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
Line 713: Line 713:
:{{u|Alice Jason}} Reviewers are not necessarily administrators. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Alice Jason}} Reviewers are not necessarily administrators. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Alice Jason}} Shopping around for a different reviewer will not make a difference, as the reviewer was correct. The sources do not establish notability because they are announcements of routine business activities or reviews of the company's products, not the company itself. If you've accepted payment already(as you declared) I'd suggest that you return the money, as the rejection means the draft will not be considered further. I'm also curious as to how potential clients find you, as you say you don't advertise on a website, but it's not necessary for you to answer that. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Alice Jason}} Shopping around for a different reviewer will not make a difference, as the reviewer was correct. The sources do not establish notability because they are announcements of routine business activities or reviews of the company's products, not the company itself. If you've accepted payment already(as you declared) I'd suggest that you return the money, as the rejection means the draft will not be considered further. I'm also curious as to how potential clients find you, as you say you don't advertise on a website, but it's not necessary for you to answer that. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:: @([[User:331dot|331dot]]) Please review the sources in detail and respond to me how the sources that I have specified as EXCELLENT fail to meet the guidelines. Even tough they are news, they contain in detail company info and bio. Fast Company, TechCrunch, San Diego Tribune, Book coverage, etc there are over 20 sources. I agree not all in-depth and some news, but there is more than enough here to meet [[WP:GNG]]. Not only some of these articles are in-depth but they are also from notable and reliable publications. As far as how they found me, it was a referral from an agency that I work with.[[Special:Contributions/23.240.192.112|23.240.192.112]] ([[User talk:23.240.192.112|talk]]) 22:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


== 22:30:21, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7 ==
== 22:30:21, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7 ==

Revision as of 22:44, 13 August 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


August 7

06:56:30, 7 August 2021 review of submission by Mr. Hailo


Mr. Hailo (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This article is the translated version from the german article of Oscar Leonardo Franco Vivas. He is an well known artist in Colombia and the informations standing in the article are coming directly from Oscar Franco.

German article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Leonardo_Franco_Vivas


Mr. Hailo (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

de.wp and en.wp are separate projects with separate standards, and one standard en.wp has that de.wp does not is WP:Biographies of living people. Completely unsourced biographies about living people are not only grossly unacceptable here, but at risk for deletion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:32:30, 7 August 2021 review of submission by Shoki2021


Shoki2021 (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoki2021 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and deleted as blatant promotion and a copyright violation. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:30, 7 August 2021 review of draft by Elisafrag


Elisafrag (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elisafrag You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, 331dot It took a long week for me to compile all the information on my recent draft that I submitted for approval but it got rejected. The article was about Anthony B. Catachanas a well-known personality in the UK investment market back in the 1920s his father and grandfather have also contributed to the Greek community a lot which I am preparing an article it will take around a month more to publish about his father. I have used all the authentic resources in the article but still the article of Anthony B. Catachanas ‎is been rejected I would like you to review the article again and suggest me the best thing to do with the artcile to get this published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisafrag (talk • contribs)

Elisafrag The draft is sourced almost completely to press release-type articles or sources that hardly mention Mr. Catachanas, if they mention him at all. A person merits a Wikipedia article if they receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that show how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. He himself needs to get coverage, not just things he is associated with.
If you work for Mr. Catachanas or are otherwise associated with him, you must review paid editing and conflict of interest for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:34, 7 August 2021 review of submission by FlowerMoon593


Hi, I recently sought advice via the live help chat. I have made all changes advised...would it be possible to request a re-review please? Much appreciated.

FlowerMoon593 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlowerMoon593 You will need to ask the reviewer that rejected the draft directly, describing the new information you have. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:55, 7 August 2021 review of submission by Brshipley


I recently submitted an article on a relatively new World Heritage site in Greenland that contains several distinct and important archeological locations, including the site on Nipisat Island. It was rejected because Nipisat Island currently has the infobox of the entire World Heritage Site, and it was suggested that I simply include the information in my draft into the Nipisat Island page. While I somewhat agree that the draft I wrote needed more content (and have added more information since the earlier submission), I disagree that it should be merged with Nipisat Island, given that 6 out of the 7 archeological sites protected by the World Heritage Site are not, in fact, on Nipisat Island. In my opinion, that would be somewhat misleading, similar to not including the Yellowstone National Park article because there exists an article on any one of the many geysers within the park. Is there a way I can resubmit the draft without having to merge it with Nipisat Island, as the reviewer's comments suggest I do? Thank you! Brshipley (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brshipley Start by having this conversation with the reviewer who suggested the merge FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:56:27, 7 August 2021 review of submission by Supermann


Nobody has since chimed in on the new edits related to the actor's stage performance and notability. The discussion was archived without any response. Not sure if this was intentional snub or what. Thanks.

Supermann (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supermann The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have new information that establishes notability that the reviewer did not consider, you will need to approach them directly. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. As I wrote, nobody gave new comments on the stage performance context that I added. It can't be that bad. Thanks Supermann (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

11:22:47, 8 August 2021 review of submission by Ryan18088

i dont know how to make my own wiki better so i just did the best that i can

Ryan18088 (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan18088. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Unlike social media websites such as Facebook, it is not a place to write about yourself, other than a small relevant amount on your user page. Your user page needn't be created in draft space, and should not be submitted for review by Articles for creation, because it will never be an encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:39:03, 8 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Blogs19



Blogs19 (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:53:36, 8 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by LaylaDakota


I need help getting my draft up to scratch to be accepted and published on Wikipedia. I have originally created this myself and have packed it with facts etc & backed it all up with links etc etc which is what i was asked to do was show some proof of the notable info i was using. However this was rejected again and im really in need of some help to get this published.


