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
Steincod (talk | contribs)
20 edits
No edit summary
Steincod (talk | contribs)
20 edits
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
Line 700: Line 700:


[[User:Steincod|Steincod]] ([[User talk:Steincod|talk]]) 18:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Steincod|Steincod]] ([[User talk:Steincod|talk]]) 18:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

== 18:42:05, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Steincod ==
{{Lafc|username=Steincod|ts=18:42:05, 23 June 2021|declined=Draft:Bharadwaj_Subramaniam}}

[[User:Steincod|Steincod]] ([[User talk:Steincod|talk]]) 18:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:42, 23 June 2021

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		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


June 17

02:28:21, 17 June 2021 review of submission by Goodlug

Since my article is rejected, is it possible for the reviewer to review it again? I have already removed most of the content that sounds promotional. Goodlug (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goodlug, the draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. However, you are always welcome to try again by making another draft; if you're gonna remake it, please take the reviewers comments into consideration. I note that there is actually in-depth independent coverage of the company, so it may just be notable, per WP:NCORP. Tldr, make it less of an ad next time. Good luck! Curbon7 (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goodlug this is a matter to take up with the reviewer who rejected the draft in the first instance. Generally there is no further consideration of rejected drafts. This one has a long history of failing reviews. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started to do some cleanup. Appears notable enough, as the leading brand of Japanese condoms, and the thinnest in the world. Now that the promo info has been cleaned up, see [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] for coverage. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:23:51, 17 June 2021 review of submission by Nishant930

plz accept my artical its real and 100% geniue .

Nishant930 (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishant930: Your draft has since been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about yourself. Please let us know if you have further questions; you may wish to read this guide to writing your first article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be noted that Nishant930 (talk · contribs · logs) created the same article in the same exact promotional way about 20 minutes after the response from Extraordinary Writ. Curbon7 (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:25:06, 17 June 2021 review of submission by Yukkalex


Hi Wikipedia,

First of all, thank you for your time reviewing our article. But, I need an assistance to complete with the reference section. Would you please to tell us which references didn't meet the requirement? We are fast growing startup company in Indonesia so it would be awesome if we are in Wikipedia presence. Should you have any needed informations, please let us know.

Regards,

Yukkalex (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yukkalex, The above user was blocked for obvious reasons. Curbon7 (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yukkalex, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising. It is not a web host of information unrelated to Wikipedia, and it is not a social network. If you want to let people know about your company, please use an advertising company or LinkedIn or the like, but not Wikipedia. See also WP:COI. JavaHurricane 06:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:42:18, 17 June 2021 review of submission by Ks123wiki

 Courtesy link: User:Ks123wiki/sandbox


Ks123wiki (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ks123wiki, The draft has no sources. Also, this is clearly non-notable. Curbon7 (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: the creation is likely a hoax or otherwise a fictional creation of the author. There is no evidence that the TV show mentioned in the draft even exists in the first place. JavaHurricane 06:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:17:39, 17 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Haran Yakir


Hi, I'm trying to create this article about a notable scientist. I am unexperienced in editing wikipedia and hoped that someone else can take over finishing the draft. He has many scientific citations, but this is not my area of expertise. He has also received the Israel Prize for 2019 for his scientific contributions. The article has been rejected twice, but only due to my ineptitude at adding sources properly. Surely there are experienced editors who can finish and publish this article?

Haran Yakir (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Haran Yakir please read this essay which handles many things including researching sources. We all start out inexperienced. You will easily be able to bring this work to a conclusion. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haran Yakir I think if you disclosed your connection to the subject on your talk page, based on your similar last names, other editors would be more willing to help you with the sourcing. Please see WP:COI. This was already mentioned on your talk page. Another editor has looked up the Google scholar citations and feels Dan Yakir is notable - so this just needs better referencing to succeed. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:28, 17 June 2021 review of submission by Hasan924044


Hasan924044 (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Hello.[reply]

This is my page link Draft:Court of Nobility

I want to create it for my client. And it's not approved. Can you please tell me what was the problem and how can I solve this problem and published it?

Thanks,

Hasan924044 The draft was deleted as a copyright infringement. Wikipedia content may not be copied from elsewhere. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If you are editing for a client, the Terms of use require you to make a formal paid editing declaration(click for instructions). You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:14:36, 17 June 2021 review of draft by Smilingbandit


Smilingbandit (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smilingbandit There are some suggestions for improving the draft on the draft page. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:48, 17 June 2021 review of submission by RoanokeVirginia

I recently submitted this draft article and it was declined for not demonstrating notability. It is my belief as the investment fund of the Irish government, with significant press coverage, it qualifies for notability. Therefore, I would appreciate any guidance on where to take the article next to demonstrate notability.

