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
Rooz1370 (talk | contribs)
114 edits
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
Line 691: Line 691:
I have made some corrections, and edited some words, I believe my page is qualified and would be glad if given a page on Wikipedia.
I have made some corrections, and edited some words, I believe my page is qualified and would be glad if given a page on Wikipedia.
[[User:Jomafa|Jomafa]] ([[User talk:Jomafa|talk]]) 08:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Jomafa|Jomafa]] ([[User talk:Jomafa|talk]]) 08:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

== 08:41:12, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Rooz1370 ==
{{Lafc|username=Rooz1370|ts=08:41:12, 21 October 2021|declined=Draft:Nima_Bank}}
Hello to the amazing reviewers at Wikipedia and Hatchens, I have recently made significant changes to this draft and have included new, independent and reliable citations to further clarify the subject. Plus the tone of the text has been changed so it would not sound anything like it is promoting anything or anybody. I'm kindly asking for a review and would love to know if the text needs changes again so it would go one more step towards being in the main space. Thank you for your time.
[[User:Rooz1370|Rooz1370]] ([[User talk:Rooz1370|talk]]) 08:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:41, 21 October 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


October 14

03:27:24, 14 October 2021 review of submission by Normal rookie

I improve this Draft many times, later it got rejected many time. I hope reviewer can accept this Draft. Normal rookie (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:28:59, 14 October 2021 review of submission by Drjimbentley


Thank you Wikipedia and Volunteer's team to for educating me about article creation and publication. I have an issue, especially understanding the format of the article on Wikipedia. 1. I have recently published content about self-defence, but I rejected, due to "how-to" content. Actually, I need to know the actual template and formating of article publishment on the honourable Wikipedia platform.

I am very eager to be part of the Wikipedia volunteers and also very interested to create high-quality articles on Wikipedia. I am looking forward to a volunteer to help me; becoming a perfect and trusted volunteer of Wiki.

Thank you very much.

Warm regards,

Dr Jim Drjimbentley (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:07:39, 14 October 2021 review of submission by Ph03n1x77

Hello, I requested a review of this article because it's the first of a series of list articles I'd like to write, based on financial information provided by Forbes Magazine and Fortune Magazine.

The reviewer, Curbon7, felt it didn't meet notability and sourcing requirements. Of course, not an issue, that's what the review was for, but when I went over to their talk page to start a dialogue I didn't get a response. I noticed a couple of people didn't get a response, but then someone who commented more recently got an answer. So I'm not sure what's going on there, but I wanted to ask for a second opinion.

Is this article, and similar articles, notable? For context, here's what I wrote on Curbon7's page: "I appreciated your review of my article for submission. When it was declined you mentioned a lack of reliable sources and proof of notability. I am of course aware that I only cited one source, which was Forbes. However, I think there is precedent for this style of List article, directly based off a reputable financial source, similar to the List of wealthiest Americans by net worth, Forbes list of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women, and 6 other lists published annually by a different magazine, Fortune, all of which have articles on Wikipedia (See list).

Since there's such a strong case of precedent, what do you think about including the 100 Largest US Charities on Wikipedia as well?" Ph03n1x77 (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ph03n1x77 For the list to be notable you need to find publications other than Forbes which contain significant discussion of Forbes' list. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:10:21, 14 October 2021 review of submission by Normal rookie

I improve this Draft many times, later it got rejected many time. I hope reviewer can accept this Draft Normal rookie (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Normal rookie no Declined The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be reconsidered. Unfortunately, the person you're writing about is simply not backed up by enough WP:RS, so unless if they have otherwise received notable coverage, it is impossible for it to be accepted.Gorden 2211 (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:10:27, 14 October 2021 review of draft by Francoisvluk


I want to submit a new version of this article that was rejected and I have completely reworked it to address the comments. Is there a way to start the article page over again. This is a major reworking, and not just editing of sections. I've changed the whole structure and content. Francoisvluk (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:32:03, 14 October 2021 review of draft by NirajDavi


NirajDavi (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


my article has been declined, and I don't know the exact reason for it to be declined. so i need help on this.

NirajDavi Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. A Wikipedia article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you(without prompting by you or based on what you tell them), showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable journalist or a notable person more broadly. Your draft is completely unsourced. It is usually difficult for people to set aside what they know about themselves and only write based on what others say about them- perhaps as a journalist that will be a little easier for you to do. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:54:57, 14 October 2021 review of draft by Jagannathsena


Jagannathsena (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannathsena You don't ask a question, but your draft is completely unsourced. Please see Referencing for Beginners to learn more about citing your sources. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:55, 14 October 2021 review of submission by Manjunathhegde7


Manjunathhegde7 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:53, 14 October 2021 review of submission by WhenJawadEdits

please remove the word that violate your commmunity but please publish my page

WhenJawadEdits (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Jawad Show was rejected. The only content was "Jawad Show is an informative website created by Jawad Ali". The draft was then deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:06, 14 October 2021 review of draft by Ckennedy18


Hello, I previously had this article rejected on grounds of not significant enough coverage. I have now added in some newly published references. I would be grateful if someone could have a look to see does it now warrant publication. Many thanks in advance.

