Gpedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
TalkBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Welcome to the Gpedia Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions to Gpedia. Are you in the right place?
  • For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
  • Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
  • Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page.
Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

November 29

Request on 01:04:49, 29 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Real Factual Content

I have information that I'm trying to add on a subject who has more articles and information then most but its getting rejected please advise.

Real Factual Content (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:55:40, 29 November 2022 review of submission by Real Factual Content

The subject has more articles then most on actors on Gpedia's platform I have taken the liberty of attaching some for ref. I've also added the links to actors who also has less articles written.

There's lots more.

He starred along Mark Taylor in the award-winning short film Related Destiny

He starred along Eltony Williams in the award-winning film Good Intentions

He starred along Lil JJ

He starred along Kurt Naebig

He starred along Dan Flannery

He has more articles written on him than most people he's been in movies with they all have Wiki pages, but you guys denied our article on Will Thompson.

I would like to know how these people are noteworthy but not him? From our understanding he's the reason they were all in the film Good Intentions which has won awards.

Please advise. Real Factual Content (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Real Factual Content Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode.
The other five articles are completely and utterly irrelevant as we do not believe in notability-by-osmosis. I will note, however, three of them predate the modern Articles for Creation process and the other two were never drafted in the first place (one was created in 2020 by an auto-confirmed editor; the other created in 2017 before WP:ACPERM went into effect in 2018). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:45:39, 29 November 2022 review of submission by GabrielleNSmith

I have adjusted the tone and wording on Mr. Dutch. Please provide advice or any particular copy that still remains biased. Thank you.

GabrielleNSmith (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GabrielleNSmith: this draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GabrielleNSmith You have not addressed the conflict of interest and paid editing issues. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please explain how I can address this? I have not been paid to produce this page nor do I have a conflict of interest. I am a writer and simply noticed the artist did not have a Wiki page. This is my first contribution and would like to understand what changes can be made to publish the page and have better understanding for any future pages I wish to write. GabrielleNSmith (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please can you explain why? The artist does not currently have a Wiki page and I should be able to objectively write a page on them? GabrielleNSmith (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GabrielleNSmith: the reasons have been extensively explained at the various stages throughout the review process, including at the final rejection. Please refer to those.
Note also that you have been asked over two months ago to disclose any conflict of interest you may have in this subject, which you have so far failed to do. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies, I am new to contributing on Wiki. I do not have a conflict of interest on the subject. I am unsure on how to prove this other than stating I am completely objective. I understand the tone of the copy has been previously mentioned and I have addressed this when amending and updating the copy. GabrielleNSmith (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 11:14:02, 29 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Lordofcorona

Lordofcorona (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Lordofcorona. The article is not notable enough for Gpedia, and will not be considered further, as Bonadea said. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:43:30, 29 November 2022 review of draft by Purshottam Budhwani

Hello, please let me know how i can improve this draft about Purshottam Budhwani(Social Worker). I have also added few references in Hindi but the draft got declined due to some reason. I'm unable to understand the issue behind it. kindly guide me to improve my draft

Purshottam Budhwani (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need more sources. Where else does this person appear online in reputable sources? If they don't appear in many more, perhaps they are not relevant enough for an article. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Purshottam Budhwani: there is no indication that the subject is notable; for that, you need to cite sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, and you also need to demonstrate a reason why this should be included in a global encyclopaedia.
Too much of the content is also unsupported by referencing, and you need to improve on that, as unreferenced content is not allowed in articles on living people.
You should also read and understand the advice against creating autobiographies, at WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:41:53, 29 November 2022 review of submission by OttoMäkelä

Can someone please explain in detail why cannot even be a stub page? Exactly what is wrong with the given references?

The standards enforcement for new pages unfortunately seems rather arbitrary, for example compare how MicMac (software) was created in 2020 without anyone raising notability or reference issues, and even the original stub tag disappears at some point.

