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

Article was deleted after I asked for help. Seems like people trolling and deleting articles. I can't edit my draft as it is gone.

24.90.154.26 (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into your account, so that we know who you are and what deleted draft you're talking about. (I think I can guess, but still.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please tell my why my draft:achsar cannot be published? https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Draft:Achsar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzikbrain (talk • contribs) 06:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muzikbrain: nobody is saying categorically that this draft cannot be published, but so far it hasn't been accepted as the draft is promotional, and there is no evidence that the subject is notable.

Also, although external links are listed under 'References', they are not cited inline, making it very difficult for the reviewer (or later, reader) to see which source provides which bit of the information; for this reason it would be much better if you could reference using inline citations, see WP:REFB and WP:ILC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DG, I added a missing bracket at ILC. David10244 (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MartinVikene (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Martin Vikene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! Refers to the draft case: Martin Vikene. Have now revised the article. Can you take a look at it. Would like to get it approved. Plans to add more later as well, but will get it available on Wikipedia first. I have added references.

MartinVikene (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MartinVikene You have resubmitted it for a review, this will occur in due course. Please be patient. Please also be aware of the autobiography policy and how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinVikene: you've changed the content (somewhat surprisingly, I might add), but you haven't improved the sources in the slightest, hence I've had to decline it again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 94sb (talk · contribs)
  • Renato Nicolodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Renato Nicolodi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't quite understand what is wrong with the referenced sources, or the way the sources are cited. Could someone help me with this? The sources are largely in Dutch, but unfortunately there's little I can do about that 94sb (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@94sb: the latest decline was because there aren't enough inline citations supporting the contents. For example, the statement that he studied "at the Higher Institute of Fine Arts in Ghent, where he graduated in 2007" is unreferenced – where did that information come from? Please note that in articles on living people, all material statements, anything potentially contentious, as well as private personal and family details must be clearly supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. There are currently at least three paragraphs without a single citation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MartinVikene (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Martin Vikene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, what is the reliabe sources required, then?

Is it a verification from David Lynch, Mark Frost or ABC (CBS) ?

Maybe you could manage to contact them, and get me verified. But I can try to do it myself to.

It is not a hoax!

Until verification of me as both a writer/screenwriter and co-composer to the tv series Twin Peaks, I will just make an article about me as a publisher, and a translator of literature.

With regards Martin Vikene.

MartinVikene (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinVikene: this draft has been declined three times, and each time the decline reasons (those grey boxes inside the big pink boxes) give reason why; click on the words 'reliable sources', which is a hyperlink that takes you to the relevant page explaining what we mean by that.

There is no point in contacting David Lynch (!), because we only accept reliable published sources, not private communication from someone. If you were instrumental in creating such an iconic TV series as Twin Peaks, surely you can find a reliable source to back that up?

And as for "just making an article about [yourself]", please note that you will need to be able to demonstrate why you're notable in Wikipedia terms... which takes us back to needing those reliable published sources that have provided significant coverage of you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, can only say that I am actually the real original Twin Peaks author, as well as screenwriter etc.

The issue is reliable sources. David Lynch, Mark Frost, or ABC, or others involved, then must verify me in writing (with signature), or in a public media do that.

Why so complicated then, could it questioned.

It`s not a hoax.

The point was to share correct information about the history of Twin Peaks, and who the author was.

Wikipedia was to exclusive, I think, in this case. What about the principle of free sharing of information, in the society, with regard to the individual's rights.

Regards

Martin Vikene. MartinVikene (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinVikene Wikipedia has its own rules. We don't need the people you mention to "verify [you] in writing (with signature)". (Wikipedia can't assess signatures anyway.) Your comment "public media" is much closer to what Wikipedia needs.

As was pointed out, Wikipedia needs information sourced from reliable, published (click here) sources that are independent of the subject. The "reliable" link leads to a lot of info, but it shows what kind of sources Wikipedia requires. No one is going to contact Lynch, Frost, or ABC -- the article needs references that future readers can verify for themselves. If you don't follow those rules, a draft won't be accepted. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 38.39.212.117 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Pork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was writing an article about John Pork. A fictional character who has recently gained popularity. 38.39.212.117 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jamesnewton.indycollab (talk · contribs)
  • I want to publish my page, what do i need to change in order to be able to publish?

Jamesnewton.indycollab (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesnewton.indycollab: you need to submit it for review, otherwise it will just sit there until one day it goes stale. But before you submit it, you need to add sources that verify the information given, and establish the notability of the subject, according to the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 38.39.212.117 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Pork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How is this contrary of the purpose of Wikipedia?? 38.39.212.117 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because when that draft was rejected, it read in its entirety "John Pork is an internet sensation which is an edited picture of a man into a pig. Its the funniest thing ever" – can you help me understand how that is within the purpose of Wikipedia? And what's there now, isn't any better, TBH. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Editorranjitksharma (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ghanshyam Gupta Zaveri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After receiving feedback from Wikipedia experts, particularly RPSkokie and Nocturnal781, I have edited the article to incorporate additional references and footnotes from reputable sources such as newspapers. In addition, I have reworded some sections to ensure neutrality and minimize any promotional language. I am confident that these changes have improved the article's overall quality and readability. Kindly accept my submission.

Editorranjitksharma (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorranjitksharma: the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review; whether it will be accepted or not is determined when someone reviews it. Other than that, do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• John Pork-enthusiast (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Pork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I am requesting a rereview of this article and ask that you please accept it into Wikipedia this article is a obituary and story of a popular social media influencer and provides useful information of John Pork and his life and career. Me and many other Wikipedia users ask for this article to be passed. This articles violates no rules of the wiki and has a right to be published as Wikipedia allows Information pages, which generally provide factual information, This article provides factual information about John Pork a Viral internet influencer who has recently passed

John Pork-enthusiast (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@John Pork-enthusiast: enough already, give it a rest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• TotallyNotElonMusk (talk · contribs)
  • North American Charging Standard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:North American Charging Standard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TotallyNotElonMusk (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in particular are of concern?