This is an archive of past discussions with User:7G. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have been off from Wikipedia after my last statement on my talk page which was made (22nd May 2023) and after reading a statement where SilkTork said there was no need responding. So I had to take a leave which has made me understand and realise I was at the wrong side about the Wikipedia policy. With the few months, which has been over 8 months if am not mistaken, I can boldly say am totally different from past attitude. I could have come back immediately after the six month time given but I wasn't in a hurry anymore because I feel different. I actually had in mind one day I will be back here to apologise for all my wrong deeds about Sockpuppet and promise never will that happen again after my love for wikipedia as a contributor and the knowledge it has impact in my life. Each time I get to read about articles here on wikipedia it reminds me about my block account. I do always feel eager to make good contributions to the platform and also happy that I was able to create, write and took pictures about some popular places such as Iyana-Iba, Lagos State, Choba, Port Harcourt and so on. It feels lonely to be recognise as an editor who never came back to apologise for its wrongs. I hope i can be forgiven as I promise never to indulge myself into Sockpuppet anymore. And promise to make wikipedia a better place to the society, thanks. Gabriel(talk to me ) 10:29 pm, 27 March 2024, Wednesday (2 months, 6 days ago) (UTC+0)
Accept reason:
Gabriel601 appears to understand what they did wrong, and has committed not to engage in sockpuppeting, nor to write articles for pay, and to avoid any conflicts of interest. Unblocked. SilkTork (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Yamla's only confirming that they found no evidence of block evasion over the last eight months. Checking that is a typical step in evaluating an unblock request for a sockpuppeting sanction. Many people who say they made no edits during their block are discovered to have actually edited while logged out or using another account. That Yamla did not find evidence of recent block evasion is a point in your favor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not an administrator, just an uninvolved editor with a longstanding interest in the gnome-y governance/administrative side of Wikipedia. But I'm really rooting for you to be unblocked here; it appears you took the WP:STANDARD to heart and I like seeing editors get second chances. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
It is good that you have acknowledged that you created sockpuppet accounts. And it is good that you have refrained from creating new sock puppets, and that you commit to not creating any more in future. This goes in your favour. One thing that you would need to clear up is any concerns that people may have about you editing for payment without telling us. We do allow people to edit for payment - but they must declare that they are being paid. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. SilkTork (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @SilkTork. I really do appreciate your response. Regarding being paid to create articles. I have never in my life had the thought of taking money from people to create articles neither writing about someone closer to me but I have a little story to share about the draft article Draft:Filmymantra Media. It's a Bollywood media company of which the founder was my friend so he approached me one day and told me he would like me to create a wikipedia page for his company which falls under the wikipedia guidelines of Conflict of interest. I never took money to write because it's not a thing I do for a living to earn but a thing I do as fun writing and to improve myself on knowledge. I also never had in mind of coming back to the draft article Draft:Filmymantra Media as it goes against wikipedia guidelines. I pledge to be honest now and forever that is why I have to talk about it. Gabriel(talk to me )09:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portable (musician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Opay, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello respected @SilkTork I hope you're well. My name is Parwiz from Panjshir, Afghanistan, and I'm a Wikipedia user. All my activities are focused on my country, Afghanistan. Recently, someone named @Gabriel606 has been opposing my activities without any reason. I don't know what his goal is, but when I visited his talk page, I saw that he had previously been accused of taking money in exchange for publishing articles. It seems that he is involved in activities that are not aligned with Wikipedia's policies, and a team of experienced users is supporting him. I hope they can be identified and blocked.
In June 2023, @Bbb23 asked you a question of your previous account. But you decided not to reply. In January 2023, @Melcous warned you against vadalism but it doesn't seem like you have changed. In June 2024, @thetechie also warned you against WP:CANVASS but you never saw that right. Before I nominated your article for AFD. A lot of your article has been nominated and was deleted because you never submitted them for review. There is no article of yours you have ever submitted and they got accepted. You said "a team of experienced users is supporting him. I hope they can be identified and blocked". You seem to be funny lol. I hope you learn your lessons someday, because all this editors that has ever reached out to you are just trying to help you. But you want them all blocked so you can have the world all to yourself. lol and cheers. Gabriel(talk to me )16:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
If there is something going on that I can help with, let me know; but please - both of you - don't come to my talkpage to moan about other users without any other purpose than to insult that user.
