Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 722: Line 722:


<!-- End of message -->[[User:JashonCuyler13|JashonCuyler13]] ([[User talk:JashonCuyler13|talk]]) 13:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
<!-- End of message -->[[User:JashonCuyler13|JashonCuyler13]] ([[User talk:JashonCuyler13|talk]]) 13:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

== 14:12:34, 13 January 2021 review of submission by JashonCuyler13 ==
{{Lafc|username=JashonCuyler13|ts=14:12:34, 13 January 2021|declined=User:JashonCuyler13/sandbox/Jashon_Cuyler}}

[[User:JashonCuyler13|JashonCuyler13]] ([[User talk:JashonCuyler13|talk]]) 14:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:12, 13 January 2021

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


January 7

05:05:31, 7 January 2021 review of submission by Ranjansharma23


Ranjansharma23 (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjansharma23 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:34, 7 January 2021 review of submission by Majid Saleem78

closing, see Comments related to User talk:Majid Saleem78#Draft:Asif Tariq for help and advises offered by experienced editors. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Majid Saleem78 (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Saleem78, This is being discussed on your talk page at User talk:Majid Saleem78#Comments related to Draft:Asif Tariq. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What changes i have to make, please tell me i need i had made some changes but still the draft was declined. Tell me what to do?

Majid Saleem78 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

13:47:48, 7 January 2021 review of submission by 86.60.58.57


86.60.58.57 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


14:39:56, 7 January 2021 review of submission by DKtruster


DKtruster (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


16:28:10, 7 January 2021 review of submission by LOlilikethings


LOlilikethings (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was deleted as vandalism. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:28:40, 7 January 2021 review of submission by Geroge Mason

I am requesting a review because my article is removed for no reason i have also given sources from the website like IMDb Geroge Mason (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is never a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geroge Mason: Tha same goes for the Quora.com source. The subject's own website (or at least I assume m-zaid.my-free.website is something like that) can only be used in limited ways. Also, I have noticed that all of the URLs in the draft actually end up at the Facebook redirection lounge, asking me "if I want to leave Facebook". Make sure you use the actual URLs, i.e. https://www.example.org instead of https://l.messenger.com/l.php?u=http%3a//www.example.org Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:21, 7 January 2021 review of submission by Geroge Mason

My Article is being removed for no reason and i have mentioned some huge sources like IMDB Geroge Mason (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geroge Mason: IMDB isn't considered a reliable source. See WP:USERGENERATED. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It isn't a free place for you to boost this boy's YouTube channel subscribers. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:08, 7 January 2021 review of submission by 86.60.58.57


86.60.58.57 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


20:23:03, 7 January 2021 review of draft by Pastormikeu


How do I add photos to my Article entitled Clay Millican, or must I wait until it is published? It rejects the images I select, which are my own. Pastormikeu (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Pastormikeu (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must wait for it to be accepted before you can add images. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:32:16, 7 January 2021 review of draft by DoNothin69


The article I created for submission was rejected as the references I included were deemed to not show significant coverage. I have reviewed the references and added an audio reference from a leading Irish sports news website, and a link to the 2021 podbible awards as well as the existing BBC news audio reference & Welsh news website WalesOnline's article. If these are not enough references to demonstrate significant coverage could you please advise the nature and number of references I need to include? I have looked at other, similar articles for guidance and as far as I can tell, for the most part, the references included in those articles are of a similar nature and amount but would appreciate further guidance to ensure I am providing the right references.

DoNothin69 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

05:42:38, 8 January 2021 review of submission by Majid Saleem78

Duplicate case ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Majid Saleem78 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

06:53:56, 8 January 2021 review of draft by Pratyush Chowdhary


Hi Team, please help with my draft to adhere to Wiki Standards. Could you highlight the areas where edits need to be maintained. I am not aware of the references which can and cannot be used as per standards.I have used the peer company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awfis as reference. Any little help would be great.

pC (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pratyush Chowdhary Your draft just tells about the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Independent reliable sources do not include press releases, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, the company website, or other primary sources. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about the company, not what it says about itself, and not routine business.
I see that you declared a COI, but if you work for or represent this company, you must review the paid editing policy and make the stricter paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot (talk), thank you for your remarks. In that case the reference which I have used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awfis does it passes the requirement ? Could you please provide 1 expample in case of Smartworks.

Also as mentioned earlier, I have recently started working with the company and when I saw the wiki page missing, I took upon myself to make it. I am not paid directly non instructed to do so, this is purely voluntary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratyush Chowdhary (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:35, 8 January 2021 review of draft by Theniommusmamu


I need to have this as an official article. This has been my work for two months. I need to know why you keep declining this. I also want to improve it.