LaylaDakota (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:50, 8 August 2021 review of draft by Steveninealing


I am trying to add a page about local election results, extending the coverage in Wikipedia beyond already published pages for more recent elections. I have reused the same format and structure as other articles. I think the data has value published in a more accessible format than it currently is, tucked away on the council website. The Council website is the only remaining source I've found for the data, but it is also the authority for that data, so I think quoting it as the source should be acceptable? It is neutrally reporting the outcome of an election. I have included one other news source which quotes the summary results.

Steveninealing (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to cite the Council for the results of the election. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an extra source from a better known, trusted source steveninealing (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:10, 8 August 2021 review of submission by Adouird al


Adouird al (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


why did my article did decline this is the pay that I live in I have family help pleas

@Adouird al: Articles must have reliable sources. This draft has none. I re-reviewed it and added an additional comment. I'm afraid we cannot make any decision about drafts and articles based on your personal circumstances. If you are paid for your contributions, you must also disclose this. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:17, 8 August 2021 review of draft by 2601:18E:C300:5770:59EC:73:6DDC:EA85


I believe I have complied with the reviewer's concerns in my edited draft because I now ensure that the submission is encyclopedic, that it supports its claims using secondary, reliable sources, contains no opinions, and approaches the subject from a neutral point of view. If this is not the case, I would like the reviewer to point out any instances when the aforementioned is not observed.

2601:18E:C300:5770:59EC:73:6DDC:EA85 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:34:42, 8 August 2021 review of draft by Holcman1


Holcman1 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the new arguement of rejection: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified."

All sources are clearly mentioned in the reference list.

What is not clear? It is hard to work with such vague comments. You need to be specific.

David.

Holcman1 You have sources to cite the specific information in the article- but that does not establish that the topic meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. An article exists primarily to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia defines the term. There are also copyright concerns with the draft that you have not addressed. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


August 9

Request on 00:00:48, 9 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Tetide


The person 'Theroadislong' who decided on behalf of Wikipedia, that the page I made on ERO (Dominique Philbert) is on a subject that does not have notability, justified his decision in an unfounded way: "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" and "The comment the reviewer left was: struggling to find anything but a passing mention of him in the sources let alone in-depth significant coverage?"

My founded answer, just to name one example, is a question: is the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, one of the most important and oldest in the USA, where ERO (Dominique Philbert) was just exhibited from 2020 to 2021 in the exhibition 'Writing the Future -Basquiat and the Hip Hop Generation' as an artist of the Basquiat's group, something that gave ERO enough notability? a Museum where a great ERO's painting was exhibited as on an altar, in between two pilasters painted by Keith Haring, and reproduced double page in the related catalog, with biography and mentions in various parts of the catalog. Exhibited near the big double portrait that Basquiat painted of him as a sign of esteem. ERO died at 41 in 2011, why Theroadislong wants him dead again, just for the pleasure of shooting? But is it in the interest of knowledge and so of Wikipedia? The page I wrote is full of references and proofs of his notability and historic importance, for sure for the Art History of the Graffiti Art movement of the 1980's and for American Black Art (Black Arts matters?). There are about four other (white) artists around the world that took the pseudonym 'ERO' much after Dominique Philbert did in 1982, there could also be somebody enjoying, as a sick 'ego trip', a lack of information on the first one (Dominique Philbert)? Hope not, but be aware. However among others the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston is 'independent of the subject', and their above ment. exhibition's catalog doesn't have at all just 'passing mentions'. etc. etc. etc. Upon request and explaining me how to do it, I can send extracts of the mentioned Boston's catalogue. signed Tetide Tetide (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:25:32, 9 August 2021 review of draft by Pearlaficionado


Hi, I'd like to request assistance on sounding neutral in my tone. Which specific words make this article sound biased? Thank you and please advise.

Pearlaficionado (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:59:13, 9 August 2021 review of submission by 68.131.21.182


68.131.21.182 (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:15:15, 9 August 2021 review of submission by Vishnu Tiwari gh


Vishnu Tiwari gh (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is deleted, editor blocked, request moot. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:31:12, 9 August 2021 review of draft by Arya Mac


Arya Mac (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I know why the article was deleted since I've mentioned it very briefly? Kindly, requesting you to help me out with this. If something 's, specifically missing or needs to be updated.

I've made certain changes in the article with relevant references as well. And So, have re-published it again. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Arya Mac The draft was declined, not deleted. The draft just tells about the existence of the school and only has one source. A Wikipedia article must summarize what multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Most reviewers look for at least three such sources that can be summarized. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:33:30, 9 August 2021 review of draft by Hakukazuki


Hakukazuki (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my draft submission has been declined a few times for reading too much like an advertisement or being too promotional. I've been trying to edit these things out by making the contents of the article sound more neutral and by avoiding peacock terms but it still seems to be not enough to be approved. Could I please get some help to see which parts of the article sound too promotional so that I can try to change or edit it out and prevent being declined again? Thank you.