RoanokeVirginia (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RoanokeVirginia The draft simply summarizes the actions of the fund. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the fund(not just report on its activities), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Sovereign wealth funds are probably notable, but you need to summarize what is said about the fund and its importance. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @331dot, I appreciate the feedback RoanokeVirginia (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:26, 17 June 2021 review of submission by Heartlandfem

This article was declined for submission twice, on Feb. 11 and Feb. 27, 2021, because the reviewers stated that the subject was not notable and the references in the original draft did not "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The second reviewer also stated that the article relied "too much on the university website as a source and needs to incorporate more secondary sources." Since that time I have significantly revised the article to include additional references from secondary sources and to remove or revise language that was similar to language on the university website. For example, the original draft included links to all the courses offered by the school, which I have removed. There are now 22 references listed for the article and only 4 of them are links to the university website. These references include news articles from several established TV stations and newspapers, including the Dayton Daily News, as well as the websites of organizations that review and evaluate higher education institutions. I also tried to add category tags that were more appropriate to the subject, including Category:Higher education and Category:Satellite Campuses. It has been almost four months since the draft was last reviewed and I would like to know if it will be reviewed again or if there is something more I should do to get it accepted. Heartlandfem (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Heartlandfem (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heartlandfem You have submitted it for review and it is pending. This could take several months, so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:21:34, 17 June 2021 review of submission by 2698632941q

Hello, I’ve submitted reliable notable source as cites for this artist rockin rose

2698632941q (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Since I’ve submitted several times of this topic never get approved. This topic artist is eligible for submission as wiki requires the notable artist needs to be a signed with major record label with 3 albums. Then this artist rockin rose is obviously meet the requirements people can check the truth via press ;google knowledge panel;or just via Spotify song credit;Apple Music album info;YouTube content info,I also see other artist on wiki they even provided Spotify song link and Apple Music album link as a reference and they get approved for wiki. Some of them are even not notable not signed with a major label as required. I also provided many press as references, also I found many major news websites such as China Net ease, Tencent News, 163.com; Phoenix China( ifeng AKA fenghuang wang);China people news all recorded this topic Artist’s content. But I didn’t submit those Chinese news reports but if it worked for Wiki I can definitely provide them, I see other famous artist listed on wiki had press on above sites as reference cites. So Please tell me Is the above press nets reliable enough? Do I still need to provide these major China news? Thank you 2698632941q (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2698632941q Please place further comments in this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. "signed with major record label with 3 albums" is not one of the listed notability criteria for musicians. Please read other stuff exists; that other inappropriate articles exist does not mean that yours can too. We can only address the inappropriate articles that we know about; as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. That an article exists does not mean that it has been "approved" by anyone. Article standards also change over time, so that what was once acceptable is no longer. If you want to help us out, you could identify some of these other inappropriate articles on musicians that you have seen for possible action. If this musician is not notable, no amount of editing can confer notability upon them. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I don’t know how to not to open a new section.. As your previous answer that topic rockin rose been rejected so it means can it never submit again been banned forever?even it’s been notable further? Or this topic rockin rose can still submit for review and approved? 2698632941q (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2698632941q If you are using the mobile version or app, switch to using the full desktop version in a browser on your device; once you do, there should be an "edit" link in the section header, or you can click "edit" at the top of this page and locate this section in the edit window. This way you avoid creating new sections.
The rejection does not mean that the subject is prohibited from Wikipedia for all time. If notability changes in the future, the matter can be revisited. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:27:20, 17 June 2021 review of submission by TJTL1127

Hi - 

Thank you for reviewing my submission for the Harrigan Learning Center and Museum. I would like more information on why the page creation was declined so I can attempt again to create one.

A little backstory - this is my first time creating a page. The Learning Center and Museum is smackdab in rural Maine and trying to be a draw for the impoverished area. The curator added the museum on the list of Museums in Maine page that Wikipedia has and realized the entries had pages and asked for me to assist in creating a page. The museum is relatively new, so facts are sparse (having been established in 2016, and of course being mostly shut down or at limited capacity during the pandemic). It has managed to pick up a fair amount of local media attention, so there are multiple sources to cite in the creation. I think it is deserving of a Wikipedia page, is noteworthy in the area, and for general attention. Long story short - any assistance to help me get a page up would greatly be appreciated.

TJTL1127 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TJTL1127 The draft does little more than tell of the existence of the museum. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the museum, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Most reviewers look for at least three such sources to be present and summarized.
Please review conflict of interest(since you have been in communication with the museum curator). Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". 331dot (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Skoskoexoso122122222a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rich_Kleiman_(1) Trying to get the page of kevin durant partner and business manager live. Looking for assistance. Skoskoexoso122122222a (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above draft was accepted shortly after this posting. Curbon7 (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:07:31, 17 June 2021 review of draft by Skinflint13


Hello, I am writing to request assistance editing my first article. Since it was declined initially, I added multiple citations to substantiate, but I'm not sure whether it is in the queue for another review? Skinflint13 (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skinflint13, you have to press the big blue resubmit button at the bottom of the red template in order to resubmit your draft. As a secondary note, please ensure that all of the sources are reliable. Neither YouTube nor primary sources are considered reliable. Curbon7 (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

05:03:08, 18 June 2021 review of submission by AdrewMax


AdrewMax (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


why my article has been declined??AdrewMax (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrewMax: the reason for the decline is given in the large pink box at the top of the draft:
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.
Do you have any questions about it? Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit my article and add reference sections??