Theniommusmamu (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC) How can I improve it? What should I add to James A. Janisse?[reply]

Theniommusmamu No one "needs" an article. What is your urgent need? You have been given the reasons for it being declined on the draft itself; do you have questions about that? 331dot (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I want to know , why this many declines? Why did you do it?Theniommusmamu (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, none of the sources are reliable and independent. Lets see what we got:
  1. https://the-dead-meat.fandom.com/wiki/James_A._Janisse is a Wiki entry and unreliable due to WP:UGC.
  2. https://youtube/RLgCPXHDxQg is not a valid URL. Assuming you meant https://youtu.be/RLgCPXHDxQg, which is a Video on the subject's Youtube channel and therefore a primary source
  3. https://www.famous.birthdays.com/people/james-janisse.html is another nonexistent URL, I assume you meant https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/james-janisse.html, which is considered unreliable and blacklisted already (I assume thats why the extra dot is in the URL)
  4. https://biographyhub.com/james-a-janisse-wiki/. I don't know much about the reliability of this site, but it does set off my alarm bells
  5. https://www.famous birthdays.com/people/james-janisse.html, which is another variant of the afroamentioned famousbirthdays page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theniommusmamu: I think you'd have a better chance getting an article for Dead Meat, and you could then include a (brief) section about him. I looked and couldn't find any reliable coverage of him, but did at least find this about Dead Meat [[1]]. It actually looks like something I'd be interested in watching. If you can find a few more decent media sources, give it a shot. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. I appreciate it. Theniommusmamu (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:31:03, 8 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Subratkumar01



Subratkumar01 (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subratkumar01 Your draft was blatant promotion, which is why it was rejected and deleted. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:12, 8 January 2021 review of submission by Nabajit Karmakar


Nabajit Karmakar (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:44:26, 8 January 2021 review of draft by SRSchreiber


SRSchreiber (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Can you give me more information about verified sources? I have included references for all of the data and the article was still rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRSchreiber (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


January 9

01:00:28, 9 January 2021 review of draft by BrigidBurgan


My submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omnisafe_fittings) was rejected because it "is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I have referenced (3) major industry periodicals and notations from (3) conferences that addressed this fitting. I cannot think of any resources that are more reliable in this industry. Please let me knw why these references are not reliable and where I might look for examples of those who are. Thank you for your help.

BrigidBurgan (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:51:40, 9 January 2021 review of draft by Msmmsm1990


My edits are not displayed on the infobox of draft: Hassan Mohammadi Nevisi; please help me

Msmmsm1990 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:16:44, 9 January 2021 review of submission by Sean Solie


Happy New Year! The article I submitted on Sean McCoshen was declined as result of improper sourcing, specifically the lack of credible sources. Can you please point out which of the sources I am using are not adequate? I recently was on a different Wikipedia page about someone that contained only one link in it, which was no longer functional. How can it be that the eight sources I provided are less credible than a non-existent source?

Any information and assistance in this arena would be greatly appreciated, as I'm at a loss here in terms of how to strengthen my article.

Thank you :)

Sean Solie (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:26, 9 January 2021 review of draft by Swag man 456


I am able to find the reason behind not approve this article.

Swag man 456 (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Swag man 456 (talk)

(removed article copy) Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:48:25, 9 January 2021 review of submission by Balasaheb Salunke

Sir, I am requesting now because we have edited all the contents of this draft,as per your Terms and conditions, now there is no any matter which is copy pasted from other sources.This information is unique and is applicable to our institute only.as our sister concern institute already have Wikipedia pages hence we also wants to have Wikipedia page for our institute also .This information is useful to students who are searching the institute to take admission in diploma engineering .so I kindly requesting to publish our page . Thanking you Balasaheb Salunke (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, it is just an advert, not an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:27, 9 January 2021 review of submission by PsychoPinball

I wanted to show on my user page what I'll be working on. Is the problem that the content is too explicit? I understand that these subjects aren't the most pleasant ones but if there are questions about abuse, I'd like people to know that I'm somebody who will engage discussion about these subjects in a serious manner. PsychoPinball (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PsychoPinball: Hello PsychoPinball, Your userpage is User:PsychoPinball. You can directly create it, there is no need to first create a sandbox and submit it. If you wish, I could move the page to User:PsychoPinball. For content permitted on userpages, see WP:USERPAGE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I was trying to do. I started out on my user page but then was re-routed to some different draft pages... If the content is proven not to be offensive, please do overwrite my current user page. PsychoPinball (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you could have seen that. The creation notice (Template:base userpage editnotice) Speficially says "If you want to draft an article,...". This is evidently not an article, so it can go there. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm so confused... Just tried to overwrite my user page, got the message An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. PsychoPinball (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's something one can work with... @Oshwah: can you have a look? filter log Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, please check this out carefully... what does LTA in the filter log mean? Crossroads -talk- 19:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edit filter looks for key words that identify common LTA user activity. I went ahead and added the content for you, PsychoPinball. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I still add subjects on my UP after all this or will I run into the same problems due to the nature of the topics I'll be working on? PsychoPinball (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:56:29, 9 January 2021 review of submission by Anavya