There was also a COI issue which I hope is now resolved by making a declaration on my talk page.Hans Sachs (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hans Sachs (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the disclosure, and please look at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once and User:Jéské Couriano/Decode while you wait - it's going to take me a little bit to assess these references. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ckennedy18: My assessment of the sources is as follows:
There's an argument to be made that notability has been met, but as this isn't my usual forte other regulars here may chime in if I'm offbase. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:31, 14 October 2021 review of submission by NicoleMASD


Hello, I'd like to ask for advice on how to improve this page. I've made numerous updates to the citations to establish notability but I don't believe the article has been re-reviewed. Can you please advise?

NicoleMASD As the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization and what it does. A Wikipedia article about an organization 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. No amount of editing can confer notability.
If you are associated with this organization, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:48:05, 14 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Antfarmalta


Hi, My article was refused today it is about a Maltese strongman who was very well known in the 1960s and 1970s in Malta. I have used reliable secondary sources which are two books which have extensive information on Charles. Charles was one of the first strongmen in the world to pull a full sized airliner back in the 1960s. I think the reviewer is from Nigeria and does not have any idea about Malta. We are a tiny country and there are not a lot of articles available for even notable people especially those from decades ago. Despite this Charles is mentioned in two major publications by David Webster (a very famous figure in the world of strongman) and Joe Julian Farrugia a local Maltese broadcaster and author. I hope you will re-review my submission as I would like to add a number of articles on the subject of oldtime strongmen from Malta.

Regards,

antfarmalta


Antfarmalta (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:06:57, 14 October 2021 review of submission by The Mountain1


The Mountain1 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This new article about OnwardMobility is absolutely in line with all Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The text has been written from a neutral perspective, it's completely based on facts and figures only and includes all necessary references. No reason for not publishing it!

The Mountain1 Please see your user talk page for important information. Regarding the draft, you resubmitted it twice without making any changes. The sources you provided are not appropriate. Please review all the comments on the draft. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

01:12:20, 15 October 2021 review of draft by Kalyan1010

Hi all. Do you think the subject of this draft would meet GNG or WP:NACADEMIC (especially 1b for the Syal Method, as pointed out by the author) in its current state? I personally find that

  • GNG aspect: the media sources are mostly about their research, no significant coverage about the professor themselves
  • NACADEMIC: Too few citations to demostrate the significance of the method in order to meet 1b, not sure if other criteria may be satified

If you find the subject otherwise notable, please feel free to accept it. Otherwise, could you provide some suggestions to the author? 94rain Talk 01:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the comments and help. More than Syal method, in my opinion, his work on synthetic sugars that are nutrient for humans and act as antibacterial, and work on deciphering the mode of action of Vit C on bacteria is of higher value. Vit C was known for boosting immunity and elucidation of its direct antibacterial role and its molecular basis is notable. We can find coverage of his different work in detail in more than three independent sources that include ACS-Omega Journal and Journal of Molecular Biology. I have cited these independent sources in the article WP:THREE. Kalyan1010 (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:28:44, 15 October 2021 review of submission by Dream1924

Hi I'm confused but the draft vs article comments and the process of how to publish the article so will delete and try it again. How do I delete a wikipedia account too?> Dream1924 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dream1924, you can't delete accounts here for technical reasons. However, you can put a notice on one of the accounts' user page stating that the account was created in error and will not be used for inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. – robertsky (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:05:29, 15 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Dinosaur209



Dinosaur209 (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:21:20, 15 October 2021 review of draft by Salwa2197


Hello. If I make a new Kuick page and put it as I get paid to make the page, will I still be declined? Right now I cannot seem to edit the article that I am an employee of Kuick.

Salwa2197 (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salwa2197 You don't need to make a completely new draft, you may edit or even completely rewrite the existing one. You may declare your paid status on your user page, User:Salwa2197, as well as the draft talk page, Draft talk:Kuick. However, the draft is not going to be accepted unless it is radically rewritten to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offered currently are not acceptable. Please read Your First Article. Keep in mind that the vast majority of companies do not merit Wikipedia articles- and an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:48:20, 15 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by KuzminAndrei


Hello,

Would you explain please why my article was rejected?

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

Thanks

KuzminAndrei (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTHOWTO. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:37:56, 15 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by NirajDavi



NirajDavi (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NirajDavi You don't ask a question, but writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. To succeed in writing an article about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself, only writing based on the content of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you- showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Most people have great difficulty doing that, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. As a journalist, you may be better able to write in this manner than others, but it is still challenging. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NirajDavi If you have any comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in the full desktop version of Wikipedia, even in a browser on a phone(scroll to the bottom of the page and click "Desktop"). The app and mobile versions do not have full functionality. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:14:52, 15 October 2021 review of draft by Mines of Moriya


The article I am trying to get published already exists in over on the French Wikipedia (as well as a few other languages), but not in English. However, when I submitted it for review, it was declined because:

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. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I'm unclear if that means that there aren't enough sources, or if it's interpreting that the sources aren't good enough, or if I'm somehow being interpreted as being connected to the subject. The last part of the article has no citation because the information in the French version of this article states this, and is sourced, but the source itself doesn't include the described information, so I don't know where it comes from.