09:02:16, 18 June 2021 review of submission by Ag.abhinavgautam

this is Abhinav Gautam, I created my draft page, biography. all i did all thinks references and links, please help me to edit and correct. Ag.abhinavgautam (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ag.abhinavgautam Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. If you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person or a notable actor, an independent editor will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. Please note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:29, 18 June 2021 review of submission by 2401:4900:3B01:27E7:C87E:F7E9:21B1:FC43


2401:4900:3B01:27E7:C87E:F7E9:21B1:FC43 (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:04:04, 18 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 223.235.240.200



223.235.240.200 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nothing in the draft suggests that you are notable in Wikipedia's terms. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:16, 18 June 2021 review of submission by Super30article


Super30article (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy link: Draft:Abdul zubarti)
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Amazon is not an acceptable source, and the subject's own website does not help for notability as Wikipedia defines it. In addition, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when editing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:22, 18 June 2021 review of submission by Nur781


Nur781 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:44:24, 18 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Osvaldo2007


User:KylieTastic continues deleting articles even after improvements and sources have been used.

Osvaldo2007 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean decline, not delete? If a draft is declined again, it means that the improvements were insufficient. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:36, 18 June 2021 review of draft by Skiman514


Currently have 1 draft article in my sandbox, awaiting re-review. How do I start another article, this about www.survivorcorps.com (Covid-19) vs exiting wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_Corps

Many thanks Skiman514 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skiman514 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:11:42, 18 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ising4jesus


Around the end of April 2021, I created a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AOZ_Studio I'm new at designing Wiki pages, so I wasn't concerned when this page was placed in Draft status. I assumed that I would get some direction on what I need to do to make it meet the standards for publication.

I do have a declared COI, in that I work part time for AOZ Studio, however I've tried to be careful to describe AOZ in neutral, "matter-of-fact" style as the Wiki docs suggest.

In spite of this, I received several comments stating that it looks like advertising, however, to me, it looks like most other Wiki pages describing a programming language. So far, I have not received an adequate explanation of why it looks like advertising, or how to make it more neutral.

I understand that I need to cite more sources. I was able to find one on the Versailles Academy website (a part of the French Ministry of Education). I would think that would be considered neutral, but I got no acknowledgement one way or the other about it. I have also referenced several other related Wiki pages.

Since AOZ Studio is an updated version of AMOS Professional, I assumed that some historical references would also be acceptable. AMOS had quite extensive coverage in the late 1980s and 1990s, and still has to this day in the retro community. Would these be acceptable?

I have ***not*** been paid for work on this page, although a note was added suggesting that I was. (I'd also like to know how to get that notice removed.)

Thanks for listening! Ising4jesus (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ising4jesus If you work for the studio, you are a paid editor. You do not have to be specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit. Your disclosure of this on your user page is sufficient, however. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:32:15, 18 June 2021 review of draft by Slogewski


Wikipedia <wiki@wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe

3:02 PM (18 minutes ago) Forgive me but I am not very good at using Wikipedia. However, I have been trying to get a page up for an important Los Angeles artist Johnny Otto, [born Christopher John Otto]. My page application has been rejected twice now. I am having a difficult time understanding why since I submitted the very same footnotes that are contained on the Wikipedia page for "Art squat," a serious movement co-founded by Johnny Otto [you may read that short page to confirm the existence of the movement.] I attempted the same confirming footnotes to Johnny Otto's page but I was again rejected for even a stub posting in spite of the fact that you accepted the same footnotes for the "Art Squat" page. I'd be grateful if you could you please advise me on this. I am not sure to whom I should submit this request to, so I will submit it to one or two other editors. Thanks for your help. Yours truly, Herbert Slojewski, Glendale, CA, email: h.slojewski@gmail.com

1. "Writing's on the wall for art squat", Sydney Morning Herald, January 27, 2009. Retrieved 2013-06-02. Jonathan Jones, "The closure of Berlin's Tacheles squat is a sad day for alternative art", 2. Jonathan Jones on Art (blog), The Guardian, September 5, 2012. Retrieved 2013-06-02. 3. "In Paris, Art Fills the Void", The New York Times (travel), January 26, 2010. Retrieved 2013-06-02. 4. "JOHNNY OTTO / OTTOPHOBIA / Conspiracy + Propaganda = Art | Art Reveal". www.artrevealmagazine.com


Herbert Slojewski 22:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when editing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. See Help:Referencing for beginners as to how to format references. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


June 19

01:25:36, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Æstronomær


I'm not sure why this article has been rejected, it seems that I have factually stated in a neutral voice what this company is, and provided multiple sources that make what I am saying verifiable.