There seems to be a huge misunderstanding here. The subject in question is not only an established and notable personality in the martech and ad tech space but is also an Youtube, Amazon and Spotify verified music Artist. The links to Hansaj's verified artist pages are as follows:

https://open.spotify.com/artist/6Yu6b18ho7Tv2OFl4z9EnQ?si=23TIW0rxQ06H5zPQ6mlGFA https://music.youtube.com/channel/UC-4jpVvEXnoItoL0cVXbhmA https://music.youtube.com/browse/MPREb_5WPp7RFralw https://music.amazon.in/artists/B08RSMW9MQ/ekalavya-hansaj

The link to his google knowledge panel is https://g.co/kgs/zydNmj.

I strongly believe above links prove beyond doubt that the subject deserves a wikipedia page and meets the standards required to be on wikipedia.

Requesting you to guide me with an example if you still believe I am not able to prove the informations sought.


Anavya (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Links to "Hansaj's verified artist pages" confer zero notability, Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:04, 9 January 2021 review of submission by Brenda All

I believe that my page Brenda Allison was far superior to the page about Arun Raikar an Indian male human magnet which was published.His page was edited by user Melrous who removed my name from the list of human magnets. I've been on the Polish list for years.It was user Possibly who proposed deletion of Arun Raikar's page when I posted that it had seven paragraphs lifted from "India  Today"  Brenda All 16:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda All 16:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


,17:36:34, 9 January 2021 review of submission by Brenda All

I am requesting a review because my page was rejected as not being notable enough. There are articles and listings about me that are years and continents apart. I saw the page that Indian human magnet Arun Raiker had. It was recently edited by user Melrous yet it had seven paragraphs lifted from the one article about him and a seven-line personal quotation also lifted straight out of the one article. In fact there was more lifted from that article. I presume that they were blinded by the Arun Raiker claim that he would send his human magnet video to the Indian version of the Guinness World Records. It was an article from 2016 so he had enough time. I pointed some facts out to out to User Possibly who put the article up for deletion. I at first put just a listing in the human magnet section but User Melrous deleted that. Brenda Allison has been in Polish Wikipedia human magnet listing for years. I believe that the rejection on English Wikipedia is racist. White suupremacists have clearly infiltrated here. User North America 1000 is suddenly unavailable to doscuss a previous deletion of a Brenda Allison listing in human magnetism and a page. See the Wikipedia article about racism on Wikipedia Brenda All 17:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Brenda All 17:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected your draft because it had zero reliable sources, blogs are not reliable. To accuse me of racism is totally abhorrent and a personal attack. The fact that you have an article about you on Polish Wikipedia is irrelevant each country's Wikipedia has different standards for inclusion. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:04, 9 January 2021 review of submission by Caseykerbs


Hi, I will be republishing the article once there are more news sources on it. We've recently done pieces and interviews with some major news sources and they'll be out in the next 2-3 weeks. At that point I'd like to be able to send the article over for Review again.

Can you please put the article back to "Rejected" mode so that I can fix it later in the month and resubmit? Thanks!

Caseykerbs (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You can continue to edit it, but will not be able to re-submit it until someone changes "rejected" to "declined." The time to ask for that is AFTER there has been significant coverage from reliable sources that is "independent" of the subject. This means "publicity interviews" and "publicity pieces" specifically do NOT count. It's one thing if a major news outlet seeks out an interview with someone, it's another thing altogether if that someone seeks out interviews. That said, if a person is doing a "publicity tour" that can generate truly-independent coverage by reliable-source media, but it's not guaranteed to do so. My recommendation: Wait a week after the "publicity tour"-related information has been made public, then look for unrelated/unsolicited coverage from reliable sources. If you can't find it, or only find small amounts of it, or if what you do find isn't "in-depth coverage" or it's just re-hashes of what was in the "publicity generated" press, then drop it. The draft will not be accepted because the person is not notable. If, on the other hand, there is "significant coverage from reliable sources that is independent of the subject," then update the draft and come back here and ask for the "rejection" to be turned into a "decline" so you can re-submit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:59, 9 January 2021 review of submission by Conenna35


Conenna35 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Conenna35: This draft is currently unsourced, or at least without a source someone will find usefull. When giving Citations, make sure you give enough information for reviewers and other people to actually find it. Really required are at least: URL, title and access date (for online sources), ISBN, title, page number(s) and author (for books), newspaper name, edition, page and title (for newspaper entries) etc. There exist specific templates to assist you in formatting: {{cite web}} for web content, {{cite book}} for books, {{cite news}} for newspapers, and others. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

Request on 01:11:11, 10 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 0mtwb9gd5wx


Why is Draft:CalFile ad-like? It has quotes and citations from reliable, independent, third-party sources. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:07:16, 10 January 2021 review of submission by 2601:6C2:4000:6B60:3146:8A30:64CD:9947

