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
re
Rio197 (talk | contribs)
14 edits
No edit summary
Line 422: Line 422:
:I am sri lankan Musical artist <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pathum M Ranasinghe|Pathum M Ranasinghe]] ([[User talk:Pathum M Ranasinghe#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pathum M Ranasinghe|contribs]]) </span>
:I am sri lankan Musical artist <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pathum M Ranasinghe|Pathum M Ranasinghe]] ([[User talk:Pathum M Ranasinghe#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pathum M Ranasinghe|contribs]]) </span>
::{{u|Pathum M Ranasinghe}} I hope that you have a successful career, but you cannot use Wikipedia as a way to aid your career or enhance search results for you. Once you are shown with significant coverage in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:BAND|a notable musician]], someone will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. Don't try to force the issue and go out and work on your career. Be advised that a Wikipedia article is [[WP:PROUD|not necessarily desirable]]. There are good reasons to not want one. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Pathum M Ranasinghe}} I hope that you have a successful career, but you cannot use Wikipedia as a way to aid your career or enhance search results for you. Once you are shown with significant coverage in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:BAND|a notable musician]], someone will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. Don't try to force the issue and go out and work on your career. Be advised that a Wikipedia article is [[WP:PROUD|not necessarily desirable]]. There are good reasons to not want one. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

== 23:37:06, 1 October 2021 review of draft by Rio197 ==
{{Lafc|username=Rio197|ts=23:37:06, 1 October 2021|draft=Draft:Unspooled}}


I added a couple of new (independent) references to this page today. Do they help boost enough notability to this topic to be approved for publishing?

[[User:Rio197|Rio197]] ([[User talk:Rio197|talk]]) 23:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:37, 1 October 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


September 25

11:16:58, 25 September 2021 review of submission by Manasjangde


Manasjangde (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manasjangde You don't ask a question, but your draft was blatant advertising. Please review WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:29, 25 September 2021 review of draft by Elmepi


Elmepi (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elmepi You don't ask a question, but your draft only has the company website as a source. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what 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. Press releases, staff interviews, the company website, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, or other primary sources do not establish notability. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for this company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the response. I find no reliable sources. And I'm not working for this company and had never worked for this company. I found media on wikidata [1] and a chinese wiki article and missed an english wiki article. --Elmepi (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elmepi If this company has no coverage in reliable sources, it would not merit an English Wikipedia article at this time. This would be true even if it has an article on other language versions of Wikipedia, as those versions have different policies and guidelines for content. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:24:40, 25 September 2021 review of draft by Ayo wpgm


Hi there, thank you for your help and consideration. I have been given the below feedback in the latest review for this 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", and I was hoping for some help in understanding this because the sources listed as references are all independent of the subject. Is there something I may be missing completely?

The additional comment given was that "WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, there's some mentions-in-passing and announcements and standard listings but they don't meet the criteria for establishing notability".

There is a strong emphasis on independent content but the sources listed as references are unaffiliated to the subject but perhaps I am missing the connection. Any help in uderstanding this would be appreciated so that we don't continue adding references that would be deemed as non-independent or affiliated to the subject.

I also don't know if this is right for me to compare but in comparing other media and PR companies on Wikipedia, from Category:British music websites for example, their sources do not seem to be too dissimilar to the sources that I have used and so was checking if their sources were accepted, if there was a particular reason the sources I have listed are not being accepted.

Ayo wpgm (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayo wpgm Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us. This does not mean other inappropriate content can be permitted, as if that was the case nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. We can only address the inappropriate content that we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, you should use those classified as good articles.
The sources you offer cite the specific pieces of information in the article, but do not seem to be significant coverage of the subject. To establish that this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, you must have multiple independent reliable sources to summarize, that offer significant coverage of the subject on their own(i.e. not based on materials put out by the company, or interviews with its staff, or mere announcements of what it does). 331dot (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ayo wpgm You declared a COI(thanks), but if you are an employee of the company you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Sorry if this appears twice but I sent in a reply earlier and not sure it was sent. Thank you for pointing me to the good articles section to model my draft from, I will be sure to do so and add any more independent reliable sources.
Also with the COI, I declared one as I am the business owner, I also saw here to add the COI in the example of actual COI actual COI I went through the AFC process as I thought that is what I should do but does that count as being an employee as I am not being paid to create the draft, but please let me know if I should still add the paid declaration as I want to do what the best practice is, thanksAyo wpgm (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ayo wpgm An owner of a business editing is a gray area of the paid editing policy, as no one is paying the owner to edit, but the owner has an indirect financial benefit with their editing about their business. You may not need to comply with the letter of the paid editing policy, but I would advise you to at least post on your user talk page that you are the owner of the business. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot thank you for that advise, should I just write a sentence underneath the COI badge, sorry if it seems a dumb question, many thanks Ayo wpgm (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that will be sufficient. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:50, 25 September 2021 review of submission by Hatemalo Khabar


