• Ravisp2022 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Armaan Ralhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In my draft article reliable sources and published news was provided but the draft was declined. Which news or source is not reliable in the article? Kindly advise.

Ravisp2022 (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravisp2022: this draft was declined for failure to demonstrate notability, not for unreliable sources. (Although that said, there is content there which isn't supported by citations, such as the DOB and family members' names; this is contrary to the rules on articles on living people.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those were corrected. Please advise on the most recent review i.e. on 7 Sept 2022. It says- they do not show significant coverage. Thanks Ravisp2022 (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravisp2022: exactly; lack of significant coverage is the issue here, and that means notability has not been established. Yes, reliable sources also comes into it, in that the sources used to show notability must of course be reliable (as well as independent of the subject), but I repeat, this wasn't declined for unreliable sources, but rather for failure to show notability by citing reliable sources with significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravisp2022 Maybe a minor point, but the actor "played a negative role in the film Majnu". What does that mean? Is it common in Indian English, for example? Second, do we need to know that he cycles in the morning? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 120.21.67.66 (talk · contribs)

120.21.67.66 (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 185.205.173.91 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:NewGlobe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We would like some advice on our declined Wikipedia submission. We have now submitted twice.

Every statement is supported by a externally verified source and they are all statements of fact. However, it is being declined. Please advise on what changes we need to make. We have reviewed the requirements and processes and can not see how the submission falls short.

185.205.173.91 (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• GelKing (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Big Help Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have done as much research on this charity that I can, and believe I have updated it so that it is notable enough to warrant an article. Could it be re-reviewed and if it is still determined to be not notable enough, then I will move on and create different article.

Thank you. GelKing (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Karstenschubert (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Karsten Schubert London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What is the best way to get my company listed on Wikepedia, there are other institutions which focus on the same prefession on Wikepedia already - I am confused as to why mine has been rejected?

Karstenschubert (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karstenschubert: we had this conversation a week ago; what more do you want to discuss? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See other other crap exists. Seven different reviewers have concluded that the draft is not notable and it has now been rejected, please drop the stick. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Evie.rr (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Novel (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey there, my article was rejected on the basis that I did not have sufficient reliable resources cited, I have now added additional resources, might I be able to receive additional guidance as to if this redraft is more suitable?

Evie.rr (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Evie.rr I removed a duplicate word "in" from the draft. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Evie.rr (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Abetlane (talk · contribs)
  • SS marschiert in Feindesland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:SS marschiert in Feindesland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am unable to find any records or anything of the likes on the topic of SS Marschiert in Feindesland. I am requesting help for sources and references to this Nazi war song. If any found, please tell me in the talk page of my account, or the email on my account Abetlane (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Abetlane: this help desk is more for the AfC process itself, rather than for collaborating on content development. You might have better luck asking at the two WikiProjects you've included in the draft, namely MilHist and Germany. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Abetlane (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 209.6.11.83 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Leadership-as-Practice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assistance and relief from the heavy-handed treatment by the two reviewers of my proposed article on Leadership-as-practice, most recently by Nightenbelle. I have asked for an impartial review unbiased from prior reviews that my article is not sufficiently encyclopedic. The reviewer does not seem to understand the concept of dispute resolution, which means that after my prior changes, I am not looking to make further changes until I receive such unbiased, polite, good faith, and unattacking review. It strikes me that reviewers need not be imperialistic in wikipedia in their demand that there be changes or else! In some cases like this one, especially where dispute resolution is called for, there could be a need to solicit a second or alternative review. This is my current request because I firmly believe that my entry is compliant with the call for encyclopedic prose.

209.6.11.83 (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have impartially reviewed the draft and concur with the other reviewers that it does indeed read like an essay and not like an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you must not accuse other editors of bias, 'imperialism' (?), etc., at least not without solid evidence.

Moreover, you really cannot presume to know anything about the knowledge or experience of others. The reviewer(s) may well be experts in the very subjects in question, for all you know.

You may also wish to take a moment to reflect on the fact that while you 'firmly believe' your draft is suitable, four reviewers (and now the fifth, Theroadislong; I myself am also minded to agree) have felt otherwise. Does that not tell you anything? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]