Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 426: Line 426:
:{{u|Anwar Shakir Wazir}} First, please read the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]; while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write autobiographical articles, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Wikipedia is interested in what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:NJOURNALIST|a notable journalist]]. To be successful in writing about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources say about you- that is usually difficult for people to do.
:{{u|Anwar Shakir Wazir}} First, please read the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]; while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write autobiographical articles, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Wikipedia is interested in what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:NJOURNALIST|a notable journalist]]. To be successful in writing about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources say about you- that is usually difficult for people to do.
:You may also wish to review [[WP:REFB|how to write references]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 07:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
:You may also wish to review [[WP:REFB|how to write references]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 07:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

== 08:37:27, 3 November 2021 review of submission by Yusuf khan books ==
{{Lafc|username=Yusuf khan books|ts=08:37:27, 3 November 2021|declined=User:Yusuf_khan_books/sandbox}}

Respected sir, my name is Yusuf Khan and I'm a self-publishing author from India and I have authored more than 3 books and I fear that people may try to copy my content and even try to portrait as me online. I request you to plz approve my page. Thank you.

[[User:Yusuf khan books|Yusuf khan books]] ([[User talk:Yusuf khan books|talk]]) 08:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:37, 3 November 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 28

15:05:47, 28 October 2021 review of submission by Gogohawhay


Hello,

I need help getting this page published. I don't quite understand what is missing or needs to be updated. Gogohawhay (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gogohawhay. Please see Help:Your first article. Wikipedia may not be used for any type of publicity, promotion, or public relations. The topic of User:Gogohawhay/sandbox almost certainly isn't notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). The draft definitely doesn't demonstrate that she's notable, since it cites no sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:39:22, 28 October 2021 review of draft by Iamjimbacha


Trying to get Elliott approved, I don't have many references as in online articles. I have a ton of hard copy stats, prize money papers, SAG papers, magazine/newspaper clippings from my client.

Per your requirements: Motorsport figures are presumed notable if they 1. Have driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. For example, the SCCA Trans-Am Series is considered professional while the SCCA Spec Miata National Championship isn't. 2. Predate the sharp distinction between professional and amateur (prior to World War II). 3. Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest (for example, the American Championship or 24 Hours of Le Mans). 4. Have owned or been team principal for a team in a major racing series (NASCAR Cup, Formula One, IndyCar, WRC, A1GP, CART, or IMSA) for a full season or more. This includes Cup Series crew chiefs. 5. Have been enshrined in any notable motorsports hall of fame. 6. Founded, owned, or managed any notable professional racing series. 7. Designers or engineers who have been covered extensively by the media or motorsports historians. 8. Hold or have held a significant motorsports record, such as a land speed record.

1) Elliott raced in the IMSA sanctioned American Le Mans Series / Panoz GTS - Yes prize money was awarded. Elliott also raced in the WORLD FAMOUS SCORE Baja 1000 as the driver / also prize money was awarded. Elliott raced in the SCCA Pro Lamborghini Super Tropheo Series as well. * Note NASA Pro Racing ( there web site is www.nasaproracing.com ) is considered by many as a PRO / AM series .. meaning both professional licensed and amateurs can race. Elliott has been professional status since 2004 and licensed during all those starts...many other drivers have NASA pro racing listed on Wikipedia as pro accomplishments - ie. Alec Udell for reference. 2) Elliott has had a professional auto racing credentials as required to race in both above sanctioning bodies - 3) Baja 1000 was on the Wide World of Sports ABC - Elliott was driver in that race 2004 6) Elliott owned and managed Fisher Racing LTD, who with National Sponsors won a championship in 2003 / Also Ford sponsored his team and receive pay for such accomplishments. Also, finished 2nd and 3rd in National Competition under same Team Ownership (Fisher Racing LTD) NASA PRO RACING. 8) Two lap records / One at Mid Ohio and one at Road America in Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin

Trying to get this approved, any help would be greatly appreciate. Looks like my references are the only thing holding this back.