Parwiz ahmadi, I am giving you an informal caution regarding making accusations against other users without evidence: see Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you are concerned that Din Mohammad Jurat is going to be deleted, then your best approach is to look into the concerns about the article, and find reliable sources.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opay until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello, Gabriel601!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!06:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
G6
You cannot WP:G6 an article because there was an AfD a decade ago that resulted in a delete consensus. That's not what that criterion is for. WP:G4 is closer, but the article needs to be pretty much the same, and none of the ones you've tagged meet that criterion (as when the AfD's took place, they hadn't been signed, whereas now, they had all played on various teams). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
This 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chioma Avril Rowland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Chioma Avril Rowland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chioma Rowland. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!07:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Genesis (restaurant) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
This 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ulugbekhon Maksumov and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
I saw your replies on Liz's talk page but decided to bring it here at least to avoid flooding Liz's TP. First, calm down, take a breath, and relax. While I believe you understand Wikipedia well, there's no need to explain how it works, and wants to remind you that it is a volunteer project. Yes, we maybe from same country— Nigeria, and though we don't know each other, we're both trying our best here. You might not know that I'm a Catholic seminarian almost done with my philosophy studies and heading into theology. One of the best practices on Wikipedia is to avoid personal attacks. When another editor asks you to stop, you should stop. As Afrowriter mentioned, there's no need to tell others they are sick; there’s a process for that, and it's called the WP:SPI, which you have already filed a report.
Sometimes, editors may quickly escalate issues to WP:ANI, which you know isn't going to be fine. I understand you might be frustrated, as I do sometimes, especially when our volunteer work is criticized. It's important to focus on the positive aspects like the barnstars, praises, and thanks you receive. If I were harsh, you could have ended up at ANI for calling against my user rights as a reviewer. To me and many other editors, you're an established editor with significant contributions, and it's evident that Afrowriter finds your actions frustrating. Even if dealing with SPAs, frustration should not be your priority.
Remember, the wrongs we commit are forgiven by God, and we should extend that grace to our fellow humans. My advice will be: calm down, participate in AFDs, and continue contributing as you do. Admins will address the report you filed at WP:SPI. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!19:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Gabriel601,
You should listen to Safari Scribe. You should remember that you were just unblocked from an indefinite block on June 1st and right now, you seem to be going out of your way to make enemies of other editors, making unfounded accusations (you still haven't filed an SPI report), saying insulting things. I guess you are frustrated by something but that is no excuse to attack other editors and make personal remarks EVEN IF an editor turns out to be a sockpuppet. It reflects badly on you and frankly right now you seem a bit out-of-control. If this continues, at some point, you will be brought to ANI and you have to ask yourself, "Who will speak up for me?" Have you made allies and colleagues during your time on Wikipedia or just enemies? This is an encyclopedia but editors are people and no one wants to be attacked and belittled.
As SafariScribe states, use the processes that exist if you have concerns about another editor, do not go around and say rude things about them. You need to present evidence, not just suspicions, or this will turn out very badly for you. I have seen fantastic editors, editors who have been here for many, many years, get blocked because they couldn't let go of a grudge and the community had had enough of their fighting and battleground attitude. No editor is irreplaceable, not you and not me, and you want to be a positive contributor here not a headache. Focus on the work, not other editors and you'll be fine. LizRead!Talk!03:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Gabriel, I trust you're doing fine. So, I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Achievers Award and was a bit baffled by what you meant them. These comments will have a great deal on you if you do not use this chance to explain what you meant and probably apologise. This is a personal attack to especially me and CFA. I do not want to take this to WP:ANI just yet, especially because I think this is something we can amicably sort out without involving the drama board, just as other users have described it and explained to you. Again, I do not want to take this to ANI since I think we can sort ourselves out, which why I am here, and not at ANI.
Let me first show you how I PRODed the article in question and it got draftified 17 minutes later by the creator only to make edits they called "copyedit"s to the draft (Special:Diff/1232409898, Special:Diff/1232410338) without doing anything about my original PROD reason, then they moved it back to mainspace with the summary I’ve done a General Copyedit and clean up as article is Notable, after improving this article and done some Copyedit, moving it to article space., of which their edits did literally nothing in improving the article in terms of notability, which was my concern.
See their comment on their talk page here which made no sense to me when they said I’ve treated your concern which is Copyedit, read through the article and check this source, all independent source. Is there any information lacking?. My concern wasn't "copyedit" but the notability of this article. If there was a copyedit issue, I would have tagged the page or most likely do the copyedit myself, since that is part of my main interest on English Wikipedia. If you followed the initial comments, you'd see that they already started personal attack by calling my edits bad faith, I take that as an attack because it is obviously not true.
I do not have a problem with Madeforall1 here at all, I just wanted you to follow what and why this article got nominated and why I got baffled by their unhelpful comments at the AfD, which I truly stated there that their comments were nothing but nonsensical since it was no longer adding value to the AfD discussion. I was more baffled by your comments when you mentioned CFA and told him to not be in support of bad government. and that you have gone through this discussion and the person who is wrong here is the AFD nominator. He started the personal attack. Please, you should now explain to me how I started the personal attack, I do not take this one seriously though.
I am more concerned by Who knows if those editors went to acquire user level permission just to punish other people or make other people worship them? Who knows if they take money too to edit?. I have no business with what they said on their User page about Paid editing. Because even sock accounts do lie as well they have no other account., you were obviously refering to me here because I clearly put on my user page this disclosure.
Can you please provide the evidence that acquired user level permission just to punish other people or make other people worship me,
Can you please explain what you meant by bad government and the subsequent comments I highlighted above, and provide evidence that I am involved in paid editing? and that I am a sockpuppet and a liar?