After this I added more sources but is not letting me submit again for review?

Æstronomær (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode as you read this:
Does this help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:51:57, 19 June 2021 review of draft by D.B.Chace


D.B.Chace (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My references look correct but it looks like this page was declined because of an issue with my citations/references. Are you able to point me to instructions to format the references in the way that is required? Thank you so much for you help.

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when editing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. We can't use IMDb or Wikia/Fandom (no editorial oversight) and PR Newswire is worthless for notability (connexion to subject). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:57:55, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Suryabeej

I've created this draft and there are enough info available to create an Infobox into the article, shall I create the infobox now or after a reviewer reviews the article? Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 02:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:04:40, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Mgendy00


Mgendy00 (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mgendy00, you didn't ask a question. Also, the draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:54:35, 19 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Dialh


On further review, I now consider that having a separate article on this topic will be very difficult at the present time, if not impossible, due to the lack of reliable sources to cite. Is it better to try to search for more independent sources to include, or to request the draft's deletion?

Dial (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:10:29, 19 June 2021 review of draft by Kigrts


The rejection says the draft-article, "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources". If it helps, I am willing to remove all cites, other than say > The Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), The Guardian, News Ltd, The Conversation, The Examiner etc - all secular sources.

Can you point to specific examples where the draft-article is not written to a, "neutral point of view"? Possibly you might suggest improvements.

I am happy to fix any issues you note.

Kigrts (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Kigrts[reply]

, Kigrts (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:15:07, 19 June 2021 review of draft by AdrewMax


AdrewMax (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


please let me know why my article has been rejected?? let me know how to improvisation of edit my article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrewMax (talk • contribs) 7:15 (UTC), 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't rejected, it was declined. Also, as the big red box states, the subject at this moment fails notability guidelines, which can be found here and here. Curbon7 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:07, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Rajaneeshsr


Rajaneeshsr (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:51, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Rajaneeshsr


Prophaze is a Web Application Product Firewall company, please see the below reference I have removed all things which mentioned about business has removed , only the technology has been highlighted Please do a research on Prophaze WAF Also advise which part of the content is advertising 

https://www.businessworld.in/article/Make-In-India-Meet-5-Promising-Cybersecurity-Startups-Redefining-The-Indian-Cybersecurity-Space-/16-02-2021-378270/
https://www.analyticsinsight.net/top-100-cybersecurity-startups-to-look-out-for-in-2021/

Rajaneeshsr (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajaneeshsr The draft is not only rejectd, t is up for speedy deletion as promotional. You may try again with an entirely new draft FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:51:13, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Shahidshafi724


Shahidshafi724 (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahidshafi724 You don't ask a question, but the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:59:25, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Poojasharma28


Poojasharma28 (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC) I want to know, why article is deleted and how to write article that will be approved by wikipedia?[reply]

Poojasharma28 What you wrote is a blatant advertisement for what I assume is your business or employer. Such content will not be accepted. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a business showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business, not what it wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:58, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Pangitnatawo888


Pangitnatawo888 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this draft is not notable. --Kinu t/c 17:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:16, 19 June 2021 review of submission by 106.195.4.202


106.195.4.202 (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the earlier post above. If you were that user, remember to log in before posting. Please edit the existing section, instead of creating new sections. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:34:52, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Alwayslp


Hello, I'd like to please request a re-review of this draft. It had previously not been in an encyclopedic tone, but I've made some changes in regards. Thank you for your help.

Alwayslp (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Alwayslp (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:03, 19 June 2021 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:A9E1:4160:280F:D6E3:7696:72BE


You said she wasn`t important but That`s not important. Please do this, I want to show my friends she has a page and tell her in the comments. Someone else can manage it if it isn`t good enough. I'm sorry. But I think ths is really rude and she's been active now. I've never talked to her but she seems nice and idk it seems like she should get a wikipedia page because one day she'll be really really popular and you'll regret not making her a page sooner. So please reconsider.

2607:FEA8:A9E1:4160:280F:D6E3:7696:72BE (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not free web space that you can use as you wish, such as to impress your friends. Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles, and subjects of articles must meet the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this draft is not notable. --Kinu t/c 16:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:42:13, 19 June 2021 review of submission by NavalAuxillary

 Courtesy link: Draft:Special Operations Response Team (SORT)

Hello, my page was declined for being not a relevant enough topic, is there a way to appeal this or give evidence to support the fact this is an infant relevant topic people will want to know about? The England & Wales version was approved for being relevant enough so I find it strange the Scottish version isn't. Did I give too little information?

