June 1[edit]

• Sanketmore-patil (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sanket More-Patil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For creating Personal Page For Myself Sanketmore-patil (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanketmore-patil don't. Creating autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Your draft is blatant promotion and will be deleted soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SREEJESH PADMARAJAN (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:G. Srinivasan (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

kindly update the details SREEJESH PADMARAJAN (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SREEJESH PADMARAJAN: what do you mean? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SREEJESH PADMARAJAN Please provide suitable references 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 172.77.252.52 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Kids Learning Tube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don’t know

172.77.252.52 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has just been deleted as blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not for advertising your service. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User5428778 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Caleb Wu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are multiple sources which are reliable sources that cover Caleb Wu. What is missing to make the Wikipedia page notable? User5428778 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User5428778 Notability. This shows possible WP:BLP1E which is doubtful. bit not his passing WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• GlosHistoryBuff (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Honourable Company of Gloucestershire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm new to Wiki editing and seeking clarification of why this proposed article was rejected because it "is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Of the nine references cited in the draft page, I accept that one is to the website of the article subject, however the other eight are references to independent sources including the UK government register of companies and register of charities, the UK royal family's official list of charities and patronages, and several different news sources unconnected with the topic of the article. I'd also like to challenge the lack of notability argument, it has at least as much notability as existing/accepted articles on similar organisations such as https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Netflix&lang=en&q=The_Gloucestershire_Society. I'm not sure if there is an appeal process, but if there is not, any advice on how to make this article fit for publication would be appreciated. Thank you. GlosHistoryBuff (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected, sources need to be independent as well as reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question you need to ask yourself is, Where have people, wholly unconnected with the Company, chosen off their own bat to write at some length about the Company, and been published in reliable places? If the answer is "nowhere", then there cannot be an article.

I don't see a single source in your draft that meets that description.

As for existing articles: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dr pangloss (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oberlin Village (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wanted to iterate and saw draft as the best way to do that before going live. I used AfC because I had never done it before, previously I moved something from draft to main, as the tutorial says ("just go for it!").

As soon as clicking submit, I was told there were thousands of articles and a review could take months. I then decided to just move it as the tutorial states and I had done before.

I looked for some way to back out an AfC request but I didn't see it. Once a user submits something for feedback, is he locked into waiting for feedback and the page cannot go to main until that feedback is given? Thanks Dr pangloss (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr pangloss: the short answer is, most users are in most cases free to publish directly, without having to go through the AfC process. (Exceptions being where the user hasn't the necessary permissions, or is under some sort of community-imposed restrictions, or has a conflict of interest).

The longer answer is that once your article has been moved back to drafts (especially by a highly experienced administrator), and the draft has then been declined, it wouldn't be wise to publish it at this stage, as that would effectively be disputing the draftifier's and reviewer's assessments of the articles readiness for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! My article had not been reviewed when I posted this. It happened maybe 2 mins after. I will improve it and ask the reviewer what he considers better sources. In my area, the state historical review journal and the national register of historic places are the top citations you could have for an article on a historic neighborhood, but review says poor sources. Dr pangloss (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr pangloss: apologies, I didn't realise this was only declined after you had posed the question. (I think my point is still valid, either way, though.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]