Iamjimbacha (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamjimbacha: Indeed they are. Of the three sources you have, only one is usable (We can't use IMDb or his own website) and that brings us to the OTHER requirement you're obligated to meet. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a in-depth third-party source that corroborates it or (if no source can be found for that claim) removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. Note that we don't require sources for credited film/TV roles (only for those where he went uncredited or under an alias), but we require sources for literally everything else on that draft. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:18, 28 October 2021 review of submission by XEON013


Sir why my page not published?? (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XEON013: We have zero tolerance for spam or promotionalism, and articles which are unambiguously and irreparably promotional are deleted on discovery even if they are drafts. Users who appear to be on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promotion are also routinely blocked as having a purpose at loggerheads with Wikipedia's own. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

16:22:06, 29 October 2021 review of submission by Bot790790mk


Bot790790mk (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bot790790mk: Two of your TellyChakar links are dead (one redirects to a tag search, the other outright returns a 404 error), and we do not cite IMDb. No comment on the non-English sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:10, 29 October 2021 review of draft by Lm1412


I have got a reply that my writing should be in neutral way although that I have ensured that while working on it. Could this issue be seen and inform me what is not neutral so I can edit it. Lm1412 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lm1412: Why are you underlining internal links? "Ideas and Thoughts" should be removed as a section. The list should be prose. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:51, 29 October 2021 review of draft by Denisemacielbr


Please! I submitted a company page that follows just the same standards of its competitors from the same market area, and it's being refused as advertising. I can not understand why the same kind of content has been approved for them as relevant (Trello, Jira, Bootcamp, Asana) while ours is seen as advertising. I already removed all adjectives that could qualify the product, leaving the page merely informative. I included references and sources to prove that the software users are real. What else do I have to do to for this page to fit acceptable standards?

Denisemacielbr (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Denisemacielbr: None of them went through a drafting process, with Asana (software) and Boot Camp (software) predating our drafting process as a whole and the other two being created directly in mainspace shortly after it was instituted. All of them predate 2018. See User:Jéské Couriano/A brief history of AfC. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:35, 29 October 2021 review of draft by Talk2045!


Some things I wrote is not documented anywhere, because I met with them before a concert, and asked about how they started the band. What can I do in this situation?

Talk2045! (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Talk2045!: You get rid of that information and do not re-add it until you can find a published source to corroborate it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:05:43, 29 October 2021 review of submission by Latisc

According to WP:NGEO, places “with no information available except name and location” should not get a separate article. I am unable to find any more specific information about the island. Is this the reason why my submission was not accepted? Would it be better if I put the information on the Pearson Island article instead? If that’s the case, feel free to delete the draft. Latisc (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:38:09, 29 October 2021 review of draft by Caroline grossman23


I appreciate the follow-up comments on this article. However, Im a bit confused on the question of notablity. The included references from mainstream national and international media demonstrate that Gupta has been one of the most visible and notable figures of the COVID-19 public to the public writ large, holding important positions at leading companies like Amazon and also being short-listed as Biden's Surgeon General. He's had several national outlets do profiles on him, many of them cited in this piece. He's also been a regular on Sunday news shows like Meet the Press...others like him (Dr. Nahid Bhadelia as an example) have wikipedia profiles and are certainly no more notable. Your help in clarifying this issue would be invaluable as we embark on edits.


Caroline grossman23 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the draft just tells us his accomplishments, and not why he is important. Merely being considered for surgeon general is insufficient for notability unless there is much more substantial coverage of that. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:05, 29 October 2021 review of draft by Derekguthrie


Hi. My submission "Brindisa" has been rejected today for reasons which I wish to edit/repair. It was suggested I was paid for the submission. I was emphatically NOT paid for the submission but I have apparently used the wrong sources as reference, and potentially too much of their own material. The subject is a very unusual company. The rejection is generic and I am keen to resolve the problem. The subject IS notable and has thus far been ignored by Wikipedia (they do not seek publicity) What areas should I address?