OttoMäkelä (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OttoMäkelä the length of an article is not as much of concern as the sources supporting it. I suggest giving WP:NCORP a thorough read. As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, things still get by even today that may not meet guidelines. I suggest if you are going to use an article for comparison, look for one that has met Good article status. If you resubmit the draft, I also strongly suggest proving WP:THREE on the draft's talk page. S0091 (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:55:37, 29 November 2022 review of submission by 24boxes media

I am sorry but i fail to understand on what basis is the article being rejected? I have provided external links linking to the actors work. I have and still am providing references to the actors work. He deserves due credit and that is what i am trying to do. Please help me in understanding what am i doing wrong. I see that hi work has been rejected in the past as well.24boxes media (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 24boxes media (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@24boxes media: this has been rejected for lack of evidence of notability, the same reason why it was previously declined. If there is no obvious progress in addressing the decline issue(s), eventually the reviewers will conclude that the subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Worth also noting that this has been through no fewer than four (!) AfD discussions previously, each resulting in deletion, which already tells you something. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 30

07:36:24, 30 November 2022 review of draft by SanoSirius

How to add Video links of News about the person SanoSirius (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SanoSirius: don't worry about adding video links for now; instead, think how you're going to justify the inclusion of this article, given that Annamalai Kuppusamy has been deleted and salted, Draft:Annamalai Kuppusamy has been rejected, and there are two prior AfD discussions (this and this) which resulted in delete verdicts. I'd say you're flogging the proverbial dead horse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for bring this information to my knowledge, I see there was a confusion of two different persons named Annamalai K. Also I see one of the other article has been with dropped due to notability. in this case kindly advice how should I proceed further. with the article I created. SanoSirius (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:51:33, 30 November 2022 review of submission by Thepublich

Feel free to edit/ rewrite article. Did research I see multiple article with vent magazine as a source.(Noah Cyrus) and see numerous article with less references but are published. feedback and assisted with greatly appreciated

best Thepublich (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thepublich: this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. For the same reason, no point in editing it, either, although if someone one day wants to rewrite a draft on the same topic, they're free to do so, of course; perhaps by then the subject has actually become notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:31:20, 30 November 2022 review of submission by Abhinav1976

Help me to create this article. how can i fix this problem? Abhinav1976 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abhinav1976: you cannot 'fix' it; the draft has been rejected for lack of notability, and this is therefore the end of the road for it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:04:18, 30 November 2022 review of draft by Violetssss

Hello, I'm reaching out to determine the cause of denial for the article I'm creating. I'm assuming it's something to do with my sources but I'm not sure where to begin correcting the issues. This is my first time creating a wiki article after browsing for many years so I'm not entirely up to speed on the do's and don'ts. Any and all help is greatly appreciated, thank you very much :)

Violetssss (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Violetssss: as it says in the decline notice, for notability by WP:GNG we need to see significant coverage (of the person, not any indirectly related matters) in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject.
You also need to ensure that anything potentially contentious or of private personal nature (and this includes things like DOB) is clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. (This wasn't the reason why your draft was declined, but it is one that drafts on living people often fail on.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:25:42, 30 November 2022 review of draft by

I am requesting help because my draft has been declined multiple times due to a lack of reliable sources. It's difficult for me to see where I need to include more sources and how to know when I have a sufficient amount of reliable sources. I have read all the info on Gpedia regarding reliable sources and I'm hoping to get more specific tips on my draft of how to improve it. (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As has been explained in the decline notices, you need sources that are not only reliable but also in-depth about the topic and independent of the subject of the article. Which of your sources meet all of these conditions? Most of the sources seem to came from the laboratory and lab personnel themselves. Most labs at universities are not well-enough covered in such sources to have separate articles about them in Gpedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:25:19, 30 November 2022 review of draft by Musicologiver

This article required additional reviews, evidence of the ensemble's importance worthy of a Gpedia article. It was suggested that publication/release of a CD would be useful in this. I have added such information and would welcome any additional help, though I would hope that there is now enough citations etc to permit the article's publication.

Musicologiver (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musicologiver You may submit the draft for another review- we don't really do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 1

Request on 11:11:18, 1 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Ismartfy

Ismartfy (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ismartfy: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:20:03, 1 December 2022 review of submission by Ismartfy

12:20:03, 1 December 2022 review of submission by Ismartfy

Ismartfy (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft was rejected, see Gpedia:What Gpedia is not. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2

07:34:03, 2 December 2022 review of draft by Venessa Ferns

I want to understand what it means when it says that the subject of my article already exists in wikipedia, because of which my article was declined from being published.