Hatemalo Khabar (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatemalo Khabar You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media for people to promote themselves and their other social media accounts. Please also review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:44, 25 September 2021 review of draft by Urmylifewiki


Please review my 2 articles Draft:Shoutout and Draft:Alen Hovhannisians I need it as fast as possible Urmylifewiki (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, both are poorly sourced and entirely promotional so not acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:27:17, 25 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ode+Joy


Hi, I am not sure how to make Draft:Villa Pallavicino (Stresa) a real redirect. Could someone just make it an actual redirect please? It is a simple issue, but I am not sure how todo it. Thanks. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ode+Joy (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ode+Joy: Have you tried asking at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories instead? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as it happens I figured out how to do it. Sorry to have been confused. Please disregard this issue. Thanks. Ode+Joy (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Musical artist[reply]

September 26

09:42:36, 26 September 2021 review of submission by Dwinsdsmintyerh


Dwinsdsmintyerh (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC) How to create a record and then publish?[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Your draft is just blatant advertising and has been tagged for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:08, 26 September 2021 review of submission by Georgecross255

PLEASE READ TILL THE END 

    i am requesting for re-review because the biography is for a person that is notable here in our country Tanzania and has over 183,000 fans on social media (simple example instagram )  , even the late Tanzanian president dr. john pombe joseph magufuli  recognized the person as a youth who helps other youths spiritually . the person is also an artist who sings and has a couple of songs which show up when one tries to google search his name .

    another reason is because his fans need some information about the person so that when they try to find his name on the internet some information will show up and they too can edit and add even more information about the person , also many Tanzanian and East African official news sites and media recognize the person as a prophet who is well known here in Tanzania  

    also i am requesting for re-review so that the person can have an article because other prophets like him example  "josephat gwajima"  and many others here in Tanzania have biography wikipedia articles. so i personally think he too deserves an article  since this is a free knownledge panel and anyone has the right to contribute information to the article.
    lastly i tried to be as neutral as possible while editing the draft that is to be approve ,so please i am asking for re-review so that the article can go live and other editors like me can add even more information about the subject 

                                                      Faithfully georgecross255 Tanzania East Africa  .

Georgecross255 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgecross255: The draft as written has virtually no content or context and would be deleted under the relevant speedy deletion criteria were it a full article. We are an encyclopaedia, not a profile website. We also don't care that other tangential articles in the same topic area exist. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgecross255: We are also not interested in aiding his fans or in enhancing search results for him. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:06:30, 26 September 2021 review of submission by PedroLeveque


PedroLeveque (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PedroLeveque: No sources, no article, no debate. The draft is also written as if it were an advertizement. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:38:45, 26 September 2021 review of submission by Buddy011

23:38:45, 26 September 2021 review of submission by Buddy011

User hoary rejected this article based on the assumption Kennedy Mitchell did not attend Cheshire Academy School, which is proven by the link to the schools website posted above, therefore the allegations for deletion are completely false.

Buddy011 (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


User hoary is mistaken regarding the Cheshire Academy School website, Kennedy Mitchell is listed as an almuni, and a notable alumni being a published author and authority on trading in capital markets. This can be easily seen on the Cheshire Academy website seen here : https://old-friends.co/school.php?s=14742#1989 Buddy011 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC) clearly, user hoary did not perform proper research on the matter.[reply]

