• Alphaed (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ANCOR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good day. You stopped the publication of article https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Draft:ANCOR with a reason "Resubmitted without even attempting inprovement". Please note that the previous time this article did not pass moderation, as there was a duplicate of another draft. The duplicate was deleted, this article was resubmitted for moderation again (ofcause without improvements), but you rejected it because there are no changes. What's the best way me to do it?

Alphaed (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alphaed,Other concerns were raised beyond the duplication. Please re-read previous reviewers comments about press releases and reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter,I've removed links to press releases as they are no good attestation.

Information about The Staffing 100 too (although it is true.) What else can I do to make a page about a real company appear?.Alphaed (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Damiron007 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Serenity Health Training Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please the proposed Wikipedia page "Serenity Health Training Institute" is a well established Health Institution situated in Southfield Michigan United State. For more details about the existence of the Institution. https://www.serenityhealthtraining.com. Kindly approve the page Serenity Health Training Institute. Thank you. Damiron007 (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damiron007 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for documenting the mere existence of a topic. An article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Your draft does not do that.

If you are associated with this organization, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nicolas M W (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lisl Schorr (1906 – 1977) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my article about Lisl Schorr (my Great-aunt), was rejected because it does not "show significant coverage (...) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The problem is precisely that, because of her banishment from the art scene by the Nazis between 1935 and 1945 and her deportation to different camps, there are very little information about her work. I gathered the little data available by corresponding by email with various museum curators and archivists from Austria and elsewhere, and most of the reference I used are in the published books included in the reference section. So I don't understand the reason for this rejection. Thanks for helping! Nicolas

Nicolas M W (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas M W An important principle of Wikipedia is verifiability. An article must summarize independent reliable sources that can be verified and demonstrate notability. If there are few or no sources about a topic, regardless of the reason, that topic may not be on Wikipedia. If you just want to tell the world about your relative, there may be alternative outlets with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear how they would pass the criteria at WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas M W For additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in full desktop mode(even on a phone). 331dot (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kuldhar Rabha (talk · contribs)
  • Ranjan Bezbaruah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Ranjan Bezbaruah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The references are given in the appropriate place and requested to review. Thanks. Kuldhar Rabha (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kuldhar Rabha, next step is to tone down the promotional and flowery wording. Encyclopedia articles are dry facts.Slywriter (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter  Done. -Kuldhar Rabha (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 7beru7 (talk · contribs)

why was my request denied? sorry im new to wikipedia and was just trying to publish my original species of fursona. 7beru7 (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what Wikipedia is for. See if WikiFur will take it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:1700:4083:20C0:54C6:A3FE:1C6:B810 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:YSL Rich Pablo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sources for this subject found

2600:1700:4083:20C0:54C6:A3FE:1C6:B810 (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all still trash. One-paragraph articles, an interview, and two 404'd pages all add up to "Notability not proven". —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]