Company went public [1] [2] 2601:6C2:4000:6B60:3146:8A30:64CD:9947 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/ipos/overview?dealId=1139646-95295
  2. ^ https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=0001831925&action=getcompany
Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. That a company is public is irrelevant as to whether or not it merits a Wikipedia article; please review the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going public in and of itself does nothing to change whether a company is notable or not. However, sometimes when a company goes notable, it generates "truly independent" press coverage from "reliable sources. If this "truly independent" coverage in "reliable sources" rises to the level of "significant coverage" then that coverage - not the fact that the company went public - means the company that was formerly not "notable" now is. The "gotcha" is that the coverage has to be "truly independent" of the company and those trying to raise its profile. Anything that is created by or on behalf of the company or those who seek to "promote" it in the public eye has zero bearing on the company's "notability" as defined by Wikipedia. The same goes for "warmed over press releases," interviews, and stories that are almost entirely based on those things even if it is published in a "reliable source." In this case, as with so many others when a person or company is "seeking publicity," the issue is not just whether the source is "reliable" but also whether the material being cited as a source really is "independent of the subject." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:12:26, 10 January 2021 review of draft by Tobias.Vogel

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I would like to get Draft:Digital_Engineering published. It was declined two times already (in different states) and I think that I resolved the reason (missing reliable sources). I don't know how to proceed now.

PS: I think this safesubst-void template is broken. The artifact on top of my text should not be there, should it? I clicked that link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_submission/draft/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Digital_Engineering Tobias.Vogel (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:23:33, 10 January 2021 review of submission by 86.60.58.57


86.60.58.57 (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:09:50, 10 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Aparnasagar


Why have to rejected my submission for "Arjun Mark"? He is a real person.


Aparnasagar (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aparnasagar No one has said he is not a real person; not all people merit Wikipedia articles. It appears that this person does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:12:35, 10 January 2021 review of draft by LiorAdato


Hello, My name is Lior, i am trying to write an article about a person and it is my first time doing so. i am having a little trouble understanding how and about what do i need to include references. Thank you and have a nice day ! LiorAdato (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:52:21, 10 January 2021 review of submission by Wooplk

Hello, I'm re requesting a revision in this page because sayuru akash is a pioneer brand (personality) in western province, Sri Lanka that is currently being trending around the community in SriLanka and even on media in here. Even you can find his knowledge panel in google (Sayuru Akash) and also links to his music creations in this article space. As a fan it is a great loss to not have his space on wikipedia as a recognized brand cause he is recognized in around the country. Please recheck and approve this article on wikipedia. Thanks a lot for understanding and Have a Great Day friend!

Wooplk (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wooplk: Yust from a first glance, I see no source that is reliable and independent. You linked to a google search, please note that google searches are considered inappropiate because they may change at any time, and because nobody is going to look at 10+ pages of search results to find something. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:58:00, 10 January 2021 review of submission by Wooplk

== 13:58:00, 10 January 2021 review of submission by Wooplk == ,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sayuru_Akash#/editor/0


Hello, I'm re requesting a revision in this page because sayuru akash is a pioneer brand (personality) in western province, Sri Lanka that is currently being trending around the community in SriLanka and even on media in here. Even you can find his music in spotify, apple music, (https://music.apple.com/lk/artist/sayuru-akash/1535830951) amazon (https://music.amazon.com/artists/B08L8HWK3B/sayuru-akash) and in many more platforms. and also about his path as an actor in the series " Hmm with Sayuru and Chanuka " in imdb ( https://m.imdb.com/name/nm12006250/) in this article space. As a fan it is a great loss to not have his space on wikipedia as a recognized brand cause he is recognized in around the country. Please recheck and approve this article on wikipedia. Thanks a lot for understanding and Have a Great Day friend!



Wooplk (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wooplk. Your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you are trying to appeal this, you must be prepared with reasons for why Sayuru Akash either meets the general notability guideline or the specific notability guideline for musicians. For example, if he is trending in Sri Lanka, then there must be many reliable publications that talk about him in great depth. These are what you need to have had in your draft. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:17, 10 January 2021 review of submission by LiorAdato

I am not asking for a Re-review i am asking for advice. The person i am writing about is not related to me, i just did my research on him with his cooperation. What can i do to make the article worthy of acceptance ? Thank you. LiorAdato (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LiorAdato Unfortunately, there is nothing that you can do, as the draft was rejected, which means it will not be considered further at this time. Wikipedia is not just a place to tell about someone and what they do; a Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
If you have been working with Mr. Dray on the article, you have a conflict of interest that you should formally disclose. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:47, 10 January 2021 review of submission by Aslı Kırar


Aslı Kırar (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


15:19:47, 10 January 2021 review of submission by Aslı Kırar



17:18:30, 10 January 2021 review of submission by ShafiShabab32


ShafiShabab32 (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't social media, it's not a place for telling the world about yourself, your draft has zero reliable independent sources, and was rejected because you are clearly not notable in Wikipedia terms, like most of us. Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:12:17, 10 January 2021 review of draft by Posso Sports


need help to publish that page of romanian athlete with national records. I add almost everything on the draft, like database of source (world athletics.org) with dirt link of athlete page in in question.