Derekguthrie (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Derekguthrie: Wikipedia uses a very specific definition of the term "notability" that does not sync with the dictionary definition of the term. Odds are the reason it's been "ignored" is because people haven't been able to find enough in-depth, credible, third-party sources to justify an article on them. Without those sources, notability (as we define it) cannot be met. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:17:09, 29 October 2021 review of submission by Jatin1702

This is a movie i really liked and it opened my eyes. I feel like more people should know about this film and everyone should watch it and read the book.

I also do not understand why my article has been rejected. Jatin1702 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is a promotional purpose, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what should i remove and how do i request another review? Jatin1702 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The only possible thing you can do is, if you have new information that the reviewer did not consider, is appeal to the reviewer.
If you have further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

05:35:32, 30 October 2021 review of draft by Lm1412


I have got a reply to remove the section of Ideas and thoughts from the article. Although in the article I am not referring to my personal ideas and thoughts I am referring to the ideas and thoughts of Majid Al-Kilani. If the heading for this section should be modified can some suggestions be given for other headings?

Lm1412 (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lm1412 I cannot find this reply you mention, nor this advice. Please explain further kin this thread. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:13, 30 October 2021 review of submission by Monikerx

My submission was rejected very quickly by someone called KylieTastic, with the reason 'not adequately supported by reliable sources' (I couldn't find a code for this, so I typed 'van' for vandalism which seems to be her specialty - and that's great, but my page isn't vandalism or offensive or anything like that). I am just wondering how I am expected to provide 'reliable sources' for the factual information I have provided, regarding Vanishing Angels. For instance, do I have to provide a birth certificate which shows David Goodman was born in the UK? I don't have it, but I can provide other documentation which proves it. I included a link to Vanishing Angels' Bandcamp page, which you will find verifies all facts regarding the discography including the dates. I don't know what other verification I could possibly provide for that. I can verify David Goodman wrote for The Star and the Sunday Times, as I have copies of the reviews which were written. I also have copies of the articles which were published on News Time. I don't know how else to verify this fact, considering the website closed down over a decade ago. If that's a problem, I can just remove all references to it (and all the other references to the journalism). David Goodman just wants a short and simple Wikipedia page, to record the facts relating to the music made by Vanishing Angels. As I said, all of those facts are verified on the Vanishing Angels Bandcamp page. I don't see why this should be a problem.

Please let me know what else is required, in order to have the page accepted.

P.S. I have tried my best to enter the required text above, but since I am not a computer programmer with coding experience it may not all be in the proper format. I do apologise for my lack of coding skills. Clearly, not 'everyone' can create and/or edit pages on Wikipedia (as Wikipedia claims). It is highly un-user-friendly (and I'm finding this 'community' - or 'clique' - of nerds is pretty unfriendly and difficult in general). I have seen plenty of pages with 'citation needed' or 'verification required'. Why are those pages allowed to remain on Wikipedia and yet mine is rejected outright, for those same reasons? That's very unfair, isn't it? Why not just accept my submission and add 'verfication required' if you must (even though everything on the page is 100% factual)? Put everything in red! I don't care. At least just accept my submission, which you'll see is just basically a very short (and true) biography and discography. I don't see why this should be a big deal. Who does a person have to murder to get a Wikipedia page? Ridiculous.