Venessa Ferns (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have created a draft about a topic that we already have an article on, see the article here Chetan Bhagat. Theroadislong (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:32:01, 2 December 2022 review of submission by Hairmer

Hi, I want to know how to improve this draft and resubmit. Admin said "Entire draft sniffs of puffery." Please provide me advice for improving and resubmitting.Hairmer (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hairmer (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hairmer: this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. You'd have to completely rewrite it, and demonstrate notability beyond any doubt. Judging by the current contents and sources, that seems a tall order. I also don't see anything in there that would explain why this warrants inclusion in a global encyclopaedia; as it stands, this would be a prime candidate for A7 speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:20:28, 2 December 2022 review of submission by (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft, such as it is, has been rejected and won't be considered further, other than for deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:26:52, 2 December 2022 review of submission by (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have no usable sources; the article as written and sourced is thus not going to pass review. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:32:45, 2 December 2022 review of submission by Wizardunicorn

Hello there, I have reviewed the article and added awards as well as investment rounds to it. I have also reviewed the text to make sure I remove all sections that could be deemed "advertising" Wizardunicorn (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wizardunicorn The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Funding rounds and niche awards do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:02:35, 2 December 2022 review of submission by 2404:4408:638C:5E00:3DE6:B2A4:FA9D:DD74

My belief is it is factual, it is referenced and more balanced than List of Nazi monuments in Canada and Monuments in the United States to Nazi collaborators both either biased to pro-Russian Federation or revisionist and places similar emphasis on what apparently is the key point, these people worked with the Nazi's and ignores whys and what for's

2404:4408:638C:5E00:3DE6:B2A4:FA9D:DD74 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:18:32, 2 December 2022 review of submission by

The game is sufficient notable. (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:32:27, 2 December 2022 review of submission by Thekatedee

Below is the dress Kate Dee has gotten lately.

Press Thekatedee (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 23:30:23, 2 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Kwilsonwallace

Hello! I'm trying to figure out what Andrew Prahlow's Gpedia page was declined again. I feel like there's significant coverage about him including multiple interviews listed as references. Is there a specific line or project that should be taken out or would it be helpful to list more of his interviews? Thank you for your help!

Kwilsonwallace (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 3

02:58:20, 3 December 2022 review of draft by Xin505324545

Xin505324545 (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear managers of Gpedia:

I have revised the draft accordingly. For example, several references from [34] to [40] and [2] were included as publications or references from other places (i.e., Taylor & Francis Group and ASCE) not connected to IABMAS. It would be highly appreciated if this article International Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety could be accepted. Thank you very much for your consideration in advance!

05:15:08, 3 December 2022 review of submission by EmuFan

EmuFan (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Ryujinx wiki submission was rejected, quickly, by the same person who rejected it three previous occasions, this time for the following reasons: "A search did not bring any new significant coverage to light, and the added sources are trivial or unreliable. Ryujinx is pretty clearly not a notable piece of software that was written about at length. See also WP:NOTCHANGELOG for why an article should not be just a list of software updates." Since the last request for approval, significant notability was added. Zxcvbnm's assertion that the article resembles a changelog is unfounded and indicates that this user did not actually read the entirety of the submission. After looking at the previous history of this article with ‪Zxcvbnm, I am convinced that the article is not receiving a fair shake. Ryujinx is already listed as one of "the most well known" Nintendo system emulators on Nintendo Switch emulation and has additionally been covered by the major publications PC Gamer, Kotaku, and Linus Tech Tips (mentioned in both that wiki article and in the Ryujinx submission). These are not "trivial or unreliable" sources. Looking at other console emulator Wiki articles that exist already, the layout and notability of the Ryujinx submission are similar.

Can we get a approval review from someone else?