Basically, I'm just trying to get an English version of this article available, but not through a 1:1 translation since the French version has questionable sourcing. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

Mines of Moriya (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mines of Moriya Fron looking at it I would say that there are not enough sources. It seems to be notable, but that has to be shown with the sources. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mines of Moriya And I'd say that it is close to being ready, but not *quite* there. (Which puts it well above 90% of the articles that are asked about here)Naraht (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:08, 15 October 2021 review of submission by Francoise Blanchard


Francoise Blanchard (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francoise Blanchard You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that this musician does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:25, 15 October 2021 review of draft by Krisrandall


How do you make a business article public? Any help or advice would be much appreciated? Krisrandall (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krisrandall A draft is "public" in that anyone can access it, if they know where it is. If you are asking how to make your draft formally part of the encyclopedia, there is a lot more you need to do. First, if you are affiliated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make.(being an employee counts as paid editing) Second, any article about your company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company(not press releases, brief mentions, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, or any other materials put out by the company), showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, only in what sources completely unconnected with the company choose to say about it. You only have one source in your draft, and that is the company website- this does not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

07:31:04, 16 October 2021 review of draft by Saee7C


I want to know why was my article, discarded... Well, I think it was a good one.. 🤔

Saee7C (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:49:18, 16 October 2021 review of submission by Lejib63111

Hi i would like to know what else coverage would be needed in order to create this article as the topic has a huge coverage on youtube with videos with multiple millions of views and also outside coverage indexed by google. Thanks Lejib63111 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also asked the Same question over at the Teahouse. Please only ask in one place at a time, to avoid wasted effort. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:28:49, 16 October 2021 review of submission by Olugold


I clicked on a redlist to create an article, it automatically linked me to the mainspace.To avoid deletion,I choose to work on the article from the user page, then moved it to the article space. When I was done editingProfessor Johnbull, I inserted the submit template for the article to be reviewed but I saw the 'deletion and misplaced' message. In this regard,I did not go ahead with the submission. Kindly look into this please. Thank you Olugold (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Olugold This works as designed. New editors may prefer to use the wizard at Wikipedia:Articles for creation FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olugold (talk • contribs) 13:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:33, 16 October 2021 review of submission by Himanshurd


Himanshurd (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:07, 16 October 2021 review of draft by Ckennedy18


Hello and many thanks to editors who have helped me eariler this week with the above article. I have now redrafted and would be grateful if somebody could have a look to check if it is ready for submission. Or should I just go ahead and submit? Hans Sachs (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Sachs (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:41, 16 October 2021 review of submission by 2409:4053:2D8F:D801:2C94:3F87:7C4C:2677

Kindly hold the Afd of Draft:famepublish, meanwhile I will improve the draft, because its very important for our 7 Crore khatik community living in India. They want us to grow as we are helping him since 2010 when Khatik Magazine started.

October 17

00:36:54, 17 October 2021 review of draft by Thedailyneedle


The reason being is that since there are the lack of proper information on Carlos, I would like for it to be on page. (from what I’ve seen. Many of the sources however have similar info.) I’ve spent hours trying to find info on the subject.

Thedailyneedle (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:40:50, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Normal rookie

Can give me advice about the draft, I improve the draft many times Normal rookie (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:37:42, 17 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Shambepress


I want write an article about my news paper and organization but I see it is rejected. There for I want you to help me get it done in accordance with your guidelines and policies.

Shambepress (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shambepress Your draft is a blatant advertisement for your newspaper business. A Wikipedia article about your newspaper must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what your organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with it choose on their own to say about it(not based on any materials put out by your organization like its website, interviews with staff, or press releases).
Since you work for the newspaper, please review and comply with conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:56, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Azizaryanswiki


Azizaryanswiki (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azizaryanswiki You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:04:03, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Martin.tinku510

Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}}

Martin.tinku510 (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:04:03, 17 October 2021 review of draft by Martin.tinku510

When you have finished, click the "Publish changes" button or your request will not be posted!!!-->}}

08:38:51, 17 October 2021 review of draft by VijayWayne


Can someone please help me adding sources to my draft? Thank you so much! VijayWayne (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:47, 17 October 2021 review of draft by CredenceMind


Do I need to provide reliable sources for the various performances given by the artist? What can I do if there is no coverage of the performances given by the artist? Does images or videos taken during the performances can be used as reliable sources? CredenceMind (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CredenceMind Before worrying about citing the performances, you must first establish that this musician meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, by summarizing and citing independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the musician. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:52, 17 October 2021 review of submission by 47.201.107.68