Monikerx (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monikerx It makes those you are asking for help from disinclined to help you when you call us nerds and a clique. I understand your frustration, but please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has editors from all walks of life, of all ages, genders, and races, from all over the world.
Like many new users, you have dived right in to creating articles without learning about the process. I encourage you to use the new user tutorial and to review my earlier post to you. Wikipedia does not have pages,, it has articles. This is a subtle but important distinction and may help your viewpoint to see it that way. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a musician, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. Please review the criteria and tell how this person meets at least one aspect of it. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is no way to reply to a reply from Wikipedia (in this case, the reply came from 331dot - who has actually been the most helpful person so far). So I am creating a new question - and it is new, because I have been looking at Wikipedia's notes on 'notability' and also the definitions and synonyms of the word 'notability'. My conclusion is that the wise people at Wikipedia get to decide who is 'notable' and who isn't. The definition of 'notable' is 'worthy of notice' or 'noteworthy'. One of the synonyms is 'unusual' - and Vanishing Angels is certainly unusual, so should therefore be considered 'worthy' of a Wikipedia 'article' if the music is unusual. Why does Wikipedia get to decide who is worthy of note? Does a solo musician necessarily need to go on tour (and I'm sure I don't need to I remind you that the planet is still in the grip of a pandemic)? Does he or she have to book loads of interviews with national radio and television stations, in order to be deemed worthy of a Wikipedia 'article'? David Goodman (Vanishing Angels) is an independent musician. That doesn't mean he isn't any good. He has performed live. He has had his songs played on national radio. And he has had articles written about him in various publications. Do we now have to try to find all those articles? They have probably all been deleted or whatever. I could get copies of the articles. I could send pictures and videos of Vanishing Angels performing live. Where would I send those documents and recordings? I am guessing, if it doesn't exist on a website somewhere currently, then it never happened (just like News Time was never a website with 100,000 readers every month - because it no longer exists). What are your suggestions, considering these circumstances? And bear in mind: We are talking about a very short biography of a musician, with a discography (which can be verified by simply going onto the Vanishing Angels Bandcamp page). That is a current website, which shows real releases of real albums and individual songs. Does a musician have to reach a certain level of stardom, before having a short Wikipedia 'article'? If so, where does Wikipedia draw the line?

Monikerx (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monikerx I will review your post in a moment- if you have follow up comments, ease edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. You may find this easier to do in the full desktop version of Wikipedia, even in a browser on a phone or tablet. The mobile and app versions do not have full functionality and it's hard to use talk pages like this with those versions. If you are in a browser, scroll to the bottom and click Desktop. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikpedia is not deciding what is notable for the world, but what is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you are interested enough, you may participate in the processes that determine what the notability criteria are. Having music in rotation on national radio stations is one aspect of the criteria. However, you must have some independent reliable sources with significant coverage to summarize (most reviewers look for at least three). This does not mean simple stories confirming the existence of this person or the mere fact that they performed, but indepth coverage that describes why this person is important. I again encourage you to use the tutorial. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Monikerx I see above that you stated "David Goodman just wants a short and simple Wikipedia page". If you are working with Mr. Goodman or otherwise associated with him, please review conflict of interest. If he compensates you in any way, please review the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Monikerx: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a in-depth third-party source that corroborates it or (if no source can be found for that claim) removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. Without any sort of in-depth, third party references being cited, there is no way we can consider having an article on Goodman (and by extension his solo project). As 331dot has explained, we do not exist to define what is notable in the world. We're a lagging indicator whose reliability is defined by the absolute worst source we cite, like every other encyclopaedia out there. Notability (as we define it) is determined by coverage by newspapers and topic experts (i.e. music magazines and reviews), not by our opinions on what is "worthy" or not. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Monikerx I have left a comment on the draft which is intended to help you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is all quite ridiculous. Firstly, 331dot: No I'm not being compensated in any way. And I still can't reply directly to your reply, which is part of the reason why I have initiated another question. The second reason is directed at Jeske Couriano, who has now compared the short biography of an independent musician (who is apparently a 'non-entity' which is an antonym of the word 'notable') to a prominent political figure who was wrongly accused of being a suspect in the assassination of JFK. Yes, I can see how my 'article' is exactly like that one (and quite obviously a hoax, because I clearly hate David Goodman and want to besmirch him by saying bad things about him which are completely untrue). It's a fair cop. I won't even dare trying to submit it again. Finally, with reference to the photograph which was taken by one of David Goodman's friends: Apparently, this is a copyright violation (according to Timtrent). He hasn't said why, but it must be true because he is a Wikipedia editor who is infallible - like all of the other Wikipedia editors. Enjoy your little power trip, guys. I can't be bothered to pursue this good deed (or bad deed, according to you) any further. I have better things to do (unlike you lot). One last thing: Why does KylieTastic (who rejected my 'article' yesterday) get to have a Wikipedia 'article' (page)? How is she in any way 'notable' - just because she has been editing stuff on Wikipedia for a few years? She makes out like she is an international hero. She's just a silly Kylie Minogue fan. Anyway, I'm done. The whole 'process' is a farce. Are you telling me every single statement on every single 'article' on Wikipedia has three references to verify its accuracy? Yeah, right. Totally unfair and biased, but whatever... David Goodman will just have to be a 'non-entity' forever. Who cares, right? He doesn't exist, according to Wikipedia. And that, according to your myriad of warped rules, is the TRUTH according to Wikipedia. What a joke!