NavalAuxillary (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NavalAuxillary Please see your user talk page for important information about your username. Regarding your request, your draft was only declined, not rejected, meaning it is at least possible to improve it. Please understand that a Wikipedia article must summarize what multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


June 20

01:00:42, 20 June 2021 review of draft by GroenewoldsGain


My draft of a page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Wilde was recently declined, with the following reasoning given:

"Clearly notable but article is full of embedded links which per policy are illegal."

Could you please let me know precisely which links are embedded, and how I should change them such that the article can be accepted? I have edited Wikipedia a very long time ago, but there are many rules these days and it is difficult for me to understand what is going on with this advice. My impression is that an experienced editor could very quickly identify what changes need to be made in order for the page to be accepted.


GroenewoldsGain (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GroenewoldsGain, the external links, such as Department of Physics and Astronomy and LSU Rainmaker Mid-Career Scholar Award (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) (2019). The text itself is fine to keep, so you should just remove the external links Curbon7. (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:46, 20 June 2021 review of submission by Manikanta827

There have been 10 patents filed in the filed of Machine learning, NLP which are notable publications and citations which can be considered for review please. Mani Kanteswara Rao Garlapati (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Manikanta827 Anyone, you, me, the person down the road, can file a patent. Patents are not of themselves useful references. The draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further unless you can persuade the rejecting reviewer to change their mind FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:07:01, 20 June 2021 review of submission by Shamilaksaudi123


Shamilaksaudi123 (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: Out of curiosity: Hvae you seen the URL's in the reference section? They are commented out. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Schmidt Shamilaksaudi123, I indeed did not see them.
Regardless, the final three links are not valid: the fifth source is YouTube, the fourth doesn't work and there is no archive link, while the third is just a search engine result.
The first seems to talks about the movie, while the second source seems to be irrelevant; however, this is pure conjecture since those websites don't let me copy text (and therefore no Google Translate since they're both in Malayalam) so I can't verify whether they're relevant or not. That last point isn't disqualifying, but it certainly doesn't help.
Regardless, I'm rescinding my rejection and replacing it with a declination of WP:V and WP:NFILM. Thanks for catching this Victor! Curbon7 (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:02:54, 20 June 2021 review of submission by KomilVokhidovJournalist

I have written an article about an artist, and for some unclear reason, my submission was denied. I have an extensive list of external sources that supports my work. KomilVokhidovJournalist (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KomilVokhidovJournalist The reason for the decline was given at the top of the draft. Do you have specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:26:26, 20 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Fatima exceptional


I need cradible cite add to the article Fatima exceptional (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:55, 20 June 2021 review of draft by N.v.vorontsova


Dear Helpdesk, Upon request of an author (Victor Petrenko), I have created a mirror page in English of his Russian page, which was fully approved on Russian Wikipedia. I have translated and mirrored all the references and links as available on his Russian page (please see https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

Please, advise what exactly do I need to improve for this English translation of the existing page to be approved? Many thanks in advance!

N.v.vorontsova (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC) N.v.vorontsova (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@N.v.vorontsova A number of things:
  • ensure that the Russian langauge version has an attribution. This may be on the draft talk page (unless I am corrected by others)
  • It is likely that you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, or you may have been paid to make the translation. Please disclose the correct one correctly
  • Look at Wikimedia Commons, where you need to regsiter the permission to use the picture formally. However, the copyright owner is the photographer, not the subject of the picture. You must present evidence there that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).
Apart from these elements I have added (am about to add) a comment on the draft which should help you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The attribution has been performed for you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:39, 20 June 2021 review of submission by Maartuh

Dear Sir/Madam,

Unfortunately, my article about the "Pole" problem was declined. The reviewer wrote that my article reads more like an essay. According to him, I did not write from a neutral point of view. In my view however, I did not express any opinion or thought. Maybe you could explain in more detail how I should change my article in order to get it more "encyclopediatic"?

I hope you can help me!

Kind Regards, Maartuh Maartuh (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maartuh The tone is an issue. We require flat, neutral prose, dull-but-worthy is the thing you should aim for. The tone you have is not too far distant from the end result required. You have a magazine piece, but we need it to be far flatter. I make no review of the piece itself in this comment. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

05:49:10, 18 June 2021 review of submission by sunnnytyagii


Sunny Tyagi (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted the page for review and I received a notification stating that the page has been created from the advertisement point of view. I have not submitted the content on the basis of self-promotion as well as to advertise a person. Instead, I have added the sources in which the person has contributed without self-promoting himself. Now, the concern is, whether the whole page is corrupted with the self-promotion issues or is it more like a sources problem? If the issues is with self-advertising, then let me know what type of page is acceptable and same goes for references issues.
sunnytyagii A Wikipedia article must do more than merely tell about person and what they have done- that is considered promotional. An article 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. Significant coverage goes beyond merely telling what the person has done, and goes into why it is significant. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:50, 21 June 2021 review of submission by IAmSeamonkey2