First, the claim that the article was rejected based on the assumption Kennedy Mitchell did not attend Cheshire Academy School does not seem to be correct. Here is what the rejection notice says about the school: consider that virtually nothing here (aside from a single incident) comes with references, the little "referencing" elsewhere is feeble: for example, he "was educated at the Cheshire Academy in Cheshire, Connecticut"; but when I click on the "reference" for that, I arrive at a web page that doesn't mention him. So two of the reasons the draft was rejected were 1) almost none of the information is referenced (which is a very basic requirement, especially for a biography of a living person), and 2) the references that are there are not particularly strong. The fact that the reference supplied for the education info doesn't mention Mitchell is one example of this. (The notice says as much. Explicitly.) Another example of the same thing is this source which does not say anything about Mitchell, and in fact refers to an article at nbcconnecticut.com, which is also used as a reference in the draft. I can't see Mitchell being mentioned in that source either.
Second, if you realise that you have accidentally provided a source that doesn't support the content, the most constructive thing to do is to edit the reference and add a reliable source that does support it, if you have access to one. (The old-friends.co url you mention above is not a particularly good source, because the reader can't know which Kennedy Mitchell it is, but at least it does mention the name.) The argument that the reviewer ought to have found a link on the website is not valid.
Third, as also pointed out in the rejection notice, there is nothing in the draft that shows that Mitchell is in fact notable. I don't see how any reviewer could have accepted the draft, and given that an article about Mitchell has already been deleted following a community discussion, rejection is a reasonable outcome of the review. --bonadea contributions talk 11:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

04:45:38, 27 September 2021 review of submission by Thernabrongjackie


The submission is not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, but tries to give a brief account and contribution of a living Scientist. A similar page (e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olanike_Adeyemo) exists on Wikipedia, why is my own work an expectation? Thernabrongjackie (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because that article is both better-sourced and more in-depth than this article. The Google Scholar link also throws a fair bit of cold water on meeting WP:NSCHOLAR for Adiaha. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 14:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:33:25, 27 September 2021 review of submission by Lazymaverick0210

I guess it is BIG. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/sushmita-sen-is-elated-as-aarya-gets-international-emmy-nod/articleshow/86482652.cms?from=mdr

Lazymaverick0210 (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazymaverick0210: That source is a non-sequitur and doesn't so much as mention them, let alone discuss them at length. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 14:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

articles of creation /chronogenetics

Hi I was informed the article in question has been undeleted for edit . I wanted to find the link but could not. Is it possible anyone has it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthoceans (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:03, 27 September 2021 review of submission by Buddy011

Would you please advise and enumerate the specific reasons for your comments...I will meanwhilst review all of your articles and look for any issues. Thanks ! Buddy011 (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buddy011: The draft, once you remove all the unsourced biographical claims (including those cited to sources that do not corroborate their claims), is an article about a person whose only real news coverage has been tied to a single event. Per our policies we generally err on the side of privacy and delete/reject such articles. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody in the United States might be able to answer this – does any of the news reports about the shooting actually mention Mitchell's name? A couple of the sources are locked outside the region where they are published, but the ones I can access only report the exact same information about a man being shot and taken to hospital. --bonadea contributions talk 18:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A look suggests they do not (they occurred during/shortly after the shooting), so those sources are also completely useless, making this draft effectively completely unsourced. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:56:48, 27 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Lenai1992



Lenai1992 (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lenai1992 You don't ask a question, but the draft was blatant advertising. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:18:55, 27 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Akshaypatil510


I don't understand how my article looks like a advertisement when actually it is not. SO want the help in how to change the wordings or the sentences which might help the article to be approved.

Akshaypatil510 (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Akshaypatil510: It reads like an investment brochure because you're throwing everything at the draft to see what will stick, which makes it come off as promotional in tone. Keep It Simple, Stupid. In addition, your sources are almost all junk; only [2] is anywhere approaching usable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:33:11, 27 September 2021 review of submission by 216.182.107.104


I have created two accounts, tomofidaho and tomsapid. I can log in to tomsapid but can not log into tomofidaho. I don't want two accounts and think I created tomsapid after being unable to log into tomofidaho. Please advise me on how I can delete one of these accounts. I also need to mark myself as a paid editor and don't understand how to accomplish that. thank you in advance for your help. 216.182.107.104 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC) 216.182.107.104 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to delete an account. If you no longer have access to it, just disregard it. I told you how you could declare as a paid editor, a simple statement on your user page. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:04, 27 September 2021 review of submission by Buddy011