197.98.201.78 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monikerx I've explained how you can reply above. If you use the full desktop version of Wikipedia, there should be an "edit" link on the section header, as well as at the top of this page. I'm sorry that you feel as you do, have chosen to bow to frustration and be uncivil, and won't let us help you. Note that User pages are not articles. 331dot (talk)°
Not every statement requires three sources, an article subject as a whole does, at a minimum. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Monikerx The file you uploaded to Commons for this draft has been deleted as a copyright violation. Please attend to matters of copyright when uploading files. There is more than sufficient information to seek to ensure that you do not upload copyright materials there. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Monikerx: You need three in-depth, strong, independent sources overall to meet WP:Notability and at least one in-depth, strong, independent source per contestable biographical claim the article makes to meet WP:Biographies of living persons. The two are separate requirements, but any source that would help for a biographical claim will, as a rule, also count towards meeting notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

06:53:19, 31 October 2021 review of submission by Parantak.yadav


Parantak.yadav (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parantak.yadav You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. As you were told by the reviewer, you should add to the article about the entire university, as it appears this portion of it does not merit a standalone Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:49:26, 31 October 2021 review of submission by IWrite007

My article written about a living person named Anna Chybisova has been declined. What can I do? IWrite007 (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IWrite007 Your sole contribution to date has been this post
Draft:Anna‌ ‌Chybisova‌ ‌exists but you have not edited it, it has not been declined and it has not been submitted for review. Thus I am confused. Please help my confusion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: according to the user talkpage, he had a G7'ed draft at Draft:Anna Chybisova (don't ask me where the difference in the titles is) that was declined for being an advetisement and not establishing notability as well as already G11'ed once. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt How impenetrable. It will all come out in the wash FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were invisible characters on either side of the space in the title. The draft has been moved to remedy that. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:11, 31 October 2021 review of submission by Numiri


My article was rejected for being "not adequately supported by reliable sources." The sources I cited were from the top experts in the field, so how can they not be "reliable"?

Numiri (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Numiri I believe that it is the "adequately" more so than the "reliable" that is at issue. You only have two sources, most reviewers look for at least three. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:28, 31 October 2021 review of submission by Hartoo


Since all I wanted to do was add Mr. Bates to the "notable members of the Kiowa Tribe" I found myself forced to create a Wikipedia page from scratch -- because of your infinite red-tape..

I am now informed that Mr. Bates was not notable and that all citations are un reliable.

Setting aside for moment the fundamental racism of deciding to place a Native American author of regional and national note, as "not notable" and thus consigning his life to the cyber-ether, (Redacted)

Hartoo (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted screed. Will look at sources. Would offer link to my review comments page, but I expect it will go unread as the user evidently has their mind made up. Nevertheless, I will deep-dive the sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hartoo::
I am inclined to say the other two sources are fine, having read them, but since you have five sources and half of them are dodgy, that weighs in favour of a decline. One or two more in-depth sources with editorial oversight and no direct connexion to the subject or their surrogates should be enough to meet WP:Notability. Your draft was not declined out of racism, it was declined because most of the sources you cite are not very good at all. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:14, 31 October 2021 review of submission by Chantern15


Hi, I'd like to request assistance in making this draft suitable for resubmission. Thank you.