The person who rejected this article claims that the source I used to make it does not mention the topic. This is false. I double checked and it is definitely mentioned on the site. multiple other articles on virus taxonomy reference this exact site. As such, I believe that this rejection is unjustified and should be remedied. IAmSeamonkey2 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IamSeamonkey2 Even if that is true, multiple sources are needed to sustain a draft, not just one. Most reviewers look for a minimum of three. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked again and the source [5] indeed does NOT mention the topic, sources need to be in-depth with significant coverage to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: I hate having to disagree with you there, that particular genus is actually mentioned. Its path is Duplodnaviria (Realm) -> Heunggongvirae (Kingdom) -> Peploviricota (Phylum) ->Herviviricetes (class) -> Herpesvirales (Order) -> Herpesviridae (Family) -> Betaherpesvirinae (Subfamily) -> Quwivirus. But without doubt, thats not significant coverage. (Note: Most browser's search functions don't find hidden elements, particularely if they are loaded via JS.) Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More than happy to be proved wrong! If significant coverage can be found, I'm also happy to accept the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:30, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Njinfo10109


Mahnaz Malik has been published in legal 500, the guarding and numerous pakistani based news site.

She has published books, That's I cited of where and you can simple Google them.

This is notable person. A published author, a speaker seen on numerous videos and a award winning lawyer as cited.


Njinfo10109 (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:33, 21 June 2021 review of draft by BettinaGsott


Dear Helpdesk! I'm struggling to get my article about an art project approved. I has been rewritten in accordance to the reviewers feedback (and teahouse feedback), but there seems to be a question with the references versus external links. May I ask for guidance on this topic? Since it is an art project the references are mainly news paper articles. Also, could you offer any suggestion as to how to avoid having to wait another couple of months for the Article for Creation process? Thank you so muchBettinaGsott (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BettinaGsott (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are struggling because basically it's just advertising the project, for example the 'Promotional tie-ins" section should be removed entirely. Theroadislong (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:37, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Syrus33


I have all the references in here now, please advise Syrus33 (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syrus33 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:13, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Wildkids11


I don't understand why this isn't notable enough like I have literally wrote a lot about this person added in relevant links and also took out the Instagram and YouTube links. What more do you want me to do? You have told me stop editing so now I can't request again even though i have wrote a lot as i have said and added in links which i was told to out in ages ago and you have still declined it. Your also saying it's not notable, she is a member of the National Youth Board for the united Kingdom, which may i add represents our entire country in the UK, and known for radio presenting as stated. I spent hours making this article and your just going to stop it from being published because it's not notable enough. I read your notability article and said it needs to be in depth so I looked up the most in depth stuff i could find about Lydia and added them in to make it the most in depth thing so it would be accepted by wikipedia. She's on IMDB the same thing mostly all your younger people on here are on and that contains supportive information to my work. I have done articles and everyone of mine gets put in the trash even if its someone more famous than another person. Please re read and i am sure if other people contributed as lots of people do, because that what wikipedia is for they would add more links and maybe edit bits in that i could scrape off. Thank you. Wildkids11 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wildkids11 IMDB is not considered an acceptable source on Wikipedia as it is user editable. If you want to tell the world about this person, you should use an alternative forum where that is permitted. It is true that others could contribute to an article, but you have to get it started first. No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. You must show it with sources, and they just aren't there. Most "YouTubers" do not merit articles. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is understandable thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildkids11 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:59, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Shagufi nashra


Shagufi nashra (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

shagufi nashra was (redacted) and she was a student she was study in 10th class and her father name is mohammed haji and mother name is naser khatoon she have 1 sister and 1 brother brother name is mohammed hazeeb and sister name is shagufta nashia they religion is islam.shagufi nashra is a father helper and her assistent shagufi nashra father have 3 companys and shagufi nashra father is a business manShagufi nashra (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shagufi nashra Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please use social media to do that. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:18, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Njinfo10109


Njinfo10109 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Aswell, I've decided to do a new page through seeing her sister's Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_A.R.#/editor/1


Her sister has written only one book and has a Wikipedia.

Mahnaz malik has written more than 2 books and has international articles written online. This doesn't make sense at all.