Hakukazuki If you have a connection to Brian Cha, you must disclose it per WP:COI and WP:PAID(declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement). Your draft just tells about Brian Cha and what he has done- Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. The sources you offered are all brief coverage merely telling what Brian has done. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:02:23, 9 August 2021 review of submission by Pomagai


Pomagai (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pomagai You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:24, 9 August 2021 review of draft by JMB Shovon


My article got declined due to proper referencing. I'm not sure how to cite the websites so that the new page gets approved. Will really appreciate for any help possible. Thanks in advance.

JMB Shovon (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JMB Shovon The sources you have offered are the company website, press releases, and a source to cite specific information. These things do not establish notability. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Please read Your first article. If you have an association with the company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt reply. I have actually wrote this page for official purpose. How can I change such information now? And feeling confused about which things to add or remove to get approved on the resubmission. Please help me figure this out, I will be editing this page and create few more to link with in future.

@JMB Shovon: The company does not appear to be notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). If that is the case, no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for your writing. Wikipedia may not be used for any kind of marketing, promotion, or publicity. --Worldbruce (talk)

Worldbruce thank you once again. I tried my best not to sound like a marketer in that draft even though I am one. Is there any way to keep the draft and edit until some more notable references come along in the following months then resubmit again for approval? Please do inform me.

@JMB Shovon: Drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity, so if you anticipate independent sources giving your company significant coverage on their own(not based on press releases, announcements of routine business activities, or any other materials put out by the company), you may rewrite the draft when you have those sources. Even if the draft is deleted due to inactivity, it can be restored by asking at WP:REFUND. P.S., pinging others by linking their username does not work unless you sign your post. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot thank you so much. Yes, we are anticipating significant independent coverages within this year. Will surely next time get the rewritten draft reviewed from the community before submitting for approval. Hope to receive such help and support again soon. Leant so much already.

Thanks to All. JMB Shovon (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:01:34, 9 August 2021 review of submission by Suganthancbe


Hi, i dont know why my article is rejected. please give me the exact reasons. I was new to Wikipedia

Suganthancbe (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suganthancbe. Draft:The Eye Foundation was declined because it cites no independent, reliable, secondary sources. It is significant coverage in such sources that determines notability - the suitability of the topic for a stand alone encyclopedia article - and such references should be the source of the bulk of the article. Wikipedia is not for any kind of advertising, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:08:24, 9 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Abbeydavid

11:08:24, 9 August 2021 review of submission by Abbeydavid


have been trying to public an article for Ambassador Micheal Tawadrous my articles have been rejected so many time. please i need help with the articles

Abbeydavid (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are completely contextless. We're not going to accept a cite that's just the name of an outlet/institution; we need much more information than that. Author and title of the page/article/book being cited, among other things, are absolute requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:47:02, 9 August 2021 review of submission by Endrabcwizart


Endrabcwizart (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endrabcwizart (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC) for advice[reply]

@Endrabcwizart: The AfC project only reviews drafts for encyclopedic articles, which are different from social media (Facebook, Twitter etc.) profiles, which we don't have here. User:Endrabcwizart/sandbox looked more like something to put on your userpage, though messages for you (regardless of their nature) will always be posted on your user talk page. If you meant to create a encyclopedic article, check out Help:Your first article and plase be advised that creating an article about yourself is strongely discouraged. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:11, 9 August 2021 review of submission by 106.213.208.72


106.213.208.72 (talk) 13:04, 9 August 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 22:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:41, 9 August 2021 review of draft by Longh24


Hello, I have a problem with the copyright of a lots photos. Their source is the book "La fabrique et le village: la Tavannes Watch Co 1890-1918" of Cercle d'études historiques de la Société jurassienne d'Emulation, Porrentruy, Switzerland and I don't know how to cite this source. Can you show me how to do that?

Thank you in advance. Longh24 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longh24: Photos don't benefit a draft in the first place; I would leave them out for now. As for citing books, see {{cite book}}. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:23, 9 August 2021 review of draft by Noddla

Hello! I'm trying to publish my first article, but it has been declined due to its reference. However the references are from renowned music industry and entertainment publications like MBW, Music Week and Rolling Stone. Could this decision be reconsidered? Thanks! Noddla.

Noddla (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Noddla: Refer to the top table here:
Does this help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:50, 9 August 2021 review of draft by Clinozoisite


I am confused on the question of Notability? The article in question references an individual that served as the United States Chief Hydrographer and was commanding officer of 2 Hydrographic Vessels. The person in question is the replacement for a person that has a Wiki page already. All people that have held this "office" have a wiki page. I am confused on how this is not notable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_M._Smith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Hann

Clinozoisite (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:17:43, 9 August 2021 review of draft by Bodega2019


Bodega2019 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional references as requested, including a major review published in a major publication, The Guardian. I would like to communicate with someone at wikipedia who can assist me in adhering to wikipedia standards for this article. Please let me know how I can do this. Thanks.