Chantern15 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


if it is notable enough, of course. Chantern15 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

21:17:00, 31 October 2021 review of submission by 45.49.9.109

Fix the the page of Miss Asia USA. Don’t be lazy and evils. Get to work. 45.49.9.109 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In today's lesson, you learn you aren't our boss. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:23, 31 October 2021 review of submission by 45.49.9.109


Please help in fixing and expanding Miss Asia USA. Thanks

45.49.9.109 (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:36:22, 31 October 2021 review of submission by Stephen Entreprenuer

I have added a citation confirming information. What else do I need for this article to be published? Stephen Entreprenuer (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your autobiography has one source which is a press release and not reliable or independent, it was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

00:25:04, 1 November 2021 review of draft by Missbellanash

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Your people are lying, why??? Missbellanash (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missbellanash: Please stop, calm yourself down, and actually take on-board what you are being told by everyone who's interacted with you. Insisting you know best does you absolutely no good and damns the draft. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about, nothing of import happened. Certainly nothing that conforms to that type of comment. Did you even read my (brief) question? Missbellanash (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See? Nothing at all, as expected. Missbellanash (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:14:16, 1 November 2021 review of draft by Mrnamnam


I need help because my boss has asked me to create a page on wikipedia. It's a brand new page. I've done that but now it is declined. Is there some way I can escape the deletion. Draft:National Mathematics Summer School


Mrnamnam (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. Tell your boss to read WP:PSCOI. If he refuses, resign and find work at a workplace that isn't going to assign you an impossible task. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:20:44, 1 November 2021 review of submission by Gogysimper


The reason for the page GeorgeNotFound being denied was due to not being Notable enough but there are plenty of streamers + youtubers which currently have existing pages and could be arguably less notable (I also have edited the page recently and added an awards section as the the page subject has been recently nominated to the streamies awards by YouTube) I just want to have an idea of what do the other content creator pages have done to move forward, if you have any advise I would really appreciate it, thank you


Gogysimper (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use the existence, absence, or status of other tangentially-related articles to argue for your own, and there's a good chance most of those pages predate AfC in the first place or were otherwise never drafted. Statistics websites are never worth citing, as they cannot provide the in-depth details we're looking for in a source. Social media can only be cited to verify someone said (foo) and don't help for notability (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). YouTube itself is generally not usable as a source (unknown provenance). The bulk of your sources fall into one of these three categories. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:28:15, 1 November 2021 review of submission by Ourbag

Previously the article was declined as direct mention of the movie director was not present. However, because of his new work, 2 or more articles has been published as below which talks about direct reference with the director. I hope it helps to solve and iron out the issue. Kindly help https://bengali.news18.com/news/entertainment/tollywood-movies-angsuman-banerji-psycho-drama-web-series-large-peg-has-anindya-pulak-banerjee-sayantani-guha-thakurata-pbd-661362.html and https://bengali.news18.com/news/entertainment/tollywood-movies-angsuman-banerji-psycho-drama-web-series-large-peg-has-anindya-pulak-banerjee-sayantani-guha-thakurata-pbd-661362.html


Ourbag (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:02, 1 November 2021 review of submission by And Adoil Descended

I was confused about the statement that my article's contents "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I was under the impression that all of the sources I cited are reliable and independent (including Bloomberg, Detroit Free Press and Toronto Globe & Mail -- all major news outlets) and all of the sources are specifically about the subject itself and not passing menion (its creation, the early Dan Gilbert investment, the major brokerages using it and the recent majority stake purchase from a private equity firm). I feel so dumb because I thought I did this correctly, but where am I going wrong? I really want to get it right this time. Thanks! And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Adoil Descended The issue is not the sources themselves, but their content. They just tell about the routine business activities of the company- this does not establish notability. A Wikipedia article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. This coverage must go beyond merely telling what the company does. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will try it again, bringing in more coverage as you requested. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@And Adoil Descended: make sure to look through WP:CORPDEPTH and the lists of examples of trivial and significant coverage to help decide if a source is usable to establish notability. The trivial sources are ok to support information but we need to see some sources that have taken the time to write about the company as a whole. This particular topic will be scrutinized fairly heavily as it already had an AFD and is currently protected against creation in the main space. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcmatter:@331dot: I am giving it another go. I appreciate your patience and insight on how to improve the article - or, really, a stub. I've broken the text out to detail what the company does and added mention of some prominent people who were involved in its launch and current contents. I will point out that the company has been the central subject of independent coverage by Bloomberg, Columbia Journalism Review, Detroit Free Press and Toronto's Globe and Mail, which I hope will get it over the line. But, I am willing to re-edit it if more is required. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:30, 1 November 2021 review of draft by Anwar Shakir Wazir