Being attacked by other editors who have limited knowledge on subject Buddy011 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy011 Instead of perceiving things as an "attack", perceive things as people trying to explain how things work here, and what the criteria for an article are. People are trying to help you. They don't need to be experts in the subject matter to do that. Creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and you would be wise to heed the advice of others. Your draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buddy011: Nowhere did I attack you. I told you that your sourcing was subpar and, at best, implicated WP:BLP1E. Having re-looked at the sources, I can now say that absolutely none of the sourcing is acceptable, because none of it so much as mentions him by name, let alone discusses him at any length. WP:Biographies of living persons is a mandatory requirement. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

01:28:20, 28 September 2021 review of draft by J5320219


Hello, I can't really understand the reason not being accepted. It says "the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". Should I add something else in the article? J5320219 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • J5320219, Draft:Vincent Mattera says (after markup-stripping): 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). Which three of the (of course published, reliable, and secondary) sources show significant coverage? Specify them below. As for your other draft, in this edit you had your little fun with comments made by Theroadislong. This edit of yours was silly, childish and disruptive, and if you continue to make such edits you will be prevented from making any edits at all. -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:31, 28 September 2021 review of draft by Mtmh2


I am not affiliated to the hospital and I provided several links to news media that is certainly not paid for the article. Please advice me so my wikipedia project can be published.

Mtmh2 (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mtmh2 I'm curious as to how you came to edit about this hospital company. In any event, a Wikipedia article must do more than tell of the existence of a company and what it does. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, the company website, brief mentions, announcments of routine business activities, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:03, 28 September 2021 review of submission by Amandawil

Hi! My draft has been rejected on the following grounds:

"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. Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability."

The reviewer has left the following comment: "Please discuss whether this is a actual term at the WikiProjects"

Can anyone please help me identify if "dose effect" is an actual term or not? Also, I would appreciate it if someone could help me with improving my referencing. Thanks a lot! Amandawil (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amandawil (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims implicating human health and healthcare are held to a much higher standard than practically all other content on Wikipedia, and one could very credibly make the case this article would need to heed that higher standard. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:48:34, 28 September 2021 review of submission by Laurensagebrowning


Laurensagebrowning (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my draft of Marissa Chibás was not accepted and I got a note of COI, but I do not think that applies. Could I recieve help in specifics of my post that read like endorsements as I believe it is all factual. Thanks.

Laurensagebrowning How did you come to write about Marissa? As noted by the reviewer, you need to summarize independent reliable sources that are completely unconnected with her. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:10, 28 September 2021 review of submission by Noahpdoty

Hi, I submitted this draft and it was denied, and I made the requested revisions. I was hoping I could get someone to take another look at it and give me some feedback (or just accept it). Thanks! Noahpdoty (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:39, 28 September 2021 review of submission by Dixiebella

My submission was rejected as "contrary to the purpose" of Wikipedia. What does that mean? How can I correct the submission. I'm new at this. Dixiebella (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dixiebella The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is just an essay, without sources. A Wikipedia article must summarize what 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 see Your first article. Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. I might suggest using the new user tutorial, and spending time editing existing articles first, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:48:59, 28 September 2021 review of draft by 2A00:23C5:9F0E:6200:5CDA:FBAA:4299:2746


Please get this article reviewed by who can read Bengali - else they will not be able to understand the references and this is why it is getting rejected. 2A00:23C5:9F0E:6200:5CDA:FBAA:4299:2746 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt that is why the draft is being declined. It's more that you're citing our sister project Wikisource; we generally don't accept cites to Wikisource any more than we accept cites to Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:04:06, 28 September 2021 review of submission by Dixiebella

I have added to source for this page. Dixiebella (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. Please read my comment above; we need multiple independent reliable sources to summarize, not just one. If you have additional comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

13:43:49, 29 September 2021 review of draft by Emmarose12


13:43:49, 29 September 2021 review of submission by Emmarose12


Hello my username is Emmarose12 and I corrected my article Multimmersion on September 15 before re-submitting it to your team.

I would like to know what is the problem with my article, and how can I fix it so it can be posted.