Njinfo10109 Wikipedia is the name of this entire website, not individual pages, which are called articles. People do not "have a Wikipedia", they have a Wikipedia article. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have not established that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author.
Please see other stuff exists. That other similar articles might exist does not automatically mean that yours can too. Each article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and since there are millions of articles but few volunteers to curate them, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to pitch in and help, you are welcome to help us identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:09, 21 June 2021 review of submission by Duchi jewelry

 Courtesy link: Draft:Duchi


Duchi jewelry (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been blocked for obvious reasons. Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:35:25, 21 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by GunterGruen


Hi! I'd like some advice on a draft article I created. I've made a lot of edits to Wikipedia in the past, but this is my first time creating an article. I'm Canadian, and am researching university departments that cover environmental studies, as I'm interested in enrolling in one. I noticed that the University of Toronto's School of the Environment doesn't have a wikipedia page, so I created one, modelled off other similar pages I've seen for schools at other Universities. My first attempt was a little thin on citations, and was initially rejected by user Robertsky. So I expanded the article, and added links to secondary sources, as per the guide. However, it has been rejected again by user Hatchens, who says they agree with Robertsky, and seems to have ignored the edits I've made since my first submission.

My issue is that Wikipedia already has entries for many similar schools, many of which don't have any reliable secondary sources at all:

If you compare the page I created with any of these, I believe it does a better job on the criteria these reviewers are asking for. And while I've only researched university departments that cover the environment, the issue seems to be far more widespread - I found lots of wikipedia pages for university departments at many prominent universities that would also clearly fail these criteria. These pages are extremely useful to me, as they give me an easy way of finding reliable (non-promotional) information about these Schools, all in one place. I believe they all should have wikipedia entries.

So could we have a more systematic approach? It's rather disheartening for me as a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia to have my work summarily dismissed like this. Many thanks for your time!

GunterGruen (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just read the article other stuff exists. I hope I'm making a valid comparison in order to judge what makes sense as reliable secondary sources! GunterGruen (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

04:19:40, 22 June 2021 review of draft by ShravanthiRK


ShravanthiRK (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Padma Rao Sundarji --- My submission was rejected multiple times. I have gone through the help pages and guidelines multiple times and have now made some major changes to the draft write up, as well as to the references quoted. Requesting expert opinion and feedback to point out if I am on the right track and if there are any further changes/additions/removals that are required for my submission to be accepted. Please help! Thanks in advance! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShravanthiRK (talk • contribs) 04:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:17:34, 22 June 2021 review of submission by 24.14.82.115

My article was not accepted by Devonian Wombat. The reason cited is that my references do not show significant coverage. I cited 14 reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Please advise. 24.14.82.115 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:23:45, 22 June 2021 review of draft by Segunoloye


Segunoloye (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please can you help me with the specifics of what to update on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crystabel_Goddy

This will help me to ensure significant details are added to the article.

Thank you, Segun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segunoloye (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Segunoloye, more reliable sources are needed to ensure this subject passes our notability criteria for actors. Also, please ensure that the draft has proper in-line citations. Curbon7 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:42, 22 June 2021 review of submission by ShUSP 01


ShUSP 01 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to create the side table (right side with abstract detail)?

ShUSP 01, This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps!
Curbon7 (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:08, 22 June 2021 review of submission by 76.240.112.154


The article was deleted so we resubmitted this draft as it was more detailed then the poor article that was deleted

76.240.112.154 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Curbon7 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:01, 22 June 2021 review of submission by 76.240.112.154


Please help - how can I get this approved?

76.240.112.154 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The reviewers did not find the subject sufficiently notable with the sources that were provided, per our notability criteria for actors. Also, Amazon and IMDb are not reliable sources. Curbon7 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:35:17, 22 June 2021 review of submission by Njinfo10109


Njinfo10109 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Other articles listed about her on Wikipedia? So I don't understand how you can't justify a rejection? And other articles are citing her on Wikipedia.

Please note another user has indicated this would have failed the deletion process.

Please review articles on Wikipedia citing her and recommend what action to be taken.

Articles citing Mahnaz Malik https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_and_publishing_in_Pakistan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_R._Harris_World_Law_Institute

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Sharafeddine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njinfo10109 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Njinfo10109, Just because a subject is mentioned in a different Wikipedia article does not make them notable. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'm just surprised. Mahnaz Malik being the youngest ever arbitrator appointed by the World Bank and also winning the UK Financial Times of the Year Award. That's beyond notable.

Also, I do not understand how the author of several books two of them published by Oxford University press is not notable. All sources are not self published but of third party sources and news.

Further she's been noted as a leading children's writer in other Wikipedia entries?

My question is what I do? It seems quite unfair that someone can reject on whimsical grounds.

Are the articles written about her in Wikipedia are not notable? Is that what you are saying.

Other articles can write about someone on Wikipedia and cite the person but the person whom they're citing isn't notable enough to have an article ? That does not make sense.

