• WikiBama (talk · contribs)

I'm new to writing something for Wikipedia. I have written a draft submission but can't figure out how to either submit for review or what I need to do to get it published. Can you please help this novice? Thanks.

WikiBama (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is now submitted, the coding was present but improperly formatted. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanjaychandrabarman9434 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Sanjaychandrabarman9434/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sanjaychandrabarman9434 (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanjaychandrabarman9434: what is your question? Your draft, such as it is, has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanjaychandrabarman9434: This would be a slam-dunk no content speedy deletion were it in article space. Come back when you've actually written the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 07:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Farhan RR Official (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Farhan RR Official (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Draft:Farhan Rana Rajpoot (film director) you fix this article yourself. Does it have any problems? If you guide him a little. I will welcome you.And this is not my article. This is a famous person who is still alive.[reply]

Sorry @Farhan RR Official, is your question "does it have any problems?" Yes, it has significant problems, in that it doesn't demonstrate notability, most of the content is unreferenced, and autobiographies are in any case a bad idea. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ou seem like a very nice person to me. Please help me if you can. Pells will reply me immediately Farhan RR Official (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you is to go out and perform your chosen career to the best of your ability, and to forget about if there is a Wikipedia article about you or not; if you truly meet the notability criteria, someone independent will eventually write about you. Be advised that an article about yourself is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be in touch with you later please. So you can't believe me, can you tell? You said. Will you give the whatsapp number? please me Farhan RR Official (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan RR Official I'm not sure why you bring up whatsapp. If you wish to discuss Wikipedia, it should be done here. Are you Mr. Rajpoot, or a representative? 331dot (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir. Representative? of that Farhan RR Official (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is incoherent. Are you Mr. Rajpoot, yes or no? 331dot (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes Farhan RR Official (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, let me ask you something, you said. I am from Pakistan. and U Farhan RR Official (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Farhan RR Official: please note that this isn't a chat room, and personal information is not relevant to the draft review process. Do you have a draft-related question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Farhan RR Official: You seem to be under the (common) misconception Wikipedia has a hierarchy similar to a corporation. That is not the case. No one editor has any supreme authority over any other as far as content is concerned, and each of us are volunteers doing this on our own time and thus are loathe to hand out our personal contact details to someone we don't know. (Wikipedia's paid staff do not edit or make content decisions in that capacity barring extreme circumstances.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft deleted, user indeffed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 38.19.173.54 (talk · contribs)

I am sorry but this rejection is wholly arbitrary and capricious and violates Wikipedia's own guidelines. This is the standard: "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The main sources in question (Buffalo News and Buffalo Courier-Express) are both reliable, secondary and reputable sources and are (or have been) the primary newspapers that have covered the news of Western New York region in which Mr. Williams was notable. Mr. Williams was the head of the US attorney's office for the Western District of New York. Other US attorneys both before and after his tenure have their own Wikipedia pages and met the notability standard. The head of the US attorney's office is a very prestigious and important position in the US. From Wikipedia: Justices and many judges are "inherently notable". BY logical extension, US attorneys, while perhaps not inherently notable, at least hold a position that is usually strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. This was not considered at all. Secondly, and separately, Mr. Williams was the lead prosecutor for several high profile cases in Western New York. In fact, in many of these articles Mr. Williams is not just mentioned "in passing" but is actively mentioned as would any other prosecutor prosecuting a high profile case. Those cases received substantial (even international) attention at the time. Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, it seems evident that both the significant coverage and the notability standard have been met.

Worse is the attempted justification for the arbitrary rejection. "Only one source is about him specifically (other than a routine announcement) and that one is a short obituary in a local newspaper." This is a clearly erroneous statement and shows the lack of substantial review into the actual references (which are over ten in total). First, there are at least three separate sources that are about him specifically. One of them is an article discussing the shake-up at the US attorney's office and directly references and quotes him. That is certainly not a routine announcement. A fourth article even mentions that Mr. Williams is a "who's who" in law enforcement in Western New York and his names is included with other high profile person. Second, the article (referenced as a mere "obituary") is not short. It is in fact an unusually long article. It is in fact an article rather than an obituary. It is akin to articles that would be written about other notable people that have passed away. You can count the number of words and independently verify that the article is certainly not "short". You can also review the number of high profile (notable) persons that Mr. Williams worked with in some capacity. This is further indicia of notability. This lack of serious review, and blatant disregarding of the correct Wikipedia standard, undermines Wikipedia's mission in general and is indicative of why less and less people in general are interested in Wikipedia articles. I am not sure what the future holds for Wikipedia but these type of arbitrary rejections need to be curtailed to preserve Wikipedia's status as a respected source. Finally, Wikipedia is filled with published articles of people with less notability and "substantial coverage" than Mr. Williams. While that would not be an item of evidence in court, it nonetheless demonstrates just how arbitrary and capricious the decision-making authority at Wikipedia has become, at Mr. Williams's expense. In a court of law, this decision would undoubtedly be overturned. To say this rejection is disappointing and frustrating would be a serious understatement. I request that someone reconsider the article using the correct standard. 38.19.173.54 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read 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 get by us. That is not a reason to add more. If you would like to help us out, please work with us to identify other articles that do not meet standards. We can only address what we know about.

The draft was declined, not rejected- the two words have different meanings. Rejection would mean resubmission is not possible. As you have resubmitted it, a reviewer will look at it again, but I personally don't disagree with the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note that the last reviewer responded with a new statement that is factually incorrect. He claims that only two of the about 10 references mention Mr. Williams by name. In fact, no less than eight references mention Mr. Williams by name and at least five even have quotations by Mr. Williams. This is further proof that the references were not sufficiently reviewed and the review was not fair and balanced. Further, it is requested, if possible, to have a US reviewer review this article as part of the problem may be that non-US reviewers may not be familiar with prominence of certain legal positions within the United States federal government. Thank you. 38.19.173.54 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]