Posso Sports (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been submitted and is pending. It may take many weeks if not months, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:32:00, 10 January 2021 review of draft by OneTwoThreeHoneyBee


The current "Color mapping" wikipedia page refers to color mapping in photography - a very specialised function to map colors from one image to another. This page - currently "Color map" - is referring to the much more general sense of the term, which is mapping data to colours. This is not only many times more common, but also much more relevant to the general public as most data is displayed with color mapping (e.g., weather maps, hazard maps, etc.). Due to the very different meanings, I cannot simply merge the content of the two pages. I now suggest changing the titles to (1) "Color mapping (photography)" and (2) "Color mapping (data)". Would that make sense or do you have another suggestion?

OneTwoThreeHoneyBee (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:45:23, 10 January 2021 review of submission by 190.28.131.225


190.28.131.225 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

plis garit dwoniverse create and goloofworld created
Huh? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


January 11

00:01:29, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Esmaeili.nooshin

I am not sure what i need to do for this page to be accepted. We have already submitted a copyright release of our website to Wikipedia and we just want to have a Wikipedia page for our ACSF group. yes the texts are from our website and i am not sure what the problem is and how it can solved? I have aded reference to the website almost everywhere in the text isn't this enough? i appreciate if you let me know what i can do to get this page published. we need this page to be published by end of next week. I really appreciate your help. Thanks


Esmaeili.nooshin (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esmaeili.nooshin Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to state about an organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization.
If you represent the organization, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:58:04, 11 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ToruNitadori


I have no idea to be accepted. I added the primary reference "The Echigo Yoita Uchihamono (Cutlery)" website at last publish request. However the reviewer declined it because it needs multiple independent secondary sources. Actually I am a member of this product's union(Echigo Yoita Uchihamono). You can get enough information from the website, so I think the secondary sources is not necessary. And it is defficult to get additional information from other website because there is few English website, which have not enough information. Is it Okey to reffer an japanese website?

Best regards. Sorry for terrible english.

ToruNitadori (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToruNitadori: if english is not your first language, you may want to contribute to Wkipedia in your native language. As for the draft:

04:16:40, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Skitz1allen


Skitz1allen (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 04:24:37, 11 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Geolog10


I was told that my submission was older than 6 months and it was to be removed. It was. So I rewrote the article on Makeda Cheatom, fixed the earlier problems, and submitted the new version. I got back a reply that I should edit the old version. I don't understand what I should do.


Geolog10 (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geolog10: please work on the newer version, which appears to be User:Geolog10/sandbox. @SK2242: for your notice. That being said, I do not know why @Timtrent: told you to do a complete rewrite - it would take me around 5 minutes to fix the references up to look like standard and remove the duplication, and 15 minutes if I were to move them to the first occureence (which is more often used on Wikipedia). Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:38:52, 11 January 2021 review of submission by SambhavBaid95


SambhavBaid95 (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(removed article copy) Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SambhavBaid95: It looks like this is an attempt to write an rticle about yourelf. While autobiographys aren't forbidden, they are strongely discouraged. This draft lacks reliable sources. Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:09, 11 January 2021 review of submission by MdAsifIqbalBD


The article lacked notability, that part has been fixed as the references were added. Also, being the market leader of Ecommerce in Bangladesh, Evaly wiki page should be published as soon as possible.

MdAsifIqbalBD (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


09:02:50, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Tomersl

Can't understand what is wrong. Is it a secret?

Tomersl (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomers1 No, the reason for the decline was given on your draft at the top. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:25, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Jademaisey


I am waiting for a review of my article on the European Pillar of Social Rights. Is there any way I can find out how long this will take? It has been over one month already.

Jademaisey (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jademaisey: No, unfortunally not. Reviewing drafts takes a lot of time and effort, and reviewers do that in their free time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:00, 11 January 2021 review of submission by ShafiShabab32


ShafiShabab32 (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ShafiShabab32 As above "Wikipedia isn't social media, it's not a place for telling the world about yourself, your draft has zero reliable independent sources, and was rejected because you are clearly not notable in Wikipedia terms, like most of us." Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:49, 11 January 2021 review of submission by RameshRana12

Because this is a news media in Nepal, I am creating a encylopedic page for one of the most read online in Nepal RameshRana12 (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:41, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Posuiki


Hi, Happy New Year. I'm new. I want to delete the content of a current sandbox. The reason is that the article I wrote doesn't meet Wikipedia notability criteria. So I just want to delete it. How then do I delete the content to maintain the integrity of my user sandbox? Posuiki (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks[reply]

Posuiki (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posuiki You may just clear all the content from your sandbox, especially if you intend to use it for other purposes later. If you don't intend to use it again, you can request it be speedy deleted by putting the following, {{db-user}} on the page. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:54, 11 January 2021 review of submission by MurphCooper

Hi there! Thanks for helping me get my first page published. I would love some clarification as to why this subject is not notable enough, please! The reference article submitted refers to the subject more than as just a 'mention' in my opinion. So was the page declined simply because one reference article does not suffice? If more, similar articles were submitted for reference would it help justify that the subject is notable? And would that mean that many smaller mentions across multiple articles, can equate to one single detailed article, when it comes to qualifying for notability?