Please help me fix 47.201.107.68 (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. Please see the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:35, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Anishkatyal05

Dear Team, this is company page and have used the legit information for them. please let me know what went wrong the reason my submission was rejected. Anishkatyal05 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected because it was blatant advertising and speedy deleted as such. Wikipedia is NOT a venue for promoting or listing your business. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:17:05, 17 October 2021 for assistance on Draft:SATURATE!RECORDS submission by Xythium


i want to make a page for the record label that i work for (im not getting paid to make the page, but i do get paid to work for the label obviously)

i modelled the page after Mau5trap & Mau5trap_discography, because those are the pages im the most familiar with

i have set up an artist section, with every artist that has been "signed" (its actually a list of every artist that has released on the label, or on a compilation, not counting any featured artists for both of those, because i dont know or have the actual list of contracts). these should have references, but i dont really know where to get them. all of these artists/releases can be found the Bandcamp & SoundCloud pages for the label, and most of them can be found on many music stores & services. i dont know if those are valid references. the mau5trap page uses articles/magazines as references but i dont know if thats feasible here, and it would be tedious to find for every single release/artist (and probably doesnt exist for many)

i have also set up a section for the label discography. i dont see mau5trap using references here (for the majority) so i assume it's fine i dont do that here either, but the same thing would be true for what i said for artists.

further more i would like to know if there is anything else i should add, and if there is anything style-wise that should be changed Xythium (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xythium, Mau5trap was created in 2011, way before the current notability standards are in existent. You should not follow the article as an example. An interested editor may come along and improve the article. You can considered the page as grandfathered. A more recently edited article that you can reference to would be (almost) any of the Korean record labels such as JYP Entertainment.
To pass the notabilty criteria, it is best to include a history section, with the content well-supported by third party, independent and reliable sources. As for the list of artists and groups under them, only those who are notable should be included, Wikipedia is not a directory listing.
Lastly, conflict of interest guidelines are clear. As long as you are in employment in any capacity by the company the article is about, you have a conflict of interest. Do put the necessary declarations on your talk page and on the draft/article's talk page as well. – robertsky (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:03:57, 17 October 2021 review of draft by 67.60.48.205


is there any way to delete the article or pull it from the queue for review? thanks 67.60.48.205 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get what you meant by your question. The draft in question has been deleted for unambigious advertising. – robertsky (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:24, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Eddie10a

HI I was wondering how I can start a wikipedia page for myself? Im a Rock singer known in my style of music. Thanks Eddie Law Eddie10a (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie10a, we don't encourage people to right about themselves. Because inevitably the article will either be a promotional piece of work, which runs contrary to the goals of Wikipedia as an encylopedia, or you be upset at the perceived lost of control of the article's content and direction. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. You can request for an article to be write about yourself at Wikipedia:Requested articles, and hopefully someone will pick it up. – robertsky (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie10a Wikipedia does not have mere "pages", it has articles. This is a subtle but important distinction. Writing an article about yourself, while not forbidden, is highly discouraged. Please read the autobiography policy. Please also learn about how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
If you still want to attempt to write an article, please review the definition of a notable musician. If you meet it, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources say about you. Most people have great difficulty doing that. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


23:29:20, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly


I am requesting a re-review on WP:NORG, to explain how the following sources do not address and event of the Company as it's main: 

Blakkarly, Jarni (6 April 2020). "Greg Mortimer: 81 people test positive for COVID-19 on Australian cruise ship off Uruguay". SBS News. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
Noyes, Jenny (6 April 2020). "More than 80 passengers on board Greg Mortimer cruise ship test positive for COVID-19". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
"Uruguay transports Australians, New Zealanders from virus-hit cruise ship". Reuters. 2020-04-11. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Kwan, Biwa (2020-04-11). "Greg Mortimer: Australian, New Zealand passengers go into quarantine after arriving in Melbourne | SBS News". Sbs.com.au. Retrieved 2020-04-25

I am also requesting a re-review of the WP:IBA, and ask which sections are considered blatant advertising? Also what CNN source is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hako9 referring to?

Scootbilly (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scootbilly, History of expedition cruising in Antarctica section can be removed without effect the article as the article should be about the company and the company itself. History of Aurora Expeditions is largely uncited. It is also rather puffery in its words and boasts of its founders rather than about the company. Very promotional in nature too, 'launches websites with local currencies...' etc. That's not remarkable or notable in today's context. The rest of the article has no proper citations, and are also puffery in nature. COVID-19 on the ship section is not needed, rather a single sentence summary may sufficie given that the ship has its own article page, and the situation is already described there.
Indepedently, I feel that the article is rather promotional, and advertorial in nature. The WP:IBA call is right. The article will require significant rewrite, however I am unsure if there are other sources beyond what has been provided in the article. – robertsky (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can recall there isn't/hasn't been. (string: "aurora expeditions"). We have also repeatedly and in no uncertain terms told users who came into IRC and claimed to be working for the company to disclose. Based on the red links for their user and talk pages, they have not done so. We should not be rewarding mercenary editors who are quite clearly playing dumb. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