Thank you in advance for your kind help.Emmarose12 (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Emmarose12 (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmarose12: Apologies for the wait. From the looks of this, this reads like a research essay or some sort of native advertizing (we don't use (TM) or (R) or any similar trademark/copyright symbols). Even if the sources are valid, which I'm in no position to say if they are (Copy required), the article would need to be substantially rewritten. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:08, 29 September 2021 review of draft by GRIMREAPER-SLM-thg

i translated another wiki article (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B3%A2%E7%BE%85%E3%83%8E%E9%AC%BC)

GRIMREAPER_SLM-the hentai god (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:31, 29 September 2021 review of submission by حارث سین خیل بلچ


حارث سین خیل بلچ (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:15, 29 September 2021 review of draft by Samuel-Rothstein


Hello, my article submission to Articles for Creation was not accepted. The reviewer left a comment stating that "Youtube etc are not considered sources (except special circumstances)." However, the article itself is about a viral Youtube video, so that video itself was referenced. Therefore, this is not a secondary source. Given this context, is this a sufficent reference? Samuel-Rothstein (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel-Rothstein: you are correct the reviewer missed some vital information. They should have stated that none of the references are considered reliable as none of them are independent. The first reference is to the video it self and should not be used as a reference and instead be only list as an official link. A Youtube link is only considered reliable if it from a source that we already consider reliable, with the proper editorial oversight and fact checking. This would include most news media and the like. In order for this to be considered notable you need to base the article what others have said about in published reliable sources. Generally a rule of thumb is 2-3 independent published reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:31:31, 29 September 2021 review of submission by Emmachernandez

Hello! I have modified Conor Allyn's article a couple times to prove his notability but it has not been approved! I looked up the guidelines of notability and he seems to fall within those guidelines as he is a director and producer for award winning films and has had his work applauded in publications such as New York Times, LA Times, and the Hollywood Reporter. I have contacted the editor on the talk page and have not received feedback. Is there anything you know of that I can do to improve my odds of getting my article accepted? Thank you! Emmachernandez (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emmachernandez (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending conflict of interest disclosure, see User talk:Emmachernandez#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

03:46:22, 30 September 2021 review of submission by 216.174.91.149


I'm at my wit's end not knowing what more to write about St. Xenia?

216.174.91.149 (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:56:19, 30 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Oyindebrah


I stumbled on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abimbola_Fashola. So I decided to create Wikipedia pages for first ladies in Nigeria.

Apparently I am starting with Kebbi state. I am having issues with the page, the person is a first lady of a state, she sits on an international board. had done quite a lot of things on cancer which I have also reported but the message reviewers keep leaving is about her notability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zainab_Bagudu

Here is the draft above, please help

Oyindebrah (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL does not grant a presumption of notability to people on NGO boards or to first ladies/husbands. Please refer to the top table here:
Only one of your sources is usable, and even then it's not a particularly good one. The notability threshold has not been met, let alone the biographical sourcing requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oyindebrah: - re-signing for ping. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:14, 30 September 2021 review of submission by Nomadicghumakkad


Any thoughts on notability of this and similar subjects? I don't think I know enough to give a good feedback to creator. This is being discussed at my talk page [3]

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:58:45, 30 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by LEO FUKS


dear Colleagues I wanted to improve the article "Throat Singing" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat_singing, but it is a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE, not a regular article Then, I edited with an explanation about the subject, that was regarded as not suitable by a reviewer I also started creating a page on "Throat Singing Techniques", that has a different meaning than "Throat Singing", but the reviewer did not accept it and suggested that the contribution could be transferred to the existing one. BUT HOW CAN A DISAMBIGUATION PAGE BE CONVERTED INTO A REGULAR WIKIPEDIA PAGE? Thanks a lot Leo Fuks

LEO FUKS (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Your decline. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:12, 30 September 2021 review of draft by DamesnetV


Why is this being declined when it contains more references than some articles that have been published? DamesnetV (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DamesnetV: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim about a living or recently-departed person that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong, in-depth, third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing about such topics on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

01:25:29, 1 October 2021 review of submission by 2601:2C1:8880:5550:69BA:3E5F:9F10:2660


2601:2C1:8880:5550:69BA:3E5F:9F10:2660 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC):[reply]

If you can't provide the draft link, we can't help you. The likelihood of an IP having the desired draft in its contribution history is extremely low. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:39:55, 1 October 2021 review of draft by Sutatatabunwa


My draft has been repeatedly declined on the basis that it does not meet the criteria for notability of music-related topics, but I have already provided sources proving that

1. the band in question has been the subject of or mentioned in multiple nation-wide published works that are reliable independent and not self-published, including books, newspaper and magazine articles

2. the band has had multiple albums in a national music chart (in this case, Japan's major music chart Oricon)

3. the band has released multiple albums from an important indie label (P-VINE, which has Wikipedia articles in both Japanese and English)

4. the band is internationally recognized as a prominent example of the Japanese shoegaze scene

5. the band has performed music for a notable work of media (in this case a theatrical performance featuring Rina Ikoma, who has Wikipedia articles in both Japanese and English)

6. the band has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio network (in this case TBS)

If meeting six out of the twelve criteria isn't enough, then what should I do?