21:54:43, 9 August 2021 review of submission by Sks2002official

The site was once popular but now it's been discontinued. Sks2002official (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sks2002official. The draft was rejected not because Vlare is no longer popular or has been discontinued, but because in the reviewer's judgement the topic has never been notable. Notability is not the same as popularity — although being popular may increase the chances that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, You are welcome to seek out such coverage, perhaps from the period when Vlare was popular. The coverage need not be in English, and it need not be online. But if no such coverage exists, then no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

05:59:59, 10 August 2021 review of draft by Sujinupasana


Please let me know which link in my draft article have issue with "wiki copy right" Sujinupasana (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AS previously explained Draft:Debashis Chatterjee is mostly copied and pasted from https://www.indiaeducationforum.org/debashis-chatterjee.html Theroadislong (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:49:49, 10 August 2021 review of draft by Star Max Red


HI, please explain me the problem about the picture that has been deleted. I'm the author of the picture and the owner of the copyright. Why can't I use it? I think that you should delete an image if you know that it violates copyright, not if you suppose it. Thank you Star Max Red (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Max Red: I assume you talk about File:Giantthevine 15042019bw 1600.jpg. If so, our policies require evidence of the free license when it has appeared elsewhere before, via support. Merely stating that you are the copyright holder is insufficient, because it is not possible for us to see who is on the other end of the network cable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:16:40, 10 August 2021 review of draft by Polyarch


Roughly how many reliable sources are required for an article?

Thanks, Polyarch (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polyarch (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyarch: The quick answer is "multiple" and that's deliberately vague. Because it's not just having sources, it's having reliable independent in-depth sources, sufficient to write an article. 3 lengthy sources could be enough while 30 sources with passing mentions could be insufficient. In addition, primary sources (official website and such) should be used very sparingly. Store pages should be very rarely cited. What we want is multiple sources like WP:VG/RS, preferably at least full reviews. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: Thank you. This cleared up a lot. Polyarch (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:23:23, 10 August 2021 review of draft by Hotshot bro


I will try my best to find more sources about the article, so the sources can be constructed more independently.

Hotshot bro (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:29:55, 10 August 2021 review of draft by Hotshot bro


The two sources that are included in the article are the only reliable sources, I have already removed two sources from a living person and 1 picture with a link of another living person. Please let me know if there's any correction for any benefit that the article needs to be and some help for being neutral and less promotional, I will try to read the rule regulations and guidelines carefully. Thank you.

If that's all the sources, the school would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:30, 10 August 2021 review of submission by Fastwaq


Fastwaq (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

i have written about my first article about a indian poltican .and it is decalin i dont now why it is declained . i have attached the referance link.sir i have editted it and re published .

sir please aproove the artice .he is a indian famous poltican . he is also a writter also a founder . sir please aproove my article fast as possible . please make it fast.


I HAVE CREATED A ARTICLE ABOUT A INDIAN POLTICAN CAN YOU PLEASE ACEEPT IT . HE IS A PART OF HISTORY Fastwaq (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fastwaq Wikipedia has no deadlines, so what is your need for speedy approval? The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that this man does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable politician. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:38:59, 10 August 2021 review of submission by Riotix

I would like this page to be undoubtedly re-reviewed, as the standards of this page are very high. This page includes all elements required, and are extremely fulfilled with validity via the sources. Riotix (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Riotix: The page has been re-reviewed enough times and won't be considered further. Your assessment of its sourcing quality is simply wrong if you took the time to read the policies and guidelines linked. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:23:50, 10 August 2021 review of submission by Vatsalsri


Despite being neutral in tone, the page's content has been marked as advertisement in the review. The requisite media reports have also been linked in references. Please help to get published.

Vatsalsri (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:30:34, 10 August 2021 review of submission by Subhra bagchi

We have been trying to create an article for Anudip foundation(NGO), which is a non profit company with operations in India and USA, started in 2007 but failed to do so even after giving several references. Anudip foundation for social welfare has been empowering motivated young job aspirants from difficult backgrounds since 2007.An assistance from you would help the organisation serve better.And also for worldwide exposure of Anudip we are looking for creation of the wiki article so that we can cater to a large number of people. Subhra bagchi (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhra bagchi The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. I'm glad that your organization does good work, but Wikipedia is not for telling the world about organizations that do good work, and has no interest in helping you promote your organization. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia has no interest in what an organization wants to say about itself. I would suggest using social media.
Also, if you work for the organization, you are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal declaration, see WP:PAID. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:44, 10 August 2021 review of draft by Factelf4


I'd like to understand more about notability. Having read the guidelines, I submitted a page which was reviewed by a few other editors and rejected on tone and style grounds which I then corrected. None of them raised the question of notability. However, it has now been rejected on notability.

The page meets the following criteria: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field".

Mariani meets all of these criteria as I have included plenty of references. He has written books and received awards. He is also used as a reference for other multiple other Wiki pages such as definitions of food types (eg the sub sandwich, Bloody Mary cocktail) which demonstrates that he has made a "recognized contribution...in a specific field". I have asked the editor who rejected it what else is required but no response, so hoping to understand more here. Many thanks for your help.--Factelf4 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Factelf4 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the awards are notable, ie. they have no Wikipedia articles. Writing books confers zero notability unless they have been reported on with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong Below are some examples of where Wiki recognises the awards. Wiki itself reports on the books as they are quoted as reference for many other pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Beard_Foundation_Award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Magazine_Editors#ASME_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wine_%26_Food_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Culinary_Professionals#IACP_Awards Factelf4 (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:26:15, 10 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Monkeycounter


Doublegrazing says of my draft

3) Given how individually supported points appear to have been bound together into a narrative, it is difficult to see how this could not contain synthesis/OR.