03:10:30, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly

A rewrite has been completed, can I please request a re-review of WP:IBA and WP:NORG Scootbilly (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Scootbilly#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:45:52, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Worldbruce Incorrect template usage. Please use {{connected contributor (paid)}} instead. Scootbilly (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:58, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Rooz1370

Hello and thank you for your time. I have recently added multiple articles that can elucidate some of the citations that needed further clarification. The text has also had minor changes so the tone could shift to a more reported tone. Thank you again for your time. Yours Sincerely, Rooz1370 Rooz1370 (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:12:49, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Martin.tinku510


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}}

Martin.tinku510 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:12:49, 18 October 2021 review of draft by Martin.tinku510

13:10:44, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Pro75008


I contact you concerning the Poxel page. On 7 october, you tell me this : We can't use https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/50/19009/french-firm-poxel-launches-type-2-diabetes-drug-in-japan.html (unknown provenance). It doesn't help that it reads like a press release. We can't use https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/poxel?countrycode=fr (too sparse). Stock tickers are worthless sources for a generalist encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. We can't use https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/poxel (deprecated). CrunchBase is not an acceptable source because it's user-generated content. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/poxel-sumitomo-dainippon-pharma-announce-063000394.html is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Press release from Businesswire (which only ever publishes same). I cannot assess your last source because it is missing critical bibliographical information (Outlet, edition, byline, page(s).) Of the sources I can assess, three of them are flat-out unusable, and one is written at the company's dictate. Disregarding the article text, this is absolutely fatal for a draft.

but I would like to have more information concerning the sources accepted on wikipedia. what are the steps to follow to put good sources please? Thank you


Pro75008 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:05, 18 October 2021 review of submission by 117.222.161.162


117.222.161.162 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Why are you continuesly declining biography Article.Firstly i did all you told.i studied references and edited my mistakes (wrong photo i uesd it was totally mistake.i understand it.but i solved it and added correct reference based things.so i provided material names i used for creating such biography of person lived in 19th CE.why are you deleting my article after added reference?what is the reason? i request you kindly ,what i needed to improve on this article?[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The draft is completely unsourced. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia- it's good to go into the process with some experience and knowledge first, both by editing existing articles, reviewing some of the help pages like referencing for beginners, and using the new user tutorial(which you need an account for, though). Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:28, 18 October 2021 review of draft by JMFranklin


I wrote the Ryan Beat page to mirror Jimmie Johnson and other professional race car drivers. Yet, it was declined because it, "read like an ad." I'm at a loss as to what to change. The names of race tracks are often preceded by a sponsor name and the proper way to refer to a driver's race car/truck is to include the title sponsor. I've cited 33 sources that identify Ryan Beat as a professional race car driver as well. Any direction on what exactly needs to be changed would be welcomed. Again, I followed the exact format of other professional race car drivers so not sure how they got approved by Ryan's page did not. Thank you in advance for your feedback.

JMFranklin (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JMFranklin Wikipedia prefers fewer high-quality sources rather than a large number of poor quality sources. You have lots of citations for race results and mentions of him, but not independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him personally. Please also review the definition of a notable race car driver to ensure that he meets it. I fear that given your conflict of interest you may be too close to Mr. Beat to be able to objectively write about him, summarizing independent sources with significant coverage(not just race results). 331dot (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. When I review the "notable race car driver" list, Mr. Beat meets all these requirements. Also, I have cited large motorsports sources such as OffRoad.com, RACER magazine (one of the largest racing magazines in the U.S.), Four Wheeler, and Race-Dezert. I also cited that Mr. Beat appeared in the Fast & Furious 7 movie along with a commercial for international tire brand, General Tire. What else would I need to provide to demonstrate that he is a professional race car driver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMFranklin (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JMFranklin I didn't say he was not notable, but often newer editors do not review the notability definition. The main reason for the decline of the draft, is, as you noted, the fact that it seems like an advertisement. I would take the three sources with the most coverage of Mr. Beat and summarize what they say- the race results and stuff can be added later. You will need to do that while setting aside everything that you know about him. The personal life section is completely unsourced. Appearances in film productions and ads do not contribute to notability(unless you are also arguing he is a notable actor), as notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:47, 18 October 2021 review of submission by 76.100.26.83


Asking for advice as to how this could get any more notable?

76.100.26.83 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:58:10, 18 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jennvirskus


Hi! I would love some help with getting this draft in the correct tone of Wikipedia. I've been diligent not to put anything in the draft that was not cited, either from a widely known news publication or from a science journal. (And I've fixed the doi's that were incorrectly added.) I would be thrilled for a 3rd party to take a look and put in any edits that are required.

Thank you!