EmuFan Who is "we"? Please read other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits- perhaps other articles about emulators are also inappropriate, and simply have not been addressed yet. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Looking at some of the sources, they are
  1. a description of the emulator and its features
  2. a forum post, which is not a reliable source that had fact checking and editorial control
  3. information about game compatibility
  4. the same source
  5. the emulator's website where it can be downloaded, not independent
  6. also the emulator's website
  7. a piece about the development of the Nintendo Switch, which doesn't mention the emulator at all
  8. a blog from the emulator's website, not independent and not reliable
  9. a piece about the release of the emulator, a routine activity
  10. is in Spanish so I cannot evaulate it
  11. appears to be a blog/online discussion, not a reliable source
  12. describes progress on making a game available on the emulator, a routine activity
  13. another piece about making a game compatible with the emulator
  14. the same
  15. describing the release of a preview build on the emulator, not independent
I could keep going but most of the sources do not discuss the significance or influence of the emulator itself, they mostly talk about games being made available for it, or other technical aspects. I believe that the rejection was correct. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We" are the various contributors who, over the last several years, have been clearly wasting our time attempting to get a Ryujinx Wiki article published.
By your explanation/definition, all of the existing Gpedia articles on console emulators should be removed; the notability citations on the Ryujinx article are equal to or surpass the lot. This is how emulators are written about in the media. If upper tier publications writing specifically about how a AAA game title that will sell millions of copies is being emulated for the first time, by a specific emulator, is not enough to satisfy notability standards, then nothing will.
Again, if this article is not suitable for publishing, then the rest of the console emulator articles should be removed ASAP. Otherwise, this is a wholly unfair rejection. EmuFan (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EmuFan: the point was already made that you shouldn't compare this draft to existing articles, as that is not how notability is determined. If you feel there are articles that don't meet the notability and/or other guidelines, feel free to either improve them or propose them for deletion. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not my responsibility to clean up the mess you've all made with the unequal application of notability standards. Plus it looks like someone already tried to have some of those articles removed at some point and they were inexplicably left published.
If you're denying new articles based on standards that aren't being applied elsewhere, it's an unfair hurdle to entry and simply lowers the quality of the platform. I have no interest in wasting my time with such nonsense. EmuFan (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EmuFan This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. Until we get paid to be here, things will appear to be unequal. As noted, your help in removing inappropriate articles would be welcome, as we can only address what we know about. You may very well be correct that most or all articles on emulators should be removed if they lack appropriate sources. It is true that some subject areas are underserved because reliable sources do not write about them as Gpedia requires, but our standards are what they are. I'm sorry that you feel as you do. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding "If upper tier publications writing specifically about how a AAA game title that will sell millions of copies is being emulated for the first time, by a specific emulator, is not enough to satisfy notability standards, then nothing will.", frankly, yes. That's not what we are looking for, because that is not significant coverage of the emulator itself, that's coverage of products that already exist being made available in another format, that doesn't tell us what is significant of the emulator itself. All emulators exist to play games. That's not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. Someone else can deal with it. If the articles were already challenged and left up, it's just a sign that there are much bigger problems with supposed notability standards. EmuFan (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:40:33, 3 December 2022 review of submission by Rivkaorlitova

The draft got declined and there was some comment - I did not understand the comment and do not know how to improve the draft. How do I improve the draft? Rivkaorlitova (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to find independent sources the sources you have presently are not reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:19:24, 3 December 2022 review of submission by Ugochu

I have adhered to the guidance provided by the last reviewer. I have provided secondary references about the subject work as directed. Please can you provide specific reason/s/feedback has to my submission was rejected. At this point it is unclear why it was rejected/what the criteria is. Ugochu (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ugochu Please see the messages left by reviewers on the draft. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Maybe I am missing something. Please help. The only message I can find is: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Gpedia Most of the secondary sources provided focus on the subject's work. This was done as directed by the last reviewer. It will help me if some specific feedback is provided. Ugochu (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maybe I am missing something. Please help. The only message I can find is: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Gpedia Most of the secondary sources provided focus on the subject's work. This was done as directed by the last reviewer. It will help me if some specific feedback is provided. 2A02:C7D:7ACF:7400:A5C6:6946:7A17:3115 (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For follow up comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. Also remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The draft has comments by reviewers, between the red boxes and the actual text of the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I can seen comments and updated draft based on the feedbacks provided. Regarding today's rejection, it is unclear to me what needs to be done. No comments-apart from (This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Gpedia). Ugochu (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rejection means that resubmission is not possible, and thar there is nothing further you can do to improve the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:02:53, 3 December 2022 review of submission by Baileywoody