Sutatatabunwa (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sutatatabunwa As noted by reviewers, the sources that you provided are of poor quality or are not independent reliable sources. Even if the band technically meets the notability criteria, it still must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot But The Japan Times is a national newspaper; Sound & Recording Magazine Guitar Magazine and Bass Magazine are both nationally available magazines; and Shoegazer Disc Guide is a nationally available secondary source (musical reference book), all of which are neither self-published nor self-penned by or affiliated with the band. You are asking for "published" "reliable" "secondary" sources that are "independent" from the subject and I am providing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutatatabunwa (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sushma Adhikari

08:41:42, 1 October 2021 review of submission by Endrabcwizart

Hello
The article I contributed, Sushma Adhikari, has been rejected for publication. I am asking for help from this help desk to publish this article. Please write down the areas that need improvement.

Endrabcwizart (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endrabcwizart The reviewer left a message as to what needs improvement. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:36, 1 October 2021 review of draft by Emfletch91


I have recently had my first article declined due to lack of referencing - I have since made improvements on this however I have two sources that I am unsure on how to reference. The articles in question are old newspaper articles and cannot be located online, yet contain information that I have referenced. Please can you advise how I would go about referencing these? Would I scan them on and use them as an image on the article? Thank you

Emfletch91 (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emfletch91: You are allowed to cite offline sources - see Wikipedia:Offline sources. Make sure to include at least newspaper name, release date (for periodically released newspapers), (page number,) article title and ideally article author. See {{cite news}} for a template that can assist with creating a newspaper citation. Please do not scan and upload them to Wikipedia, as this can, depending on the aage of the newspaper, be a copyright violation. Just include all information required to find the article you cite in a library. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emfletch91: I am concerned about some of the images, particularely File:Leigh Spinners Dance.jpg. You state that you are not the copyright holder (and probbably correctly so). Where can I find the evidence for the asserted CC-BY-SA 4.0 License? Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:48, 1 October 2021 review of submission by D2325292


D2325292 (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@D2325292: You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered again. Wikipedia is not a site like LinkedIn or other websites where you can post a personal profile. Here is some information about what makes a person notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. --bonadea contributions talk 12:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:26, 1 October 2021 review of submission by Sette-quattro

Hello, I've seen that the submission has not been accepted. The motivation states: Does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV in indepedent reliable sources.

Is it a matter of number of sources? Or variety? Or not related to sources?

Please let me know how can I improve the article. Thank you!

All the best! --Sette-quattro (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Sette-quattro (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite the subject or GitHub. The remaining citations are passing mentions that cannot help for notability a whit. The issue is thus that none of your sources are acceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sette-quattro: re-signing for ping —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:43, 1 October 2021 review of draft by Gyan.Know


Hello. I submitted page on article for Global Esports. It was moved to Draft:Global Esports. According to me, the page has sufficient content and sources to be pass notability for WP. I am not able to understand what is wrong on the page. Please help. Thanking You.

Gyan.Know (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:17, 1 October 2021 review of submission by Pathum M Ranasinghe


Pathum M Ranasinghe (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the draft to suggest that you are notable, sorry, most of us not notable enough for articles. Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pathum M Ranasinghe (ec) You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It is inadvisable to attempt to write about yourself, please read the autobiography policy. We are interested in what independent reliable sources say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. Please use social media to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sri lankan Musical artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathum M Ranasinghe (talk • contribs)
Pathum M Ranasinghe I hope that you have a successful career, but you cannot use Wikipedia as a way to aid your career or enhance search results for you. Once you are shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, someone will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. Don't try to force the issue and go out and work on your career. Be advised that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:37:06, 1 October 2021 review of draft by Rio197


I added a couple of new (independent) references to this page today. Do they help boost enough notability to this topic to be approved for publishing?

Rio197 (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1047664656"