Jennvirskus (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennvirskus The tone is decent, although it uses WP:PEACOCK terms and WP:WEASEL words occasionally. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:07, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Sidhudiid


Sidhudiid (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhudiid You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:01, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Dinercouch


Dinercouch (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twas rejected meaning it won't be considered further and it has been repeatedly recreated by socks and is now page protected. Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:54:57, 18 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Cabm.2020


Hi,

The page for Maria Gloria Dominguez was rejected due to unreliable sources. Majority of the resources were deleted -- they took a lot of time to input so that was not the greatest thing to have to do.

These are the comments:


Submission declined on 16 March 2021 by EDG 543 (talk). [resolved in my opinion] The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Declined by EDG 543 7 months ago. AFC-Logo Decline.svg Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Probably notable (holding a named chair likely meets WP:NPROF), but referencing needs to be improved, especially as many sections are unsupported, which is a problem for any article and in particular for WP:BLPs. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Once the sourcing issues are fixed, this should pass WP:PROF both for heavily cited publications and for the named professorship. For this criterion, independence can be relaxed (but reliability cannot): for instance, the official web site of Rutgers (not her personal pages) can be considered reliable for matters like her job title there. However, claims that go beyond such factual matters for instance by saying things about the impact of her research do need to be independent, and every claim in the draft needs a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC) {resolved} Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Both of your provided references are primary sources. Please find reliable independent sources in order to establish her notability. See WP:REFB for more on citing sources. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you suggest how to improve the page to get approval? What is wrong with the sources?

Thanks


Cabm.2020 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabm.2020, The article will be approved if you add independent sources. Independent sources include media mentions and articles. Primary sources, such as publications written by the subject and university staff lists are not enough. Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

04:53:38, 19 October 2021 review of draft by Tylermelnyk


Jyoti Gondek was just elected Mayor of Calgary. Why am I being restricted from editing her page? This woman requires extensive editing to her wiki now that she is mayor elect. I was hoping to do that work but its being denied. What? Why? Tylermelnyk (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tylermelnyk The draft has been accepted. I do not understand why you state that you are being restricted from editing the page. As far as I can see you have all the rights to edit one would expect for an editor in good standing FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:18:48, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly

Requesting re-review. Incorrect template usage. Please use {{connected contributor (paid)}} instead. Scootbilly (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scootbilly I have done this, and left a comment on the draft. As a paid editor you are held to a substantial standard and are expected to understand our policies precisely because you are paid. Please learn them and then yiou are welcome to write a brand new draft which complies. I see no reason to overturn the rejection of this draft. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:22:58, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Yogendra singh Samar


Yogendra singh Samar (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:08, 19 October 2021 review of submission by LeoRathu


LeoRathu (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoRathu Your draft has been rejected. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote yourself. Please use social media instead FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:58:35, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Yogendra singh Samar


Yogendra singh Samar (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogendra singh Samar Your draft has been rejected. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote yourself. Please use social media instead FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:23:52, 19 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bennair


Thank you for the opportunity. I am new to this platform and the style of writing. I tried submitting a company page with language as neutral as possible but it still got rejected. I even used external media links but to no help. Will appreciate the assistance.


Bennair (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bennair Wikipedia does not have "company pages", not one. It has articles about companies, typically written by independent editors. Those editors write about topics that they take note of in independent reliable sources with significant coverage, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in this case, that of a notable company. If you have an association with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.
Your draft is completely unsourced, and reads like an entry in a directory of companies. Wikipedia is not a directory, but an encyclopedia. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:57, 19 October 2021 review of draft by Riteshkumarbhanu


Riteshkumarbhanu (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riteshkumarbhanu You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the opportunity. I am new to this platform and the style of writing this please help us to publish this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteshkumarbhanu (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riteshkumarbhanu Who is "us"? There should only be one person operating your account. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a person and their accomplishments. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Writing a new article is the most challenging task to undertake on Wikipedia, and it's good to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial and reading Your First Article helps as well.
If you have an association with this person, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:25:38, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Neelmohapatra


Neelmohapatra (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi, This is an old university and its founder is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. also We tried to post complete correct information which is independent. Then why this article has got this content disproved.

Neelmohapatra Please see your user talk page for important information. I would refer you to my comments on the draft, as well as those in the messages declining it. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something or its offerings, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it. The sources offered do not seem to be independent. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the user page. When will this article be approved now? Neelmohapatra (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neelmohapatra For further comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. The draft will not be accepted until it does as I have mentioned previously, here and on the draft itself. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cant understand what are you saying? Neelmohapatra (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neelmohapatra You are creating a new section of this page with every edit you make; this is unnecessary. Please edit this existing section. If you are using the mobile version of Wikipedia or the app, these do not have full functionality and make it harder to do that- please use the full desktop version in a browser, even if on a phone or tablet. This will allow you to see the "edit" in the section header of this section or at the top of this page, so you can avoid creating additional sections.
Regarding the draft, please review the comments by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:53, 19 October 2021 review of submission by 2405:204:1290:84F0:0:0:D2:18A0