Hi, I submitted a page to be published on wiki that contains content from a book that my husband and I have just written about Charles DeWolf Brownell. He was my great-great-grandfather, and the book uses source material that passed down from my grandmother to me. Except for two quotes at the end of my wiki application page, all the other wording has come from detailed diaries that Brownell kept during his lifetime or family papers about him. I am unclear as to how to cite my sources in terms of end notes. Should I put superscript in different sections of my wiki entry to refer to our book and say what page/s the information can be found on? I can easily reference the 2 different quote sources at the end. Please advise as to what I need to do to better document my submission.

Baileywoody (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baileywoody A Gpedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic, showing how it meets Gpedia's special definition of notability. Unless independent sources write about your relative, he would not merit a Gpedia article at this time. Citing your book that is based on private, family material is not acceptable for Gpedia. If independent sources cite your book, those could be used. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for getting back to me. We will wait until we can get newpaper articles, etc., about our book, or I can cite different Foot Note/Bibliography resources at end of our book that are relevant to the biographical information I am including. Charles DeWolf Brownell's uncle, Bishop Thomas Church Brownell, and older brother, Henry Howard Brownell, are already included on wiki. I will put our page on hold for the time being. Baileywoody (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 17:25:26, 3 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Lada Ukrainka

Lada Ukrainka (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lada Ukrainka You don't ask a question, but your draft is completely unsourced. All articles, especially those about living people, must be sourced to reliable sources. Please read about referencing, and Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:19:22, 3 December 2022 review of submission by UrbanLok

UrbanLok (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UrbanLok: No sources, no article, no debate. What is your connexion to the subject?Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:01:29, 3 December 2022 review of submission by Shahriar1122

Hi bro there has been many fake news spreaded by locals here about shahriar, as he is a journalist. so we need the right information in a source where people can beleive. Shahriar1122 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shahriar1222 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Your draft was more of a social media profile than an encyclopedia article that summarizes independent reliable sources. Gpedia should not be blindly trusted, please see the general disclaimer. Readers should check sources and verify the information presented. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:23:42, 3 December 2022 review of submission by Ldsutton

How do I convert/move my sandbox page to an article? Ldsutton (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ldsutton Your edit history shows no edits to your sandbox, but you did create Draft:Richard Francis Sullivan. You may submit it for a review by clicking the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 4

00:48:24, 4 December 2022 review of submission by WikiBama

I'm new to writing something for Gpedia. I have written a draft submission but can't figure out how to either submit for review or what I need to do to get it published. Can you please help this novice? Thanks.

WikiBama (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is now submitted, the coding was present but improperly formatted. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:43:57, 4 December 2022 review of submission by Sanjaychandrabarman9434

Sanjaychandrabarman9434 (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sanjaychandrabarman9434: what is your question? Your draft, such as it is, has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sanjaychandrabarman9434: This would be a slam-dunk no content speedy deletion were it in article space. Come back when you've actually written the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:27:29, 4 December 2022 review of submission by Farhan RR Official

Farhan RR Official (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Draft:Farhan Rana Rajpoot (film director) you fix this article yourself. Does it have any problems? If you guide him a little. I will welcome you.And this is not my article. This is a famous person who is still alive.Reply[reply]

Sorry @Farhan RR Official, is your question "does it have any problems?" Yes, it has significant problems, in that it doesn't demonstrate notability, most of the content is unreferenced, and autobiographies are in any case a bad idea. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ou seem like a very nice person to me. Please help me if you can. Pells will reply me immediately Farhan RR Official (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My advice to you is to go out and perform your chosen career to the best of your ability, and to forget about if there is a Gpedia article about you or not; if you truly meet the notability criteria, someone independent will eventually write about you. Be advised that an article about yourself is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will be in touch with you later please. So you can't believe me, can you tell? You said. Will you give the whatsapp number? please me Farhan RR Official (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Farhan RR Official I'm not sure why you bring up whatsapp. If you wish to discuss Gpedia, it should be done here. Are you Mr. Rajpoot, or a representative? 331dot (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sir. Representative? of that Farhan RR Official (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is incoherent. Are you Mr. Rajpoot, yes or no? 331dot (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes Farhan RR Official (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, let me ask you something, you said. I am from Pakistan. and U Farhan RR Official (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Farhan RR Official: please note that this isn't a chat room, and personal information is not relevant to the draft review process. Do you have a draft-related question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Farhan RR Official: You seem to be under the (common) misconception Gpedia has a hierarchy similar to a corporation. That is not the case. No one editor has any supreme authority over any other as far as content is concerned, and each of us are volunteers doing this on our own time and thus are loathe to hand out our personal contact details to someone we don't know. (Gpedia's paid staff do not edit or make content decisions in that capacity barring extreme circumstances.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:52:27, 4 December 2022 review of submission by

