• 173.56.78.92 (talk · contribs)
  • Esme, My Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Esme, My Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would like to see if the revisions are now good enough to be accepted. 173.56.78.92 (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't provide on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel you have addressed the earlier decline reasons, you can resubmit the draft and a reviewer will eventually come and check it. Or if you have a specific question you wish to ask, you can do that here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• AlokMishra123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Conneqt Business Solutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We have tried creating this page 5 to 6 times, but it gets deleted.

Requesting your help in creating the page. AlokMishra123 (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlokMishra123: this has been each time deleted for being promotional. Promotions are not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• CaptainBondi (talk · contribs)
  • Bankstown City FC Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Bankstown City FC Women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I've helped edit an article moved to draft due to more sources. I've added different sources, both primary and secondary including from Football NSW which is the official governing body of football in the state. It has been rejected due not reliable sources. I am confused on what now constitutes as reliable sources for a football team? CaptainBondi (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainBondi: my guess, and it is only that, would be that the problem isn't so much the reliability or otherwise of the sources cited, but that there aren't enough citations to support the draft contents. (The not adequately supported by reliable sources in that particular decline notice can be a bit ambiguous, as it could mean either unreliable sources or insufficient support by way of citations.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I meant to add that notability is also not shown, given that three of the four sources cited are primary, and one is very close to the subject. Per WP:GNG / WP:NTEAM, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Would adding additional sources from well-established news outlets covering sports in the country satisfy independent and reliable secondary sources? Thanks CaptainBondi (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainBondi: if those additional sources provide significant coverage of this club/team specifically, then yes, that would potentially establish notability. (Note that significant coverage excludes passing mentions, as well as routine reporting such as match coverage, player transfers, manager interviews, etc.)

The other issue is supporting the draft better, so that it is clear which source provides what information. For this purpose, we don't necessarily need more sources, but more citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• David Madbellics (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Illegal recruitment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'm created draft about illegal recruitment, can you explain to me why, and and you also explain to me the requirements or steps how your draft will be finally approved? David Madbellics (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Madbellics: that's just a dictionary definition, not a viable encyclopaedia article. Also, being supported by just a single source – indeed, a dictionary – isn't enough to show that the term/concept is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Please expand on the content, and add more/better sources which meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks thank you very much, good evening David Madbellics (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thompkin1961 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Adin Dobkin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wondering if this now passes muster as I have made what I think are the necessary additions based on the last suggestion. Thompkin1961 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review, the reviewer will either accept it or leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Da Piped M (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ashley B. Hosey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yall know more and better sources of this dude? Da Piped M (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was rejected some months ago it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to others to provide sources for this "dude". If you are writing the draft, you need to provide and summarize sufficient sources to establish notability. That has not been done, despite several attempts, so the draft was finally rejected, and won't be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I submitted an article (Draft:Underscores (musician)) for review last week, and was not accepted, for issues with sourcing and notability.

I generally understand why there were issues with sourcing - the reviewer left the comment, "Youtube, Soundcloud, facebook, etc, may not be used as references." I included those sources (YouTube, SoundCloud, and Facebook) because I believed them to be self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Some of the sources were definitely stretching the guidelines a bit, so I removed them. The remaining self-published and questionable sources were published by the subject of the article, and are about the subject of the article. Is there any chance someone would be willing to take a look at references 11 and 15, and let me know if they are acceptable exceptions to the self-published or questionable sources rule?

Concerning notablity - I was basing this article on the notability guideline "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The published works in question are this article in Rolling Stone, this article in the Atlantic, this article (along with others) in Ones To Watch (which is a newsblog), and this article (along with others I didn't include, since I thought I had established notability) by The Fader. All of these sources are focused specifically on the subject of the article (they are either profiles of her or reports on her work), and as far as I can tell, do not fall under any of the exceptions to the notability criteria. I'm wondering if the reviewer's comment about notability was primarily in response to the questionable sourcing, or if these sources in and of themselves do not meet the notability criteria. Would someone be willing to give me some detail on notability as well?

Thanks! Remainsuncertain (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Remainsuncertain it seems you have not read the comment, left at the same time. PLease conirm you have read it, and then ask for such additional help as you require 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw your comment on my talk page and replied for clarification, tagging you - not sure if that's the best way to do it, but I came here after a few days since I didn't hear back. Unless there's another one you're talking about that I haven't seen? BTW, my reply to your comment on my talk page is a little out of date, since someone else made some edits in the meantime. Thanks again!! Remainsuncertain (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]