How do I know if it was that the quality of the source wasn't sufficient?

When subjectivity is involved (as I believe it is for these things), it's very hard to know what was missing when no real feedback is given! I appreciate everyone has little time, am just pointing this out.

Thanks for any help. MurphCooper (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MurphCooper You were given feedback by the reviewer on the draft itself. You have a draft that consists of two sentences and one source. A Wikipedia article must be sourced to multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage, and the article must summarize what those sources say. Please read Your First Article for more information.
If you work for Broadwick Live, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for your help. It was unclear to me whether that feedback was an automated response or not. I see now that it isn't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurphCooper (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:10, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Barouy13

The submission was rejected as it is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Can someone explain why this is and how I can make it sufficiently notable for inclusion?

Barouy13 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barouy13 It appears that the company does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the company. The sources you offered are only announcements of routine business transactions, which are not significant coverage and do not establish notability. There is nothing that you can do to confer notability on the company through editing; it depends on the sources. If appropriate sources do not exist, the company would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every company does, even within the same field.
If you work for this company, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:46:28, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Kirsaan.jatt


In response to notability re: sources, I have added references to The Telegraph, The Times, The FT, Drapers, The Mirror and other British media. Happy to discuss and see where the line lies, but I think Thind falls on the side of notability. Kirsaan.jatt (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsaan.jatt The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. The sources you have offered are not significant coverage of the subject, coverage that goes beyond a brief mention and talks about the subject in depth. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:35, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Ahassannezhad


Hello, This article Draft:ESam has been declined. How can I modify it in terms of wording and tone?

Ahassannezhad (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:43:45, 11 January 2021 review of draft by John-editing


Hi — I requested a name-change move of Novosbed to GoodMorning.com (see draft here), but it has not been addressed. Any tips on how to get feedback from other users on the best approach for updating this article? Here's the request that was made on January 6th: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Novosbed) John-editing (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:51, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Vamsi20



Could anyone review my draft here? It’s been like that for 21 days (3 weeks) and still not re-reviewed. I’ve added sources and fixed the errors, but nobody is still reviewing it. Could anybody do it? Vamsi20 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:54, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Eokeefe1987


My submission has been rejected based on a past rejection from 2006, it looks like it is someone who has tried to create an article by the same name but they aren't the same person. It makes all the rejection points invalid and tricky to rectify.

Eokeefe1987 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eokeefe1987. If that is the case, then feel free to submit again. On a quick glance of your article, however, I suspect it will be declined again because (1) notability isn't well established and (2) the sources aren't reliable. There are higher standards of referencing applied to biographies of living persons. As regards (1), a general rule I apply to my own writing is to express in the first line what makes the subject notable. For example, "David J. Adams is an Australian scientist and academic who is Distinguished Professor of Medicine (if this is what he is) at the University of Woollongong." And then add a few citations. For your reference, the notability threshold will be crossed if you meet the requirements of either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. All the best. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eyebeller, just tagging you in case you'd like to weigh in, since you did the review. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I didn't realise that it's not the same person. I declined it on the fact that it fails notability guidelines which was a main reason for the AfD so I just linked the AfD. But yes, I would decline it again in the current state. Eyebeller 10:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:55, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Ermarky


Ermarky (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:37:40, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Martha mwansa


I need to submit my page article Martha mwansa (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


January 12

01:00:26, 12 January 2021 review of draft by Martha mwansa


I need my article for submission Martha mwansa (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:03:20, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Domnipal

I have submitted the draft for review only one time and my ability to resubmit was revoked. I laid out an explanation on its talk page as to why I think the subject is notable and gave my rationale there, waited a couple of days for someone to jump in the discussion and discuss it there but no one showed up. There you will find a detailed review of the references I included in the article. If someone can join the discussion and give constructive feedback, that would be great. Thank you. Domnipal (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Domnipal: The article was rejected for a combination of two reasons: (1) because it did not address the reasons for the first decline, and (2) because you addressed your reviewer condescendingly and disrespectfully. I will say that I agree with the assessments of your behaviour by the three experienced editors you have so far interacted with: GSS, Robert McClenon and Rosguill. Your attitude and language towards GSS was an unjustifiable overreaction. On the matter of your draft, it has been rejected by Robert McClenon. This is different from a decline. It means that it will not be considered further. This can be changed by a decision of the reviewers or of the community. I won't speak for other editors, but I do not support a review of the rejection. You have neither tendered an apology nor shown any understanding of what went wrong. You have not even shown an inclination to try and understand what went wrong. By all indications, you are only at this help desk because as a paid editor, your deliverable is a published article. I support Robert McClenon's suggestion that if this draft is to be resubmitted, it should be blown up and started over, ideally by another editor. Other editors are welcome to add their views and opine otherwise. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC) CE'd comment to change "here" to "at this help desk" at 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