I am sorry but this rejection is wholly arbitrary and capricious and violates Gpedia's own guidelines. This is the standard: "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The main sources in question (Buffalo News and Buffalo Courier-Express) are both reliable, secondary and reputable sources and are (or have been) the primary newspapers that have covered the news of Western New York region in which Mr. Williams was notable. Mr. Williams was the head of the US attorney's office for the Western District of New York. Other US attorneys both before and after his tenure have their own Gpedia pages and met the notability standard. The head of the US attorney's office is a very prestigious and important position in the US. From Gpedia: Justices and many judges are "inherently notable". BY logical extension, US attorneys, while perhaps not inherently notable, at least hold a position that is usually strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. This was not considered at all. Secondly, and separately, Mr. Williams was the lead prosecutor for several high profile cases in Western New York. In fact, in many of these articles Mr. Williams is not just mentioned "in passing" but is actively mentioned as would any other prosecutor prosecuting a high profile case. Those cases received substantial (even international) attention at the time. Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, it seems evident that both the significant coverage and the notability standard have been met.

Worse is the attempted justification for the arbitrary rejection. "Only one source is about him specifically (other than a routine announcement) and that one is a short obituary in a local newspaper." This is a clearly erroneous statement and shows the lack of substantial review into the actual references (which are over ten in total). First, there are at least three separate sources that are about him specifically. One of them is an article discussing the shake-up at the US attorney's office and directly references and quotes him. That is certainly not a routine announcement. A fourth article even mentions that Mr. Williams is a "who's who" in law enforcement in Western New York and his names is included with other high profile person. Second, the article (referenced as a mere "obituary") is not short. It is in fact an unusually long article. It is in fact an article rather than an obituary. It is akin to articles that would be written about other notable people that have passed away. You can count the number of words and independently verify that the article is certainly not "short". You can also review the number of high profile (notable) persons that Mr. Williams worked with in some capacity. This is further indicia of notability. This lack of serious review, and blatant disregarding of the correct Gpedia standard, undermines Gpedia's mission in general and is indicative of why less and less people in general are interested in Gpedia articles. I am not sure what the future holds for Gpedia but these type of arbitrary rejections need to be curtailed to preserve Gpedia's status as a respected source. Finally, Gpedia is filled with published articles of people with less notability and "substantial coverage" than Mr. Williams. While that would not be an item of evidence in court, it nonetheless demonstrates just how arbitrary and capricious the decision-making authority at Gpedia has become, at Mr. Williams's expense. In a court of law, this decision would undoubtedly be overturned. To say this rejection is disappointing and frustrating would be a serious understatement. I request that someone reconsider the article using the correct standard. (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. That is not a reason to add more. If you would like to help us out, please work with us to identify other articles that do not meet standards. We can only address what we know about.
The draft was declined, not rejected- the two words have different meanings. Rejection would mean resubmission is not possible. As you have resubmitted it, a reviewer will look at it again, but I personally don't disagree with the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 5

01:34:58, 5 December 2022 review of submission by JCMLuis

My draft was declined and I've went over the page about notability in weather and read the subsection of tropical cyclones. I thought it would meet the criteria because it did cause a reasonably sized impact across the Caroline Islands. It led to a disaster declaration from the president of the Federated States of Micronesia that was later declared by Donald Trump and also caused 2 deaths. Does it have to do with not enough sources or the meteorological history not providing enough? luis. 💬 01:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.