• JohN2839 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pete Festersen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

JohN2839 (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JohN2839 You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Vk8435820 (talk · contribs)
  • Dajal Tehsil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Dajal Tehsil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Vk8435820 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 84.6.190.36 (talk · contribs)

I recently submitted an article on British philosopher Peter Crithcley. In my opinion (I'm a professor of philosophy and literature at California State University) and in the opinion of thousands of his readers, he is the best living philosopher in the world. He has published over 80 books and is read by half a million readers on Academia and Humanities Commons, where he constantly shows as being in the 0.01% top writers. He also shows quoted by thousands of books and articles by scholars around the world. Critchley only publishes in free access. The reason is that he is autistic. He is not able to follow protocol in order to submit his manuscripts for publication at academic presses. He believes in free access (such as Wikipedia!) His work is sheer genius. He does have an article in Monthly Review, a renown journal, which proves that he can also be published in respectable peer-review journals, as well as a contract with a publisher in Italy, Fralerighe, for his work on Dante (I'm a reviewer for this work). Since Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia, I was wondering if you could make an exception to the rule of citations and include the entry I submitted, which contains links to his free-access websites and the full text to his numerous works, as sufficiently reliable sources for citations. You can see for yourself the superior quality of his publications. Thank you for your time. I would be very glad to see Critchley receive a well-deserved mention in Wikipedia. 84.6.190.36 (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. The relevant notability guudeline is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). When you write he is the best living philosopher in the world, that is an extraordinary claim and so you should be able to provide extraordinary evidence in the form of references to reliable sources where notable philosophers say that. We cannot take your word for it. You need to provide evidence of that in your draft. His own works are not evidence of notability, and no experienced Wikipedia would ever set out to evaluate the superior quality of his publications. We are summarizers, not evaluators. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mallikarjunaswamy.m (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:M. V. Revanasiddaiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reviewer, Request you to please help me in submitting this article successfully as this is my first article for submission in Wikipedia. I Affirm and assure that I am no where related to the person to whom this article wrote about and I am writing this article from the neutral platform perspective only. I really appreciate your help and kind advise in getting this article be submitted successfully in Wikipedia. I am ready to do further edits to improve this article to meet Wikipedia's compliance. Please feel free to let me know your advise and guidance for me to submit this article. Thank you so much. Mallikarjunaswamy.m (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mallikarjunaswamy.m The draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mallikarjunaswamy.m As 331dot says, the draft was rejected because the subject is not notable. I believe your statement that you are not related to the person the article is about. That doesn't really matter if the person is not notable. David10244 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• AkashLakhotia (talk · contribs)

AkashLakhotia (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is blatant self-promotion and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a social media site. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 166.62.150.101 (talk · contribs)
  • The Will to Live (Titus Andronicus album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My draft was rejected, with the reviewer leaving the following comment: 'Please elaborate on the Critical reception for the album and also indicate any charting and awards'. However, the album has not charted, nor is there any record of it being nominated for, or receiving any, awards. What can I add in order for my draft to be accepted? Would it be sufficient to add a Critical Reception section describing what music critics said in their reviews? I've already included a Professional Ratings section. Thank you. 166.62.150.101 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some albums are simply not notable. Wikipedia does not need an article on every album ever issued. Wikipedia is not trying to collect every fact in the world, just the things that have had significant coverage in published sources. David10244 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]