Can anyone explain what this means? I'm baffled.

Monkeycounter (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you're writing a story, not an encyclopaedia article. Limit yourself to whatever information the sources explicitly provide and do not extrapolate or editorialise. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:49:08, 10 August 2021 review of submission by WiedenKunst


Philipp Straub is an internationally active and highly skilled DJ and producer, friend and co-performer of Carl Cox, I just don´t know that is missing in whis english wikipedia article.

Maybe if you can request this specific information from him personally and directly by getting in contact with him.

There is also already an german wikipedia article:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Straub

WiedenKunst (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WiedenKunst That an article exists on another language version of Wikipedia is not relevant, as each language version is its own project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version isn't necessarily acceptable on another. Here on the English version, you will need to establish that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about him. It isn't up to anyone other than yourself to provide sources- preferably those should be independent sources, not from the musician themselves. If you communicate with the musician about this draft, that would be a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:48, 10 August 2021 review of draft by Wikiya007


Would like to get help from an experienced editor to check this draft is ok to submit since I added a few references after the draft decline.

Wikiya007 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

07:51:54, 11 August 2021 review of draft by 193.116.196.59


My submitted article keeps getting rejected and I don't know why. 193.116.196.59 (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept essays. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:11, 11 August 2021 review of draft by RuthIrl


Can I please ask for help identifying the main areas of issue with Women in Computing Europe? I tried hard to follow the format of an existing Wikipedia page which is not mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing_in_Canada

Points are backed up referenced material so I don't see where my personal opinion came in. I had thought that I did not include any opinion. I am not arguing, I just would appreciate help in identifying the issues so that I can correct them. I would like to get the page up in the best form it can take.

Thank you for reviewing the work.

RuthIrl (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:36:46, 11 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 83.248.133.222


Hello, I am trying to create this new article here, but it got refused now for the third time because of "not adequately supported by reliable sources": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kamo_River_(Russia)

The article has in fact two linked references to Russian web pages where the information can be verified. There are also Wikipedia articles in six other languages already about the exact same Kamo river with pretty much the same basic information, see: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1174185

There is even a map (used in another article before) showing the exact location of the river. What other "reliable sources" should be added so that the article can be accepted? I am starting to get tired of this process.

83.248.133.222 (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed and accepted the article. For named geographic features such as rivers, mountains, lakes, etc. proof of existence is enough. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:02:48, 11 August 2021 review of draft by Hearvox


Mystified by the Wikipedia new-article submission review process. Submitted an extensively sourced draft on Headwaters Economics, a U.S., nonprofit, nonpartisan research firm, which has done pioneering work in wildfire/WUI and the value of public lands.

First, I was inaccurately accused of being paid or having a financial connection with the article's subject, then that the article lacked independently verifiable sources, even tho each sentence was a statement of fact and most were footnoted with links to major national news and academic outlets that use HE research.

Now, even tho the article is mostly unchanged, the financial connection and lack of sourcing objections have been dropped. But the problem is now that HE is not of enough consequence to justify a Wikipedia entry. This cannot be true when nearly every major news outlet has relied on HE research for their articles: NY Times, WaPo, NPR, etc. If the major media publications which use HE research are notable, then the research itself and the organization which produces it must also be notable. I'm done pursuing this project/draft. Just wanted to inform the Wiki community you may have a reviewing issue.

Other than that, thanks so much for all your work.

Hearvox (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:41, 11 August 2021 review of draft by Walking Weird Studios


Can I get help finding good sources for my page? Walking Weird Studios (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walking Weird Studios: A good way to find reliable sources is to ask a librarian. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walking Weird Studios: A quick search of Google for YouTuber “Shnobbs” turns up zero reliable independent sources, I fear you are wasting your time trying to create an article on them. Theroadislong (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:34:01, 11 August 2021 review of draft by Bollinmoor


Hello. I created a draft of an article about a Ukrainian scientist. But there are not enough sources. I found encyclopedias in the library. Can these articles be used? Link to file hosting
https://fex.net/ru/s/m1t79za
I also found Nazarenko's books and newspaper articles. Do I need to add them as proof of his work?

thank you for your help and advice


Bollinmoor (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:36:57, 11 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jms19961996


Hello. I am having trouble with the article on William Rothman that I wrote, which recently received its third rejection. My issue is that the feedback in the most recent review seems to directly contradict some of the opinions of a previous reviewer, which leaves me stuck as to how to proceed with resubmitting it. I also found the general tone and conduct of the most recent reviewer to be quite unprofessional and inappropriate; not to mention the lack of detail or specificity in their overall review. It seems as if they just did not like or care for the article at all, despite the efforts I put into rectifying the issues raised by the previous reviewer(s), none of whom raised the question of notability. I was under the impression the article was pretty close to being published until the most recent review, which has left me wondering what to do next. Please advise. Thanks. Jms19961996 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jms19961996: You need more reliable sources about him or his books. See WP:RS. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:45:06, 11 August 2021 review of submission by Ashokreddy

Hi - this is a genuine edition, am trying for a long time. This movie is significant in Krishna (Telugu actor) career, and I posted all the links I could find. Telugu movies dont have too many supporting links to add. I have even added Amazon links for this movie's music. Not sure what else I can do to reconsider this page. Please advise. Ashokreddy (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashokreddy: Sorry, but there are not enough independent sources to show that the film is notable. Without more sources, the draft will not be approved. Amazon and IMDB are not considered suitable to show notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:45:07, 11 August 2021 review of draft by HalfMoonWiki


New article: Draft:StormForge I noticed this new article was declined, even before I had finished editing 8-)

This article is about the software company http://www.stormforge.io

The reason given for rejection is that the references were not sufficiently independent, could you comment on that before I continue editing?