03:25:12, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Hums4r

i am a new wikipedia user, i am trying to contribute to wikipedia. i am basically from kashmir and i want to contribute to wikipedia with kashmiri notable articles. i have started drafting my first article on a kashmiri entrepreneur and i have checked it multiple times and it looks fine to me now, but since i am new i might be wrong, can you kindly assist and guide me on this article. please see if more information is required or it is enough. i'll be very thankful if you help me with my first article and also help me to publish it to main space. Link:- Draft:Zeyan Shafiq

Hums4r (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hums4r I've fixed your link to a proper internal link, the whole web address is not necessary. You have submitted your draft and it is pending review. As noted in the yellow submission box, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,914 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:33:07, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Greg c1988

Hi,

Is it possible to ask for a review on the decision of declining this article?

Since this article was rejected, there have been 3 more press articles published: 1. https://www.9news.com.au/national/lotto-news-sydney-woman-nearly-wins-millions-in-lottery-misses-out-one-number/66be85b7-adb3-455c-9b59-6f6f70f53464 2. https://au.news.yahoo.com/the-14-billion-in-lotto-winnings-up-for-grabs-this-week-023500130.html 3. https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/get-your-tickets-massive-522-million-lottery-open-to-aussies-c-1867024


Greg c1988 (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg c1988 Announcements of routine business like the commencement of operations, winners, or what prizes are do not establish that this organization meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is looking for multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to write about the organization, not press releases, routine announcements, or brief mentions. The rejection was correct. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:19, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Nan-Chook

Please help me update/edit the sources for the page on Prof. Nizan Geslevich Packin. The professor also writes and publishes regularly financial commentary on Forbes magazine, and her Wikipedia page already includes her profile page there, as well as popular media coverage and some scholarly reviews of her many articles and book chapters and research, in addition to a Youtube video with a spotlight interview and newspaper article about them and profiles by a respected academic organization they are involved with.

Nan-Chook (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nan-Chook: your issue is not improper sourcing, but notability. You need to show that WP:GNG is met. Interviews and articles written by the subject are not independent, and so do not count for the purposes of notability. One example of a good source is an article that profiles the subject. Alternatively, since she is an academic, you could show that she meets WP:NACADEMIC. I should also mention that this help desk is not meant for requests to edit your draft for you. Finally, my own opinion is that the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article: there is not enough coverage of her, and she is too junior an academic. I would suggest that you think very carefully about whether you can demonstrate notability before submitting the draft again. WP:THREE is a good guideline on the subject: identify three of your best sources and see whether they cross the threshold. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:53, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Greenbangalore


Greenbangalore (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:01, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Balasaheb Salunke

because this information is unique ,which is applicable to our institute only,now their is no copy pasted any matter,this information is useful to students who searches institue for diploma engineering thank you Balasaheb Salunke (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balasaheb Salunke Wikipedia has no interest in helping prospective students see your school marketing materials. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not what article subjects want to say about themselves. Please see your user talk page for important information I will place there in a moment. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:21, 12 January 2021 review of submission by McFrase

Good day,

Please in response to my article being rejected, I wish to submit it again for a review. I am writing this article on behalf of a mentor who has taught me and some others a lot, only felt it will be a little way to honor his generous gestures and also let the world know of his existence through this wonderful platform.

Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon. McFrase (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


12:31:25, 12 January 2021 review of submission by PriyaKE


PriyaKE (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the sections the reviewer had issues with. Kindly take a look and let me know if this works for you.

15:07:49, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Simba4mseema

the draft was rejected saying submission was not supported by reliable sources. I have included a news items from The Hindu which is reputed news paper in India. I have also included wikipedia links to all the projects that confirm the users work. Please refer IMDB page as well. I am not sure what details are required. Simba4mseema (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:45, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Treuberg1


A new article on a small business was declined citing only passing information and showing no or not enough independent, secondary sources. There are very few secondary sources available for a small start up and I'm already seeing small business with huge chunks of text with no sourcing or citing their own website that have been accepted. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip%27s_Drive-in

What do I need to do to get my article accepted in this case? Treuberg1 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small businesses rarely qualify for an article in Wikipedia, particularly start-ups. There is nothing you can do as far as Wikipedia is concerned at this time. At some later time, when and if the company meets Wikipedia's requirements outlined in WP:Notability and WP:NCORP, then by definition there will have been significant coverage of the company from reliable sources where both the sources and the coverage itself is independent of the company or those seeking to "promote" it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:36:50, 12 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jontickner


Hello. I'm trying to complete an entry for the illustrator and author Ron Tiner, but it keeps being rejected because its sources don't provide significant enough cover. I wonder if I could request help with the sources. The subject is a very prolific comic book illustrator, who's also had his own books published (by mainstream publishers and globally available) and is mentioned in many places across the web... but often only really in listings (except for a detailed interview i've found in print). And this is my probblem.

