• Manish Khouriwal (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The trending people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear CNMall41,

I recently received notification that my article submission was rejected due to not meeting the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I appreciate your review and feedback and would like to request your advice on how I can improve the article's notability.

Can you provide specific reasons for why the topic was not considered notable and any suggestions on how I can make it more notable? I am eager to make the necessary improvements to the article and meet the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Best regards Manish Khouriwal (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Khouriwal, your draft has four references. At first glance, the most promising is an article in Tech Bullion. Taking a closer look, I noticed that this article was just published today. Looking more closely, I see from their website that TechBullion offers press release publishing, content writing/promotion, and other digital marketing services to financial technology companies, blockchain technology, financial services, and technology businesses globally.. In other words, Tech Bullion is a "pay to play" operation, and not a reliable, independent source. The other three sources are also neither independent nor reliable. In conclusion, the referencing is very poor. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft and for your feedback regarding the referencing. I appreciate your comments and would like to address your concerns.

Regarding the article in Tech Bullion, I understand your skepticism about the source's reliability. I was not aware that Tech Bullion offers press release publishing and other marketing services to financial technology companies. I apologize for including this source without fully researching its background.

In terms of the other three sources, I understand that they may not be considered independent or reliable. I will take your feedback into consideration and work on finding more authoritative sources to support the article.

Thank you again for your feedback. I will revise the draft to improve the referencing and ensure that all sources used are reliable and independent. Manish Khouriwal (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 49.249.66.146 (talk · contribs)
  • Puskar Kumar Gupta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to create this page 49.249.66.146 (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead; drafting starts at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Okhutus (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Stephen Okhutu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with how I can make this article acceptable. Kindly show what I should remove or add. Okhutus (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the decline notice? The submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that's what you need to find currently there is zero indication of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 205.200.115.1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Western Financial Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We are working to edit our page to meet Wikipedia's publishing requirements and are having a difficult time understanding which sources qualify for the page and which don't. We have included 28 sources. Does every source need to tick all of the four boxes - reliable, independent, in-depth, and secondary? Are we required to remove any source that ticks 3>? Please advise. If it's possible to have an agent review with us, that would be extremely helpful. 205.200.115.1 (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for one person's use only. I know you've posted this question from an IP address, but I say that anyway because the draft in question was created by a registered user, which may or may not be you.

Secondly, you need disclose your obvious conflict of interest and likely paid editing status before editing further.

As for your question, no, not all sources need to meet all the WP:GNG criteria, only the ones that you rely on to establish notability. That said, you obviously shouldn't ever cite non-reliable sources, and also non-independent or close primary sources can only be used to support information which is not contentious in any way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Madhukogan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Designers Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my draft has been declined? All sources are reliable. I have edited the citation links as per instructed. Please guide me on how do I delete extra reference links at the bottom. Madhukogan (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Waynepua (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arc XP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Are there any specific recommendations on moving forward with the article to have it published? I have followed the previously stated recommendations, disclosed my conflict of interest, and have cited sources not affiliated with the subject. Waynepua (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Waynepua: no; this article has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Biospeleologist (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jayant Biswas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What types of references are required? As per my knowledge I have added sufficient support, Can I add the published paper as reference in this regard? Biospeleologist (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Biospeleologist: we need to see either multiple sources that satisfy the WP:GNG notability requirement, or clear evidence to show this person meets WP:NACADEMIC notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• AlreadyYeti (talk · contribs)
  • Sam Lawrence (Ohio Politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

References page formatting will not allow election results box to be placed above it. AlreadyYeti (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 3rd Party Rap (talk · contribs)
  • User:3rd Party Rap/sandbox - Wiki Denys our iMusic Art. Submission for approx 7 yrs, and counting. Yet approve the FN MEKA ART that plagiarize us. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We been attempting to submit this article for approx 7 yrs. Wiki's initial reason for denial was "not notable". Yet now you can not turn on tv or go online without stumbling across AI Music (iMusic) news reports and discussions. Additionally, I see it was no problem for the FN MEKA (PLAGIARIZED) wiki article to get approved by wikipedia some 6 yrs after we reported it. We were the first to do Ai music, but wikipedia rather promulgate false reports (fake news) that FN Meka was the first AI rap/ virtual rapper. We have cited clear YouTube timestamped publishing video links date that show we did it in 2017 yr ( iObama was before FN Meka; close case). 3rd Party Rap (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:3rd Party Rap/sandbox

@3rd Party Rap: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Anh DOS (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MetaDOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Could you please let me know the reason for rejection? We have released the alpha version on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2018740/MetaDOS. We have a reasonable number of follower accross social networks: https://dos.me/MetaDOS. And we also won some prizes: https://help.metados.com/hc/en-us/articles/6914013106191 Anh DOS (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Anh DOS. For a game to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it needs multiple references to reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that show significant coverage. For example, a review from IGN would help to establish notability. The number of followers you have doesn't change anything. However, this draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• HiDot94 (talk · contribs)
  • Outer Terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Outer Terror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What could we do now to get this page approved? HiDot94 (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @HiDot94. I've taken another look, and I think the draft meets notability guidelines, so I've accepted it. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! HiDot94 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]