More:

  • Most of the references were from well-known publications such as Forbes, CRN, TechRepublic and similar.
  • I discovered that four references were re-used, was that a primary reason? I can remove duplicates if preferred
  • I also plan to add an Infobox with company logo and founders, would that assist in approval?


HalfMoonWiki (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HalfMoonWiki. BizJournals is an independent, reliable, secondary source containing significant coverage. The rest, not so much. Forbes.com/sites by contributors rather than staff are not the same as Forbes magazine. They are blogs, so not reliable sources for facts. Indeed, in my experience they're strong contra-indicators of notability. Perhaps only hopelessly non-notable companies pay to be blogged about there. TechCrunch appears to be a regurgitated press release, so not independent. Container Journal, CRN, and TechRepublic are trade rags, a type of publication specifically excluded by WP:NCORP from those that help demonstrate notability. Two of them, moreover, are "best of", "top 100" or similar lists, also excluded by WP:NCORP, making them doubly unsuitable. The presence or absence of an infobox will have zero influence on the fate of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

04:13:37, 12 August 2021 review of draft by Brentxphillips


Hi, I'd like help to make my article acceptable for approval and publishing. Can someone point me to a template or something? I'm just trying to publish a very basic article on something that I'm an expert on.

Brentxphillips (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brentxphillips, the best advice I can give is to read the advice for expert editors. We value subject experts particularly for their ability to distinguish between good and less good sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:49:05, 12 August 2021 review of draft by Tiltal


Hello,

We would like to understand what changes need to be made so as to comply with WIKI requirements. We established this page similarly to other company's pages. Please advise.

Best Regards,

Yair Maryanka - CEO



Tiltal (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiltal Note that only a single person should be operating your account. You will need to review the paid editing policy and make a formal declaration. Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field. A company merits an article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it(and not prompted by the company or based on materials put out by the company), showing how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please see Your First Article for more information.
It could be that the other articles you've seen are also inappropriate. It is possible to get inappropriate content by us; we can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:15:23, 12 August 2021 review of submission by Phoebeowston


I would like to publish this article, what impartial language should I use?

Phoebeowston There is nothing that you can do- as the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further, as no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, Phoebeowston, egregious promotion can be fixed by ruthless removal of promotional language. You've started this removal and I now see some hope for the article, so I have changed (my own) "reject" to "decline". However, before you concern yourself with the language, better look for reliable sources that are independent of the gallery. If no such sources can be found, even a seemingly neutral description won't be acceptable. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:36:30, 12 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Blmalone


This is my first effort and I am having trouble reading and understanding the status of my submission. These pages are cryptic and I don't see a clear indication of the status of my page, since I made multiple several edits, or the dates of my edit submissions, or a verification that the submission actually uploaded, and confirmation that it is awaiting approval. I am just looking for acknowledgement that the last edit submitted is actually in the que. Blmalone (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blmalone (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blmalone As indicated by the yellow box at the bottom of the draft, you have resubmitted it and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:30, 12 August 2021 review of draft by Giocardillo


I tried publishing a page about a Emilia Fazzalari. It got denied due to references not being sufficient enough. With looking at other biography pages, the references I have provided look like to me they would qualify. Was curious if I could get more specifics on why it was denied and how to make it better


Giocardillo (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giocardillo Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. It could be that those other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and with over 6 million articles to look at, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a guide, make sure that they are classified as at least "good" articles(see the talk page for that information) which are the best examples to follow. If you want to help us out, you can identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.
Regarding your question, some sections of your draft are completely unsourced, such as the Personal Life section. (related to that,we don't typically mention the names of children, especially minors, unless they too merit articles) The rest of your sources do not seem appropriate for establishing notability. A Wikipedia 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. The article should not just tell what the person has done in their life. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you have an association with this person, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures, as well as other advice. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8 of your draft's paragraphs have no sources whatsoever, each and every substantive fact requires proper citing to independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:09, 12 August 2021 review of submission by Walking Weird Studios

The page I've been trying to make is a page for a youtube channel called ShnobbsStudios. The name of the owner of this channel is Gabriel Garcia. I need good ways to show that the sources I am using are good ones. Can someone help? Walking Weird Studios (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walking Weird Studios: Greetings. As has been repeatedly pointed out in the comments in your draft, we want to see significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The only source which has been provided has been a link to the subject's own YouTube channel. This is quite obviously not independent, nor is it reliable--we are not concerned with what a subject has to say about itself. I have looked around for any indication whatsoever that anyone unconnected with Garcia or the channel has written about them and did not find anything. Without independent sourcing, there is literally nothing upon which a proper encyclopedia article on the subject can be based. There is nothing at all here to show that Garcia or his oeuvre are notable enough to merit an article here, and therefore I concur with the reviewer's rejection of the draft as not only unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and indeed for any further consideration as such. --Finngall talk 17:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:50, 12 August 2021 review of submission by Sandy Fortingal


How do I lodge a formal complaint against Locomotive207?