Since I Am a Journalist for the last 20 years. I gave my blood for Journalism, Free speech, etc and I have a lot of contributions to Pakistani Journalism, so I think I should appear on Wikipedia.kindly only Type my name in Google or any search engine you will see my profile and my work.Anwar Shakir Wazir (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Shakir Wazir (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Anwar Shakir Wazir (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be successful, you must set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources. That's usually very difficult for people to do. Keep in mind that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:57, 1 November 2021 review of submission by Winifredwhelan


I would like to upload three pictures on my page for Marie Pauline Brenner. Is there a form to fill out for obtaining copyright permissions?

Winifredwhelan (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winifredwhelan You may want to ask this at the general Help Desk, this one is for asking for help with drafts. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


November 2

02:04:31, 2 November 2021 review of submission by MichaelT1956


what di need to make my article wiki approved and published? The article is on a note worthy person MichaelT1956 (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being a mess as far as grammar and punctuation, there is nothing whatsoever to even begin to hint that this person is in any way notable. This planet is a-crawl with people with delusions of "notability" because they put up a couple of TikToks and call themselves "influencers" (the prime a**hole word now, exceeding "artisanal" and even "curated"). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your references are grossly malformed and generally missing the bibliographical information and/or URLs required to actually look them up. The three URLs present are Wikipedia and two press releases. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:08, 2 November 2021 review of submission by 197.98.201.78

How can I report a wiki page? The person has written it themselves and is not notable. It shouldn't be on wikipedia.

197.98.201.78 (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:07:18, 2 November 2021 review of draft by ThyWhy


I would like to enquire about my article. All the sources used are reliable and independent. I did include the company’s own website as one of the 19 in total sources. I researched other similar articles/companies and saw that they also use either the company website, 3rd party sources or a combination. So why is mine excluded but the others approved?

Examples of similar articles approved, per type of sources:

Similar Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology

Less sources and not as independent as the one’s I’ve used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medisafe_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huma_(company)

Only uses 2 references, has a few issues, but it is published(!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datacube_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GetFEM%2B%2B


Sources used in my article:

Scientific Journal articles (Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology)

Independent website articles/intervews - European Society For Medical Oncology website oncologypro.esmo.org - Springer magazine - Other industry websites: www.oncorelief.eu, MIT Technology Review, www.pwc.co.uk, www.masschallenge.org (also cited with other articles on Wikipedia)

Company’s own website (as seen referenced in other Wikipedia articles too, for some additional information not references elsewhere)

All the sources, other than the company website, are independent and are being used similarly in other published Wikipedia articles.

So, what can I change for it to get approved?


ThyWhy (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThyWhy That an article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone. Only new accounts and IP users are not allowed to directly create articles. It is possible, though inadvisable, to create articles without going through this process. Only experienced editors should do that.. The article you cite is already tagged as problematic.
Your draft just tells about the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Brief mentions, press releases, interviews, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources do not establish notability.
To link to another Wikipedia article or page, you may simply place the title of the page in double brackets like this [[Page name here]], the whole URL is unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To succeed, you need to set aside everything you know about your company, all materials it puts out, and only write based on the content of independent sources. That is usually very difficult for those in your position to do. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:16, 2 November 2021 review of draft by Alien 4791


