• 2401:4900:1C09:FA93:7D75:174D:C892:1A96 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Madhyanchal Professional University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2401:4900:1C09:FA93:7D75:174D:C892:1A96 (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• RPI2026F1 (talk · contribs)
  • The Browser Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I want to know why the article was striked down for having no reliable sources. I thought Bloomberg was a reputable organization, and I also think Techcrunch is decently reputable. I do understand about the other two sources not being as reputable, but I thought the Bloomberg and TechCrunch sources covered the basic factual information. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RPI2026F1: this wasn't declined for having no reliable sources, but rather not adequate. If you accept that some of the sources cited are not reliable, then the information those sources are allegedly supporting is effectively unverified. It isn't enough to have some of the information supported by reliable sources — it all needs to be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fine to remove the non reliably-sourced bits? I'm worried that's going to leave the page with like 3 lines of text. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RPI2026F1: if the choice is between having only three lines of text, properly supported by reliable sources, vs. having ten lines of text, only three of which are properly supported, then clearly the former scenario is preferable. In any case, the content of an article should only really represent a summary of reliable published sources, therefore making statements which you cannot find reliable sources to support is wrong by definition. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rebuilt the article to reference almost entirely from the Bloomberg article. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rushistoriia (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:James T. Andrews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been working on a new entry, https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Draft:James_T._Andrews I think I have followed the guidance I have been getting however, I am wondering if anyone can look it over before I submit it again? As I understand it, the article in question meets three of the criteria outlined for notability for academics. As I read the guidelines for notability for academics, I see at three areas that would qualify for inclusion. These are points 1, 3, and 5 listed on the notability page for academics. "1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The submission lists several examples of other important scholars commenting on the impact of his books. "3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)" He is a member of the Russian Academy of Arts and Sciences. "5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." He is a "University Professor" which is a type of distinguished professor. Any advice or just another person to look the article over is appreciated.

Rushistoriia (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• RJMcBug (talk · contribs)
  • One Knoxville SC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:One Knoxville SC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting a re-review because I think that One Knoxville SC is notable enough for an article. The league they are in currently (USL League Two) has Wikipedia articles for majority of their teams. 95 of the leagues 115 teams have a Wikipedia article, which is 82.6%.

One Knoxville SC in the latest season:

- Won the South Central Division
- Hosted three rounds of the playoffs
- Got to the Southern Conference Finals

The team was one of two teams that made the playoffs, that also didn't have a Wikipedia article. The only other team was NONA FC.

Looking at the team's division (Deep South Division), the average amount of reference regarding each team was 6.44. This draft has 14 references. All references except one (the team's website) are independent, reliable, and secondary.

Slywriter wrote a comment saying that it will become notable once the season starts. One season has passed since that comment was made Dege31 also said it was too soon before the season started. RJMcBug (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the other articles that should be deleted; see other stuff exists. Generally in this situation you should first appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft; then you should come here and explain how they grossly erred or violated policy with the rejection. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Prince Tuhin13 (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

What problem caused my article to be decline? Can any experienced editor help me please? Prince Tuhin13 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Baqibillah Mishkat Chowdhury —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I created a biography of Alexandre Lessertisseur via wikipedia and it was rejected. The English version is a translation of the French one that I also modified. What is the problem and what can I do to publish the article?

Krystofia (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation was not rejected. It has not been accepted because it has no references. Either the French Wikipedia does not require references, or you failed to translate the references. And why you did you blank the draft? And why did you submit a draft in which his names were reversed, as Lessertisseur Alexandre? That is not his name. Were you trying to confuse the reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krystofia - You submitted multiple versions of biographies of the subject. You submitted a version in a sandbox, when there was also a version in draft space, correctly named Alexandre Lessertisseur. I declined the sandbox version because you should work on the version with his name on it. You then blanked that version, and it has now been restored. I would suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse about how to work on a single copy of a draft, correctly named. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been leaving versions of this article in multiple places under multiple names, and asking the question in multiple times. Please leave your COI indicator in place, and perhaps consider whether you should be the person creating it if you're not familiar with how articles should be created in the English wikipedia. Star Mississippi 02:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]