Sandy Fortingal

Sandy Fortingal (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Fortingal You should first attempt to talk out any grievance with another user. I assume this has to do with their declining of your draft. Escalating it to another forum means that your actions will be examined as well. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have too many zealots stalking your platform being officious, obstructive and unhelpful. Who polices these people? Do they get any training? They create a negative and dispiriting environment for contributors.

Sandy

(edit conflict) Note that this appears to be regarding Locomotive207's decline of Draft:Laurence Oliphant, 7th Laird of Gask, and that OP has already conversed with them on their talk page. --Finngall talk 17:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Fortingal, would you mind actually submitting the draft so that I can re-review it?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 19:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandy Fortingal: Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and there are a number of community-based means to "police" those who do not follow policies and guidelines, but I checked around and didn't see anything "officious, obstructive, [or] unhelpful" directed toward you, merely reasonable attempts at communication and standard templated notices. If there is anything I missed which you see as actionable, please provide specifics (with diffs), but otherwise I would advise you to assume good faith of your fellow editors and not take anything too personally. --Finngall talk 21:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:00, 12 August 2021 review of submission by Kitanago

I would like to submit for consideration this article which has been transferred to the draft. I would like to know what I need to fix and if someone can help me please! Kitanago (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have very little interest in what the founder says about his company, only what independent reliable sources have reported. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:04, 12 August 2021 review of submission by Ashokreddy

Does giving Youtube link for the movie help publishing this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NHCgMTDnjw

Ashokreddy (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:39, 12 August 2021 review of draft by Racer235


I was just wondering how I make my article in a more encyclopaedic tone. What words shouldn’t be used?


Racer235 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, “it looks majestic” “distinctive,” “unpleasant rubble” “very unpleasant,”a lot going on” “we reach a flat saddle” are not appropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

07:15:00, 13 August 2021 review of draft by Jimmyjrg


I would like help with this article on Brian Wise. He is notable as editor of Rhythms Magazine - one of the last printed music magazines in Australia - and for his long running radio show. This year he was awarded an OAM for his service to broadcast media, and I believe this alone should be merit for an article.

While many of the sources are firsthand, I think there are enough secondhand mixed in that shows Brian Wise is known outside of his own circle. --Jimmyjrg (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmyjrg (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:43:53, 13 August 2021 review of draft by Valeria.Djukic


Dear help desk, I am trying to improve this draft article and address the reported concern: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.'

I have added additional sources and reference, and working on citing the bibliography to the fullest possible extent. Apart from that, how should I deal with the biography part, which is most of the text? Most of it can be found in the respective biography book - do I need to reference it multiple times or once is enough?

Valeria.Djukic (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:06, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Rob waring

The article has been improved and issues have since been fixed.

Rob waring (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No noticeable improvement? The Daily Mail and Facebook are not reliable sources either. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:47, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Alice Jason


I would like to ask a different admin to review this, then the admin that declined it, because this article has significant coverage from reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. I feel the reviewer did not do a proper review and did not analyze the available sources.  In particular check San Diego Tribune, Techcrunch, Fast Company and San Diego Business Journal. After the decline I have also added a new Book Source at #19 (Agile Project Management: The Complete Guide for Beginners) and BLOOMBERG. Please review my citation analysis below and let me know if you do not agree that this article meets the notability guidelines. (Disclosure: I am a paid editor, but that should not count against notability guidelines. I feel I am being given a hard time, just because I am a paid editor!)