2405:204:1290:84F0:0:0:D2:18A0 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:35, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Robayet7


Robayet7 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robayet7 You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. You cannot resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:27, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Abm1994

I have two references for Prashna page . Can you add and do something with the page https://www.mymovies.it/ondemand/uiff/movie/9721-prashna/ https://www.unicef.it/media/unicef-innocenti-film-festival-a-firenze-la-seconda-edizione-della-rassegna-di-ci/

Abm1994 (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:44, 19 October 2021 review of submission by ZX2006XZ

The trailer for the new Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie just dropped today. Here's the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKhCPUa-glo

ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That the trailer was released changes nothing- once the film is released, it will be notable. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:19:45, 19 October 2021 review of draft by 00sClassicGamerFan


My submission got rejected even though I have a source to back it up. Where can I write about it?

My submission got rejected even though there’s a reliable source to back it up. Is a book not a reliable source?

00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 00sClassicGamerFan. In Articles for creation parlance, the draft was declined, which allows improvement and re-submission, not rejected, which is final.
  • The topic requires multiple sources to demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a stand alone article).
  • Whether a book is a reliable source depends on more than the fact that it's a book. Non-fiction books written by scholars and published by academic presses or major mainstream publishers are preferred. The authors of Top Gear Christmas are a film writer, novelist, and television producer known for their comedy work. The publisher, BBC Books, is a sister concern to the company that produced the television programme which is the main topic of the book, Top Gear. The purpose of the book is to promote the series, so it is not independent of it. Whether it would be a reliable source about Donko would depend on what it actually says about it and in what context, but it seems unlikely to be reliable.
  • Even if it is reliable, it may not contain significant enough coverage of Donko to count as a source that supports notability. It doesn't help if the game is mentioned in a single sentence or paragraph, but might be considered significant if there are several paragraphs or a whole page about the game.
--Worldbruce (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


October 20

02:51:11, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Dottee

I'd love to know if articles can be published without several independent sources. The article I wish to write does not have many outside sources to reference for information, only the substantial amount in the two available. Dottee (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Dottee (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dottee. No, they can't. What an organization has to say about itself belongs on that organization's webpage, not in Wikipedia. We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. Multiple sources are generally expected, to show sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and to ensure we aren't parroting a single point of view on the topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:13:16, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Xland44


Hi, when editing Draft:Jim Swan, I accidentally included multiple citations to the same site. Is there some way to merge citations? Xland44 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xland44: Yes, by using named references you can cite the same source in several places in the article without having it repeated in the list of references. Here is how to do it. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:05, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Xiaofeng93


I have made proper changes based on feedback from the editor, but still not sure if meets the full requirment.

Can I seek help to have a pre-review before re-submit?

Xiaofeng93 (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xiaofeng93: Sure. Glancing over it, not a single reliable source jumps out, and I see a lot of really terrible ones: wikitia, Crunchbase, prnewswire, and coindesk, for example. Considering this and Wikipedia's general sanctions on blockchain and cryptocurrency-related articles, I think it's safe to say Wikipedia will never publish an article on this subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:48:17, 20 October 2021 review of draft by ResetK


To whom it may concern,

I have created the article on PROJECT MOD, which is under development by NEXON KOREA. The article has been rejected three times for the reason the article does not cover significant, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since the platform is in its early stage, I took a look at the Project TL article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_TL - as a reference. Should I add more lines to the article? Or do I ask to put more references? Do please kindly revise how can I develop the article to publish it.

Best, ResetK

ResetK (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ResetK. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and low quality ones. If you want to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best, not Project TL.
Businesswire is a press release, so not independent. MMOs.com's three sentences do not constitute significant coverage. Techbeezer.com is incoherent. It reads like a bad machine translation of a press release. YouTube is a generally unreliable source, and material published there by Project MOD is not independent. The Nexon website is not independent. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft referemces zero sources like that. If there are no such sources because the platform is in its early stage, then wait a few years until the platform is more mature. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:29:59, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Sucker for All