Your explanations would be greatly appreciated as it will clear the air and help you also stand out. If I do not get sufficient explanations, I will have to initiate an ANI thread, I just don't want to be a participant of that noticeboard, again, which is why I am here.
I will address this concern if you can provide me anywhere I said you get paid to edit, or you are a sock, or any place I have said you are a liar. I wasn’t even expecting seeing this as it’s a past. If I was you. I will definitely call this a Bye gone because I didn’t came here to start fighting or arguing with other editors. Your language made the other editor “Madeforall1” feel like his not welcome. If I was you. I won’t be using such language such as “Poor” and the “childish” of a thing which looks like an insult. If you can check. I haven’t been contributing lately due to my other activities i do offline. So theirs no point if you need me to start explaining up and down than what I’m just saying. It’s a bygone and you were never pointed for anything than letting you know you need to calm down while relating with other people. As for the ANI you can still go ahead and make a thread. I might not be there with you to defend myself in case you have seen things from a wrong way due to my time schedule. Have got better things giving me happiness than coming to Wikipedia to start fighting. And if things are being seeing wrongly and I get blocked. It didn’t take my life away from my body. Life still goes on. I am not a troublesome person if you know me too well. I don’t even mind giving you the world if it could cost my peace of mind for sure. So have a nice day my bro & don’t be offended as you were never pointed out for anything. Gabriel(……?)11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Again, I am baffled. While I will ignore the grammatical and spelling errors, you said you will address this concern if you can provide me anywhere I said you get paid to edit, or you are a sock, or any place I have said you are a liar when I clearly just quoted your statements from your AfD comment. This is not a matter of fighting (what would we be doing that for?), this is a matter of you realising the weight of the comments you make. Madeforall1 didn't mention that they're not welcome and nothing, in all these, implies that.
Without further arguments, I would advise you to go to the AfD discussion and strike your comments especially for the fact that they're very much of a personal attack, I do not need an apology from you because I have seen worst cases than yours and didn't bother about an apology either, but you'd have to apologise to CFA for dragging them into something that have absolutely no value.
Like I said earlier, if I wanted to go to ANI, I would have, with all my explanations I did here, if I was unreasonable and did not want peace, I would have gone straight up there to ANI and it would have told on you. I have also seen a lot of your other dramas where you accused other editors of paid editing and sockpuppetry without evidence, it is not a good thing to do, and just as other editors have pointed out to you, it is better to gather allies than to gather enemies on Wikipedia, I am not part of the latter though. Strike your comment and apologise. Not an obligation though, but that is what a rational person would do. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
‘While you will ignore the grammatical and spelling errors’. Lol, Vanderwaalforces, you been funny. But I understand in life different people, different behaviors. The kind of language you been using on other editors to make them feel like they are not welcomed not everybody are strong to endure that especially to new editors. Go to the user talk page and see what “Liz” had to say. Your statement sounds so bully but I will rather choose to ignore than challenging with you as it doesn’t go with the Wikipedia guidelines. Before you came here how was my response to both Safari and Liz. Aside that I saw so much sense in what they are saying which lead to that response and I had to overlook the case even if I had evidence I won’t want to upload publicly for security reasons and I still had to swear that if my evidence are fake I should be blocked permanently. I have choose to overlook my past. So let that be and you talk about the main topic why you came here. I am not a bad person & I don’t talk about people spelling or grammars or belittle anyone. I don’t think I have ever called anyone a sock aside from that account I know too well. I don’t think I have ever quarreled with anyone aside from that account i know too well. Like I said bro. All this are now by gone. Life goes on. And I don’t intend to work on my English even if you pick errors. It won’t take me to heaven neither be a vandal to Wikipedia. Gabriel(……?)13:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CFA was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rigasa Railway Station and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
The comment the reviewer left was:
The role in Nigeria is either a "Special adviser" or a "Senior special assistant". There's nothing as such "Senior Special Adviser". The scope of this draft is also confusing as it is not clear whether you're talking about "Special Advisor" (as opposed to "Senior Special Adviser") or you're talking about "Senior Special Assistant". For context, see United Kingdom's and Norway's articles on Special advisers.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nigeria SSA and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Young Duu and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Ktkvtsh were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
This is to notify you that I have made a complaint about your behaviour to the admin notice board. I find it very unacceptable, the language such as "lying", "deceiving the public" and other very abusive languages you used to refer to me.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:
Besides being badly-written, "one of the most leading sport betting website and app in Africa" is promotional and unsupported by the sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SportyBet and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Gabriel601!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
AfDs
I understand that you what to make a point in your deletion rationales but most times, it is not coherent enough to non-Nigerians and sometimes Nigerians themselves. For the Next Star Award, it would be nice if you can pull up a source assessment using the {{Source assess table}}. Can you do that? I want to assure you that you are doing a good job but be slow and steady. You’ve been around for a while but there’s still a lot to learn. Best, Reading Beans11:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Samoht27 were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SportyBet and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