Source analysis
1) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2021-06-21/san-diegos-newest-tech-unicorn-grabs-east-village-high-rise-next-to-petco-park 
-in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is reliable   .  We have 3 references from this site, so we should only count one. RATING: EXCELLENT
2) https://social.techcrunch.com/2020/06/24/productivity-platform-clickup-raises-35-million-from-craft-ventures/    
- in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is super notable and reliable   .   RATING: EXCELLENT
3) https://charitydigital.org.uk/topics/topics/the-best-project-management-software-in-2021-8909 
- Not too in-depth but has more than 2 paragraphs about them. Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
4)https://project-management.com/pros-and-cons-of-using-clickup/ 
- In-depth - Publication not well known . It is a review website. RATING: AVERAGE
5) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2020-12-15/clickup-raises-100m-as-venture-capital-continues-to-flow-to-local-startups 
- in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is reliable  .  This is a duplicate site reference, so we will not count it. RATING: EXCELLENT, but DO NOT COUNT.
6) https://thesiliconreview.com/magazine/profile/clickup-is-the-future-of-workplace-productivity 
- This is an interview, so the interview part is not primary, however, there are more than 2 paragraphs of intro and bio about the company written by the publication, which is acceptable. I am not sure if this Publication is reliable    .  RATING: AVERAGE
7) https://www.fastcompany.com/90636414/after-four-near-death-experiences-this-billion-dollar-startup-ceo-has-no-more-time-to-waste 
-in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is super notable and reliable .  RATING: EXCELLENT
8) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/style/family-calendar.html 
- It's a mention, not in-depth. Publication is super notable and reliable .  RATING: AVERAGE
9) https://moderncto.io/270-alex-yurkowski-cto-co-founder-at-clickup/ 
- in-depth. Publication not well known.  RATING: AVERAGE
10) https://www.gadgetsnow.com/featured/free-tools-to-get-your-home-business-up-and-running/articleshow/77478904.cms 
- in-depth (long paragraph) . Publication not well known.   RATING: AVERAGE
11)  https://diginomica.com/one-app-replace-them-all-clickups-ceo-future-productivity-and-how-clickup-addresses-proliferation - In-Depth -This is part interview and part review by the author. The interview part is not acceptable but there are over 10 paragraphs of in-depth analysis of the software by the author. Publication is not well known.  RATING: AVERAGE
12) https://www.saasmag.com/zeb-evans-of-clickup-on-optimizing-productivity/ 
- Interview, but has 2 paragraphs of info. Publication is reliable  and has hard copies.   RATING: AVERAGE
13) https://www.sdbj.com/news/2021/apr/07/san-diego-padres-partners-clickup/ (San Diego Business Journal) 
- Somewhat in-depth. Article not too long, and 2 paragraphs are quotes.Publication is super notable, reliable  and has hard copy. We have two references from this site (See #17), so we will only count the second one since it's more in-depth. RATING: ABOVE AVERAGE - DO NOT COUNT
14) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2020-06-26/san-diego-start-up-clickup-raises-35-million-for-software-that-helps-with-remote-work
in-depth , Publication is reliable .  This is a third site reference (See #1 and 5), so we will not count it. RATING: EXCELLENT, but DO NOT COUNT.
15) https://www.socaltech.com/clickup_taps_buzzfeed_cheddar_exec_as_creative_head/s-0080731.html
- Not in-depth. Publication not well known. RATING: BELOW AVERAGE
16)https://tech.co/news/clickup-email-clickapp-feature 
- in-depth , Publication is not well known. There is another article from this site at #22 which we will not count. RATING: AVERAGE
17) https://www.sdbj.com/news/2021/jan/05/clickup-becomes-san-diegos-latest-unicorn/ (San Diego Business Journal) 
- Very in-depth .Publication is super notable, reliable  and has hard copy. We have two references from this site, so we will only count this one since it's more in-depth. RATING: EXCELLENT
18) https://www.thedrum.com/news/2021/08/03/ad-the-day-clickup-chad-lindberg-highlight-the-awkwardness-going-back-work 
-  in-depth , Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
19) Caldwell, Greg (2021-01-29). Agile Project Management: The Complete Guide for Beginners https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SZoXEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT31&dq=clickup&hl=en&redir_esc=y
- in-depth , It's from a published book so it is reliable . RATING: EXCELLENT
20) https://siliconangle.com/2020/12/15/productivity-platform-startup-clickup-raises-100m-1b-unicorn-valuation/ 
-in-depth , while its news about  raising funds, it also has in-depth info about the company, Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
21) https://www.business.com/articles/free-time-tracking-applications/
-  somewhat in-depth , it's comparing several apps, but more than enough info on Clickup to be considered somewhat in-depth. Publication is reliable . RATING: ABOVE AVERAGE
22) https://dzone.com/articles/what-does-a-project-manager-do-on-a-daily-basis-th
-in-depth, comparison of several apps. Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
23) https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-review
-in-depth, Has details about app and pricing. We will not count this one since its the second article from tech.co (See #16). RATING: AVERAGE - DO NOT COUNT
24) https://thetechtribune.com/10-best-tech-startups-in-san-diego/
-Not in-depth, but it says they are one of the best startups in Silicon Valley. Publication not well known. RATING: BELOW AVERAGE
25) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round
In-depth and publication is super notable and reliable. RATING: EXCELLENT

Alice Jason (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Jason Reviewers are not necessarily administrators. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason Shopping around for a different reviewer will not make a difference, as the reviewer was correct. The sources do not establish notability because they are announcements of routine business activities or reviews of the company's products, not the company itself. If you've accepted payment already(as you declared) I'd suggest that you return the money, as the rejection means the draft will not be considered further. I'm also curious as to how potential clients find you, as you say you don't advertise on a website, but it's not necessary for you to answer that. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@(331dot) Please review the sources in detail and respond to me how the sources that I have specified as EXCELLENT fail to meet the guidelines. Even tough they are news, they contain in detail company info and bio. Fast Company, TechCrunch, San Diego Tribune, Book coverage, etc there are over 20 sources. I agree not all in-depth and some news, but there is more than enough here to meet WP:GNG. Not only some of these articles are in-depth but they are also from notable and reliable publications. As far as how they found me, it was a referral from an agency that I work with.23.240.192.112 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:30:21, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7


Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Draft:Christine Handy Hello. I was informed that this page was declined for certain reasons. My question is this: There were a few different examples on the draft. The ones above were sort of practice ones. The refined one was at the very bottom. I’m thinking that it was overlooked at the decision to decline it was based on the one above. If it wasn’t overlooked, is there a way of removing the previous first draft examples from all of it. I now know how to edit without adding more copies of different versions. Thank you for the enlightenment![reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1038660876"