• Blinkmass (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Glory To God Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please Accept My Wikipedia Draft Article

Blinkmass (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blinkmass: I have rejected this draft, and requested that it be speedily deleted; so no, I will not accept it. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your church, or your religious leaders, or any other topic for that matter. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I Am Not Promoting Church Sir This Is The Biggest Congregation Church In Pune Please Accept It Sir @DoubleGrazing Blinkmass (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FTR: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashishrawde16k --bonadea contributions talk 07:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Abm1994 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Prashna (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Prashna is one of the Important Marathi films and it on 17 Awards and selection in 37 Film festivals all over the world . Abm1994 (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abm1994: the evidence doesn't seem to bear that out; in any case, here at Wikipedia we are concerned with notability, not 'importance'. Besides, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 林儀承 (talk · contribs)
  • National Dong Hwa University College of Science and Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:National Dong Hwa University College of Science and Engineering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia editor,

I am writing to appeal the rejection of my recent submission to Wikipedia. My article was about the engineering college at our university. We believe that this article is very important because our engineering college has many international students, and when they want to learn about our college, searching on Wikipedia is the fastest and most convenient way. However, currently, our engineering college only has a page in Chinese, which is obviously incorrect. Although the engineering college at Donghua University belongs to Donghua University, Donghua University has many colleges, and our campus is also very large. Simply introducing the history, buildings, environment, ecology, etc. of the campus is already a huge amount of content, and each college contains multiple departments. Our engineering college covers 8 departments, and each department is very independent in terms of profession. The channels for further study and the activities of each department are also very different over the years. If all the information about Donghua University's campus and the various colleges is placed on the same page, I think it would be very cluttered and difficult to read.

Therefore, I would like to request the establishment of an English version of the Wikipedia page to introduce our engineering college and to continue updating the latest information, so that international students from different countries can have a convenient way to understand our college, including its history and various activities. This is very important to me, and I sincerely hope that you can reconsider my submission.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my request.

林儀承 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @林儀承: we accept articles on most topics where the subject can be shown to be notable, usually by reference to the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. If you can find and cite such sources, you may have an article accepted; otherwise not. This is not an arbitrary decision on our part, as in whether or not we eg. 'like the topic'. It also has nothing to do with your needs to market your institution to overseas students; for that, you need to find other promotional channels.

Note also that while most universities can be shown to be notable, very often individual departments, faculties, colleges and other such component parts are not. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jamesinhere (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Foundit.in (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems the reviewer was unable to distinguish between a company (a portion of business sold to another company) and rebranding in a region under new ownership.

The reviewers keep referring to an already article written about the company where the company sold a portion of the business to another company for some regions and the new owner doing the rebranding activity.

Also, there is mention of promotional language but what exactly to be updated is missing. Jamesinhere (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesinhere: please don't make assumptions about a reviewer's ability, just because you don't like the review outcome. (In any case, the reviewer in question is highly experienced and skilled at Wikipedia reviewing and editing, with 1,000+ AfC reviews under their belt.)

It isn't entirely clear what, if anything, you're asking, but just to say that this draft has been rejected and will not considered further. If you wish to challenge that, you must make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will directly take this up with reviewer. Jamesinhere (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re there is mention of promotional language but what exactly to be updated is missing, the rejection comment says almost every sentence in this draft is promotionally written, and could not be used in an encyclopedia article – nothing about any need for anything to be updated. --bonadea contributions talk 13:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Boaz.levin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kevin B. Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would like to request a re-review. As a long-time member of the wiki community, and a writer and art and film curator, I can say that he is without a doubt that Kevin B. Lee is important and well-established critic and filmmaker (as his position as the Locarno Film Festival Professor for the Future of Cinema and the Audiovisual Arts clearly shows). While I can see why previous versions were rejected (with too many unsubstantiated phrases that read like a resume), the tone of the article and its sources have greatly improved.

And some of the criticism mounted against his previous edits was unwarranted: failing the verification of what was previously the first citation (now the third), an academic peer-reviewed article in an international and open-access journal, seems spiteful at best, and really makes very little sense. If that's not a good source, I really don't know what a good source would be.

The article has been described as reading more like an advertisement: but this is a biographical description filled with citations from notable sources, from the NY Times, academic journals, and leading academic institutions, many of which describe the subject of the article using the same terms (i.e "pioneer of desktop documentary" in Yale News, or in a New York Times article describing his practice as a documentarists "transforming phone videos into publicity and a film"). If he's described as a "pioneering filmmaker" by multiple notable sources, it's fair to say he should be described as one here too, with those sources cited.

Honestly, reading the of harsh rejections of his article is quite disappointing as a longtime wiki fan. Rather than encouraging a newcomer to the platform, these comments are spiteful, lack any sense of proportion, and even lazy. If the editors would have bothered to go through his sources they would have found the potential for a robust and well-merited entry. Instead of rejecting it on the spot, all they had to do was google around to find half a dozen additional reliable sources. Some things could be recast into a more objective tone, yes, but four consecutive rejections with little advice or guidance for what is essentially a helpful entry for people in the field (film scholars, curators, filmmakers), don't make much sense to me.

Please reconsider, and use constructive criticism rather than simply rejecting it on the spot. Boaz.levin (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boaz.levin: there is nothing "rejecting on the spot" about this; as you probably know, this isn't the first time this draft has been created. And this version was declined repeatedly before being rejected.

Whether the subject is "important and well-established" isn't what concerns us; we need to see that they are notable, as defined in the Wikipedia context, and despite several opportunities this hasn't been demonstrated.

As the draft has now been rejected and will therefore not be considered further, your remaining option is to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• NatwonTSG2 (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I Got A Alerts A Few Days Ago From Draft:Rayman (character) Show That My Draft References Does Not Show the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article and the Reception section is extremely lacking, focusing almost entirely on listicles. Is there any way i can improve these things.

@NatwonTSG2: you can ignore the comment RE the 'Reception' section for now; this draft was declined for lack of notability, so focus on that instead. You need to show significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, to meet the WP:GNG standard. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sob1992 (talk · contribs)
  • Héctor Fernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Héctor Fernández (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there are many other notable football agents that are at the same level as Hector Fernandez who have Wiki presence. Can you please review and let me know what needs to be added to get approved?

Sob1992 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sob1992: this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]