• UrFathermaybeblind (talk · contribs)
  • Good Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Good Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to know what was the reason for the decline and how could i get it published

UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• UrFathermaybeblind (talk · contribs)
  • Good Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Good Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Can you please tell me how can i get this published all the things are provided the references the website what is the problem then can you advise me to get it published

UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UrFathermaybeblind: the reason for the declines has been provided by the reviewers, namely that the draft is virtually unreferenced with no evidence of notability, as well as being promotional in nature. In any case, this has been rejected and won't be considered further at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Z812483032 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Chest Binders and Body Dysphoria: Coping Strategies for Transgender Individuals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have rewritten the content that may have caused controversy, so I have resubmitted it for review and inspection. I would greatly appreciate it if you could guide me on how to improve the content I submit. Thank you.

Z812483032 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z812483032: this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further; not because it "caused controversy", but because it is not written as an encyclopaedia article (see WP:NOT). It is also entirely unreferenced, suggesting that it may be original research or synthesis. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ben wid (talk · contribs)
  • Christoph Ingenhoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Christoph Ingenhoven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I created a draft (Draft: Christoph Ingenhoven). One reaction to that was negative, which I can't understand. Will my contribution be checked again? I would be happy to explain why I consider the article to be suitable and important information for the English Wikipedia.

Ben wid (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben wid: it's not clear whether you already resubmitted the draft or something just went wrong with the AfC tags, but either way it is back in the pending pool, so I would suggest you simply wait for the re-review. (BTW, please don't edit the AfC tags, they form a record of the draft's progress through the system. Thanks.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ino. it seems to be working now Ben wid (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Georgealexandar (talk · contribs)
  • User:Georgealexandar/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

George alexandar A (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgealexandar: you don't ask a question, but your sandbox draft was rejected and deleted. Please note that this is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn or classified ads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! I am working on creating a page for Camila Coelho, one of the biggest creators and entrepreneurs from the original 2009 blogger era that is a top creator to this date (was on Forbes 2022 creator list, CEO of two businesses), but I am running into some trouble despite having about 30 credible sources. Any help would be appreciated. She has been on GMA, CBS This Morning, interviews with Vogue U.S., Elle U.S., InStyle U.S., Harper's Bazaar U.S., People Magazine U.S., Business Insider U.S., Women's Wear Daily (WWD), Business of Fashion, and many more, including far spanning International titles. WWD has ranked Camila as the talent who brings the most media value to New York and Paris Fashion Week multiple times in the last 2 years. I have found many, many smaller creators in the same space who have lenghty pages, while Camila has been a prominent creator for 13 years. Please note there is only one Forbes contributor interview, the Forbes lists are from the editorial board, including financial audits, and are completely separate from contributors.

Paulboy (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulboy: you've improved the draft, and resubmitted it; now you need to wait for its next review. Or do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiNikki0127 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Holy Family Academy (Phoenix, AZ) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I submitted an article for review on 3/10. I've been working to get this article published for a while now. I believe I had finally removed all of the "nonreliable" sources and included all of the reliable sources possible. I was waiting to receive the email that it was declined or approved, but I never got one. I logged back in today to see the status and it shows that I never submitted it on 3/10 on the main draft page. I have to look at the View History page to see that. My View History page has strange notes that I do not understand...any help would be appreciated.

curprev 06:20, 14 March 2023‎ 174.212.224.64 talk‎ 6,733 bytes −448‎ →‎Notable Alumni: not notable. See WP:ALUMNI and WP:WTAF undo 12 March 2023 curprev 13:52, 12 March 2023‎ 174.212.224.64 talk‎ 7,181 bytes +335‎ This draft has been rejected. Do not resubmit. undo Tag: Undo 10 March 2023 curprev 16:19, 10 March 2023‎ WikiNikki0127 talk contribs‎ 6,846 bytes +63‎ Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard undo Tag: Reverted curprev 16:18, 10 March 2023‎ WikiNikki0127 talk contribs‎ m 6,783 bytes −398‎ removed nonreliable sources. undo Tags: Reverted

WikiNikki0127 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiNikki0127: yes, an IP editor had interfered with the AfC templates (possible vandalism), but it was later reverted, and the draft is back in the pending pool awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Sheesh. Wikipedia is weird haha. Is that something I should be concerned about? Why would an IP editor interfere with the it? Did they mess with my template or just the AfC template in general? These are mostly rhetorical questions... I read and write multiple coding languages, but wiki is a whole new world to me. Thanks for your help! WikiNikki0127 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ttwkr (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jonathan Vicente (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviews, I think there's a huge mistake here. He's a notable person, probably there's a need for more sources. Let me know

Thank you Ttwkr (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ttwkr: what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ttwkr Unfortunately, your draft has been rejected because the reviewer feels that the subject is not sufficiently notable. In fact, it was rejected in September 2022. I am not a reviewer, but my impressions are: The first cite is to Twitter, which is not reliable since there is no fact-checking. The second source talks about Covid, but as far as I can see, it doesn't have in-depth discussion of the subject. Although references in other languages are acceptable, I personally can't evaluate them. Rejection means that the draft won't be considered further. If new sources have appeared, you can provide them, and ask the reviewer (I had the wrong user here, see below) if he or she will take another look. David10244 (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the correct reviewer @Tymon.r. David10244 (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]