Am confused by a purported lack of "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". It certainly is just not a passing mention in any of the 6 sources (more similar sources are readily available), and she's, in truth, viewed by millions of people for at least an hour a week on the biggest news station in the world. Do we have specific precedents for the viability of the various sources in question? Fox News is considered viable per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources (she was previously with ABC), whereas the others include 1. allstarbio 2. thewhoisbio 3. thefamousinfo 4. profilespedia 5. factsbuddy . A comment on each sources purported lack of reliability would be in order. others that *could* be used include a. goldencelebrities b. fact-pedia c. marriedceleb d. wikiage e. glamourpath f. starsgab g. factsbio h. bio-peida i. wealthyspy j. chandigarhfirst k. xycinews l. biographyhoses m. arealnews n. informationflare o. celebpie p. marriedwiki q. theparadise r. factualhub s. yankeetv t. b.wikiage u. popcreep v. thecelebinfo w. nypost (in passing @ https://nypost.com/2010/05/10/miss-usa-contestants-in-their-undies/ in 2010) x. thewhoisbio y. muzu.tv z. expioreceleb, in addition to many many other articles. All are independent of the subject matter and, other than the nypost, not one is just a mention in passing. How do we get this published? Which of the above sources is considered more and less reliable than others? All sources here seem to flow similarly to snopes.. Sucker for All (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Sucker for All (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sucker for All You appear to have a misunderstanding of the term Reliable Sources. The references you have chosen are not considered reliable secondary sources. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both nypost and Fox News are considered reliable. And she's literally On Fox News at least 1 hour per day delivering live news. All 31 sources listed are considered unreliable? More are easily visible in a Google search of her name.. Sucker for All (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All A Fox News bio of one of their team is a Primary Source. The other references you have used are not of any use at all since they are not reliable. Your do not seem to have used nypost as a reference. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All: According to WP:RS/PS, nypost is a generally unreliable source. Fox News is sometimes reliable, sometimes unreliable, depending on context. Fox News is her employer, however, so it is not an independent source about her. They have an incentive to promote her. Your list of 31 sources is about as trashy a set of sources as it's possible to name. They're so bad that it's hard to believe you're serious in suggesting them. Being a news anchor, regardless of time on air or channel, does not make a person notable. Being written about in independent reliable sources is what makes one notable. See Peter Jennings or Marjory Stoneman Douglas for examples of reliable sources for information about news anchors and journalists. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce:, did you read the article? I don't actually use the nypost link. I use 8 of the 31 mentioned links, none of which are considered unreliable according to official wiki guidelines.. Sucker for All (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She's literally hosting Fox News' Fox & Friends First right now.. It *might* be a question of me not demonstrating notability, but she's clearly notable Sucker for All (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:56, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Ethixgrrl


Following comment by Wingwatchers have updated the article, but would appreciate guidance as to where the peacock terms are and to improve tone so it meets requirements? Previous comments had not mentioned inappropriate tone so would be grateful for assistance. In response to a previous comment, more references have been included from independent and reliable sources including national media and the UK government website. Many thanks in advance for your help!

Ethixgrrl (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:06, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Will Morland


Will Morland (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Morland You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:54, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Kulasperes


Kulasperes (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kulasperes The button. says "Ask for Advice". Our telepathy interface is currently down for maintenance, but will be back online in 2097. Rather than waiting until then please ask your question FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kulasperes: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Watch this space. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kulasperes: Please refer to the top table here and get some coffee. This will take some time.
The bulk of your sources are to her appearances on Tawag ng Tanghalan/It's Showtime and disrespectfully perfunctory summaries of same. This in and of itself tends to be an argument against notability, on the grounds that a person who is only really notable for appearing on a reality show or talent competition is little different from a person whose only claim to fame is they videotaped a Black man being beaten by police, and thus the article on the person should redirect to the article on the season they appeared in or (if that doesn't exist) to the article on the show proper. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:33, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Syafikrie


Syafikrie (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Syafikrie The button. says "Ask for Advice". Our telepathy interface is currently down for maintenance, but will be back online in 2097. Rather than waiting until then please ask your question FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:22, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Djscamper


Hi, I just change the wording on the page to help avoid any copyright issues.

I also linked in articles about Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation.

Djscamper (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djscamper (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:12:27, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Syedanustanweer


Syedanustanweer (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syedanustanweer You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Please use social media to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

04:07:00, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Jacktenaya


Hello! I tried submitting an article to a local historical business in my city. Why was it declined?

Jacktenaya (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Morrison's Jewelers
@Jacktenaya: One source that hardly talks about the business is not going to be enough to justify an article. Note that we do accept offline sources, if properly cited. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include the history of Chanda dynasty ruler Raja Draft:Alan_Singh Chanda in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karsan Chanda (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:30:51, 21 October 2021 review of draft by 2A01:E35:39FE:EA00:C873:33C:1F63:7E66


My submission was declined, on the grounds of "reading like an advertisement." I am unsure which portion of the draft this refers to and have tried to add external links to reference all information, so I am requesting to know what changes, deletions, or improvements can I make to the draft in order for the submission to be approved ? 2A01:E35:39FE:EA00:C873:33C:1F63:7E66 (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an advertisement because it just tells about TheFork and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offer simply report the routine business activities of the company, this does not establish notability.
If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:30, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Jomafa


I have made some corrections, and edited some words, I believe my page is qualified and would be glad if given a page on Wikipedia. Jomafa (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:41:12, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Rooz1370

Hello to the amazing reviewers at Wikipedia and Hatchens, I have recently made significant changes to this draft and have included new, independent and reliable citations to further clarify the subject. Plus the tone of the text has been changed so it would not sound anything like it is promoting anything or anybody. I'm kindly asking for a review and would love to know if the text needs changes again so it would go one more step towards being in the main space. Thank you for your time. Rooz1370 (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1051043717"