoid excessive other external links--my only other external link was to the company website at the end, which I'd be happy to remove).

Question #2) I also saw feedback asking if I have an undisclosed financial stake. Perhaps I approached the COI declaration incorrectly (or my initial declaration wasn't saved properly? user error?). I recently began working for the company I'm writing about and thought they should have a public page. I am not an independent contractor being paid to write the page, nor did they ask me to write it, so the COI category I chose was: I'm "writing about a subject I'm close to" because I didn't want it to look like I was a hired editor/hourly worker being told to write this, or that it wasn't my own writing/research.

Any advice? I'm happy to make additional adjustments; just not sure what they should be. THANKS! Guitarfan2116:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Guitarfan21 (talk) Guitarfan21 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kmindspark (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ZeroUI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am wondering if sites under purdue.edu are considered reliable by wikipedia.

Kmindspark (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kmindspark It's difficult to answer without knowing what it is sourcing, but you can read about what reliable sources are atWP:RS, and ask questions about sources at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathantourangeau (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:UQAM Design Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jonathantourangeau (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2A02:CB80:402B:3B47:1:1:5DD1:8ABB (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Muhammad Safi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2A02:CB80:402B:3B47:1:1:5DD1:8ABB (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2A00:23C4:BA1E:7701:9E3:1ABE:3380:526E (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wooldale wanderers a f c (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm having problems submitting an article , it's telling me to add references, what and how do i do that ? 2A00:23C4:BA1E:7701:9E3:1ABE:3380:526E (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To merit an article, a subject must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia; please read Your first article. If you create an account you can use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]