However, his body of work is significant, as is/was his influence on others. And for this reason I believe he should be on wikipedia along with his contemporaries (who alll seem to be). My problem is that, as with many in his field, much of the work was published then destroyed, and so records are hard to come by. The listings in which he appears are important and official ones - ISBN filings, catalogues of work and so on. And for this reason I feel that an entry which mainly only lists his factual body of work could possibly be allowed.

What I'm hoping for help on is which of the sources I have provide suitable coverage, and which don't. Then i can amend the entry, slimming it down to only include the suitably verified information. Looking at entries for similar illustrators, such as Mark Buckingham (herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Buckingham_(comic_book_artist)) I can see I have more sources, and I wonder if I would be better off deleting almost all of the sources I've used, so that I only include one or two longer mentions. But this seems counter to a thorough, verified approach.

Thanks in advance for any help provided.

JOn

Jontickner (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:45, 12 January 2021 review of draft by Ajtppm


Hello, I need help understanding why FORBES is not a reliable source. And what parts of my draft article are under scrutiny - so I can delete as appropriate to get a minimum version of my draft approved. Thank you!

Ajtppm (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source in this page is from a former "Forbes.com contributor" and as such is not considered a "reliable source" in the same way that articles created by staff members and are subject to "editorial oversight" are. See the entries "Forbes" and "Forbes.com contributors" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The "list" column links to previous discussions which might answer your question in more detail. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:11:14, 12 January 2021 review of submission by 2607:9880:1887:FF66:2078:33CB:2AE:53DA

I made a revision. The item I want to include in wiki is one of the oldest publishing journals in gifted education. It is important for educators of this field. 2607:9880:1887:FF66:2078:33CB:2AE:53DA (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


16:16:04, 12 January 2021 review of draft by MurphCooper


Hi there. I'm confused why this doesn't count as significant coverage. I have seen many pages on wikipedia with fewer references. One of the references I've provided (the Guardian newspaper, which must surely be reputable enough) mentions the subject name 5 times, and another (the Independent newspaper, also reputable) mentions it 6 times. These can't be trivial mentions can they? They are forming a large part of the content if they are referred to that frequently within the sources. Thanks for any help! Edit: shortly after writing the above, I received a notification saying the page "has been reviewed". Does this mean I should resubmit it without any changes?! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurphCooper (talk • contribs) 11:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC) MurphCooper (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:40, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Pastormikeu

I have rewritten the entire article with a more neutral tone, and am requesting input as to how the article presents itself now.Pastormikeu (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Pastormikeu (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just commented on your talk page...I fear you are wasting your time continuing to edit this draft, once a submission has been rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, it will not be considered further. The draft still reads nothing like an encyclopaedia article, I suggest you get some practice editing in other areas to get a better feel for what is acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:09, 12 January 2021 review of draft by Uri Rosenbach


Uri Rosenbach (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pls let me know how I should proceed to get this published.

Uri Rosenbach You need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button on the draft to formally submit it for review. It is possible that it will take several months, as drafts are reviewed in no particular order, so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:21, 12 January 2021 review of draft by RHDavis720


RHDavis720 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete my draft titled Robert Michael Smith. How do I proceed?

RHDavis720 It will be automatically marked for speedy deletion after six months of inactivity. If you wish, you may add {{db-author}} to the top of the draft to request its deletion sooner. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


January 13

00:25:28, 13 January 2021 review of submission by Edward Acuña


Edward Acuña (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward Acuña: What are you trying to do? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:22:50, 13 January 2021 review of draft by Aginess mwansa


My draft as been saying that my draft does not match Wikipedia what does that mean Aginess mwansa (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:36, 13 January 2021 review of submission by Aginess mwansa

What can I do Aginess mwansa (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Tomos Roberts

Hello - I apologize, in advance, if this isn't the correct venue for asking the following question... Is there a way to determine approximately when a submitted draft may be reviewed? I was told that it could take 3+ months, however it may happen far sooner in some cases? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Ryancoke2020: The review can happen well before that, however, nobody can tell for sure when, since reviewers are doing these in their (sometimes rare) free time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Victor Schmidt! Much appreciated!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Request on 13:57:06, 13 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by JashonCuyler13



JashonCuyler13 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:34, 13 January 2021 review of submission by JashonCuyler13


JashonCuyler13 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1000085412"