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ettore_Salati#References

I edited references on this draft. After publishing, I was told that some links land to blogs and it could be a problem. But many music reviewer, fanzine, music magazines are hosted out there, so I think it should be acceptable. These references are solely international album reviews, one example each release


Alien 4791 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:11, 2 November 2021 review of submission by 2409:4042:E89:42E1:1651:7E9F:CD88:A0CC


2409:4042:E89:42E1:1651:7E9F:CD88:A0CC (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The results of a Google search are not reliable or notability-supporting sourcing; his own LinkedIn is not reliable or notability-supporting sourcing. You have already been told four times what you need to do: show evidence that he has media coverage, in reliable sources independent of his own self-published web presence, in the context of having achieved something significant. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:57:36, 2 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Radhihudijan


Thank you for reviewing my article, I got the article declined due to the reason that it looks like an advertisement. I got advice from other experienced editors in the live chat. but I still did not know what part makes it look like ads ... I extremely appreciate the help.

Thank you.

Radhihudijan (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radhihudijan It is an ad because it just tells about the person. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

01:04:43, 3 November 2021 review of submission by CardistryExpert

I am an avid fan of specialty card tricks and when I found that wikipedia had articles about it I was surprised to find that they didn't have a profile for one of my very favorite magicians. How does Lee Asher, Chris Kenner, Daniel and David Buck - Dan and Dave who all worked with him have pages, yet he does not?

He is mentioned in several articles as the creator of the genre:

[[1]] (Multiple mentions) [[2]] [[3]]

The authority on card flourishes, Jerry Cestkowski said in his book, Tudor had "very, very good flourish cuts and some unbelievable false flourish cuts." (http://docshare.tips/the-encyclopedia-of-playing-card-flourishes_587545e9b6d87f86848b49f5.html )

This is the single most prolific producer of card flourishing publications, how does that still not make him notable?

I was asked for more independent sources to confirm his notability, the article lists that he is cited as notable by:

1. Vanity Fair 2. Encyclopedia of Playing Card Flourishes 3. Urban Dictionary 4. Genii Magazine 5. Magic Magazine 6. DecemberBoys.com.ua 7. Bicycle Playing Card website 8. "Flash Cards with Jerry Cestkowski" podcast

There are 27 total references. I was told I needed seven, and now I have plenty more, how many do I need to satisfy you? Chris Kenner has much fewer and has his own article.

I am in contact with the cited noble contributors such as David Copperfield, Chris Kenner, and Dave and Dan, but they all don't understand why the draft would be rejected.

Do you have any tips to help me accomplish this? CardistryExpert (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CardistryExpert Please read other stuff exists. That other articles exist does not automatically mean that yours can too. It could be that these other articles are also problematic. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. I would note that Chris Kenner (magician) has been proposed for deletion.
A reviewer provided a good breakdown of why the sources you offered were inappropriate. The opinions of others in the field help, but are not significant coverage of the subject. You also seem to have a conflict of interest as you say you are in contact with the people involved. Fewer high quality sources are better than a large number of low quality sources. As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:03:43, 3 November 2021 review of submission by 27.6.149.34


27.6.149.34 (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:33:38, 3 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Anwar Shakir Wazir


Dear,Sir/Madam. As a journalist for last 20 years and have given my blood to Journalism /free speech, I would like to post my biography on Wikipedia. this is my 1st chance to publish and post my Bio , but its not acceptable to Wikipedia,so could you please help me in this regards --> -->Anwar Shakir Wazir (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Shakir Wazir First, please read the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write autobiographical articles, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable journalist. To be successful in writing about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources say about you- that is usually difficult for people to do.
You may also wish to review how to write references. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:37:27, 3 November 2021 review of submission by Yusuf khan books


Respected sir, my name is Yusuf Khan and I'm a self-publishing author from India and I have authored more than 3 books and I fear that people may try to copy my content and even try to portrait as me online. I request you to plz approve my page. Thank you.

Yusuf khan books (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1053333130"