Please review it again. Your grounds are completely unjustified by what you've said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njinfo10109 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:25, 22 June 2021 review of submission by Adil Bam


Adil Bam (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Bam, You didn't ask a question. Also, this subject fails our notability criteria for politicians. Curbon7 (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:50:16, 22 June 2021 review of submission by 2600:1700:E680:1D70:A042:12AC:9740:B0D5

Hello, I have added several new references to meet the notability requirement including sources from news organizations such as The Globe and Mail, the Irish Times and Outdoor Magazine. I have many references that briefly mention GSTC, including several from the New York Times but they are passing references referring to GSTC's website as a trusted source to search for sustainable travel options. Any advice on how to meet this requirement further would be appreciated. Thanks! 2600:1700:E680:1D70:A042:12AC:9740:B0D5 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

04:07:33, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Unicorn Jill

You keep denying everyone trying to create a page for Moses Ingram, stating she hasn't been in anything "significant". What you personally feel is not significant doesn't mean it isn't significant. She has indeed appeared in important roles: Joel Coen's The Tragedy of Macbeth as Lady MacDuff, and in James Cameron's Ambulance.

It appears somewhat odd other cast members listed (who all happen to be white and/or male; no Black females), such as Chloe Pirrie and Marielle Heller 

haven't appeared in anything significant, yet you allowed their pages to be published.

Unicorn Jill (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Jill, The reviewers determined this subject fails WP:NACTOR. However, as they noted, this subject may be notable in the future; however, at present, it is simply too soon. Curbon7 (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:05:18, 23 June 2021 review of submission by 103.56.254.176


103.56.254.176 (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Curbon7 (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:46:21, 23 June 2021 review of submission by 103.56.254.176


Sandesh Ghimire is an Author, Poet, Engineer, Educationist and Entrepreneur from Nepal. He has recently published his book " Peace and Harmony" and His other books " The Universe" and " Sujata: Rise of Tycoon" is coming this year. As a Young representative from a Small Country in Nepal, It felt Necessary to include him in Wiki info. He has been awarded various certificate from various institutions and Universities for attending and various activities conducted by the respective university. He is also a Research Scholar and doing his research activities in the field of building construction materials. 103.56.254.176 (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is highly promotional, which is likely what led to it being rejected. Curbon7 (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:05, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Haffie8

 Courtesy link: Draft:Laurence Edwards


Haffie8 (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I tried to publish an article 4 months ago and it got rejected within in a day. I re-submited it having edited it and it's just sat there. Please can someone review it or let me know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haffie8 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haffie8, we review articles on a volunteer basis; sometimes reviews take place in less day a day and other times they may take months, as drafts are reviewed in no specific order and there are 4,331 pending submissions .
What I'm more concerned about at the moment is you seem to have a conflict of interest per this statement you made in the draft's history: "I work directly with this artist and can assure that he is worthy of a wikipedia page".
We take conflict of interest editing very seriously. If you have a COI, you must disclose it via the methods in this link. If you are being paid for these edits, you should use the methods at this link instead. Curbon7 (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I am not paid by the artist, I suggested that as his profile is on the rise that a wikipedia page would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haffie8 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:39, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Gal Buki

The draft has been declined because of notability concerns. With the request to address them.

I do not understand why the multiple articles from various sources do not satisfy the criteria for AfC?

The sources include published academic papers (MDPI), articles from newspapers that are not related to blockchain (Fortune Herald, Bloomberg, MyBroadband), the w3c (via their Github repository) and sources from organizations run by country states (SESIU, IFWG).

What makes the sources above not reliable and hence the article not noteworthy?

Thanks for looking into this. torusJKL (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Buki, per the comment left by Robert McClenon on the draft:
"There has already been a deletion discussion which has decided that Bitcoin SV does not require its own article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV.
This draft has been declined because of notability concerns. This draft should be resubmitted by addressing the notability concerns in AFC comments or on the talk page of the draft. Do not resubmit this draft without explaining how it satisfies a notability criterion. Do not simply add references, or make minor changes, without explaining how it satisfies a notability criterion.
This does not mean that the subject of the draft has been found not to be notable. It does mean that this draft, as written, does not establish notability. Notability should be established in the text of the draft, as well as by references."
My own comments: additionally, it seems that some of your sources are not reliable, such as several wikis and primary sources. Curbon7 (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:44, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Charlsensiah1


Charlsensiah1 (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlsensiah1, you didn't ask a question. Also, the subject is clearly not notable, per our notability criteria for musicians. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:13, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Amlawalajuma1


Amlawalajuma1 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Nice to meet you and I called your attention to my projects concern the covid-19 we need your support for details (Redacted)

@Amlawalajuma1: Sorry, this Help desk is for asking questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Do you have a question that falls within our scope? Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deleted PlainDonut (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:33, 23 June 2021 review of submission by PlainDonut


How do you use the same citation multiple times (in the same article), and only have it show as one common citation in the Reference area ?

PlainDonut (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PlainDonut: See here: named references. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:50, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Steincod


Steincod (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:05, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Steincod


Steincod (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1030076552"