• KNPC1256 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Flag Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

the videos need more coverage, and to let the people knows about flag animation, also flag animation let the people know the flag KNPC1256 (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KNPC1256 Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offer no independent reliable sources that discuss the concept of flag animation in depth to support the content of an article. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 61.0.107.55 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:OrthanOP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

61.0.107.55 (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MrSamContributor (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

I just publish this new article that has been rejected. (they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject) the reviewer said.

While I provided sources from the 2 mains Haitian newspaper (Le Nouvelliste, Le National) and the top Haitian specialize woman media. (Dofen News). How can you help me improve my referencing?

Kindly

Mr Sam

MrSamContributor (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrSamContributor It's not clear to me which draft you are referring to. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, per the AFC message on the OP's talk page it seems to be about Draft:Valierie Alcide. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's the Draft:Valierie Alcide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSamContributor (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MessagesHub (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

MessagesHub (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC) why my article was rejected?[reply]

Educated guess, baed on the block raationale: advertising. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spk.ideas (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ddeckwerth (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dasha Deckwerth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ddeckwerth (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I have just Tried to Publish a New Page on my Wiki Account. But after I Published, there comes a Notification form the Editors about the Declined Article I Published. The Reason Mentioned that it's look like a CV, can you Please help me to Re-Edit the Document so that it will get Accepted. Here is the Link to the Page: Draft:Dasha Deckwerth

Ddeckwerth Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes 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. That is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves, because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ScContributor0 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This submission was rejected due to Crompton not being considered notable. I have added more references to show notability from more sources and removed some other sections. Please re-review this submission.

ScContributor0 (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing to suggest it comes anywhere near passing WP:NCORP.Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MirkoS18 (talk · contribs)
  • List of split up universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:List of split up universities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think that the reviewer in part failed to recognize different levels of notability of the topic in different contexts. He also mentioned that we may have as many as hundreds of cases without actually stating why he thinks so and why it would make the list irrelevant. The topic is notable to the extant that the split up is often politically or by identity motivated. This clearly creates interest for the topic in the case of France punishing universities after the protests of 1968 by splitting them up, Belgium where it was based on linguistic identity (if I can understand any French it is in part addressed for example Here ), in Balkans during the war, in Turkey where it causes demonstrations [the plan to split up universities led to actual demonstrations, as mentioned in the cited source]... Providing opportunity to the rest of our global community to include different language sources would almost certainly lead to further development. Cutting it from happening because it does not seem to be value in "Little Britain" context (if I may permit myself to say) does not seem to do it full justice. Now I fully appreciate that Doric is usually doing an amazing and important voluntary job and that there is an increased drafts burden in recent days, but I would like to receive a second opinion-firstly on the draft as it is, and if for some reason I am completely delusional than how it should be improved? Maybe to narrow it down to include politically/identity motivated split ups?-yet one may probably argue that even administrative/funding based split up is ideologically motivated. But I am taking too much of your time now... MirkoS18 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MirkoS18: Have split-up universities been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources? That's the usual way of demonstrating that a list is notable. The list doesn't fulfill any of the main purposes of lists. By grouping universities according to a non-defining characteristic it strays into being unencyclopedic, into being what Wikipedia is not.

Unless you're editing under unusual sanctions, Afc is an optional process for you. If you disagree with the advice you get here, you're welcome to risk deletion and move the list to article apace yourself. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2402:3A80:1C44:7F25:A0BF:F204:42EC:9472 (talk · contribs)
  • Shyamoupti Mudly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Shyamoupti Mudly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The decline reasons are not convincing from any sides. The article is written in accordance to notability requirements of actor and is supported by adequate reliable references. She has performed in a number of TV soaps and is a popular face in Bengali television industry. 2402:3A80:1C44:7F25:A0BF:F204:42EC:9472 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2401:4900:45B5:6710:740C:7A42:FF0F:4B96 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Adepoju olaoluwa Itunu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2401:4900:45B5:6710:740C:7A42:FF0F:4B96 (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly rejected, zero reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]