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
Dcontu (talk | contribs)
14 edits
No edit summary
Line 603: Line 603:
Why was my article declined.
Why was my article declined.
:{{ping|Samsaiyan}} because it wasn't an article so much as a CV and Wikipedia is a social media site or a place to post your CV. An article about a person must be based on what others have written about the subject in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. They must also be shown to meet the requirements of [[WP:GNG]] which is not in this piece.[[User:Mcmatter|McMatter]] <sup>([[User talk:Mcmatter|talk]])</sup>/<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Mcmatter|contrib]])</sub> 21:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping|Samsaiyan}} because it wasn't an article so much as a CV and Wikipedia is a social media site or a place to post your CV. An article about a person must be based on what others have written about the subject in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. They must also be shown to meet the requirements of [[WP:GNG]] which is not in this piece.[[User:Mcmatter|McMatter]] <sup>([[User talk:Mcmatter|talk]])</sup>/<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Mcmatter|contrib]])</sub> 21:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

== 22:33:58, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Dcontu ==
{{Lafc|username=Dcontu|ts=22:33:58, 2 February 2022|declined=User:Dcontu/sandbox}}

Hello Team,

I have just modified the Sandbox page in order to be according to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Therefore I am requesting a re-review of this article.

Thank you,

D. Contu

[[User:Dcontu|Dcontu]] ([[User talk:Dcontu|talk]]) 22:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:33, 2 February 2022

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


January 27

01:20:08, 27 January 2022 review of submission by Supermanfan1979

My page was denied because it didn't have reliable sources. I referenced the Better Business Bureau, the production companies' own website, an article written about them, and a link to the website with all the information about their current project. What other kind of reference links should I add? If the page can't be found under Theme Parkology, check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Supermanfan1979/sandbox Thank you Supermanfan1979 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supermanfan1979 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Theme_Parkology Please advise me on what to add so it can be approved.

Supermanfan1979 (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:27:18, 27 January 2022 review of submission by 고양이 발자국


고양이 발자국 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

고양이 발자국, you didn't ask a question but wikipedia does not accept ads. Wikipedia is not for promotional use and please see WP:COI and WP:PAID given your likely connection to the company.Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:47:11, 27 January 2022 review of draft by Dgregory4


My article submission was declined because the subject did not meet the notability criteria. However, I'm not sure if the reviewer applied the notability guidelines for academics to my article or not. The subject of my article holds a named chair at a major research institution (Baylor University is an R1 school; only 137 universities in the U.S. have that designation). Moreover, in the U.S. there are two major guilds for homiletics, and my subject is the co-founder of one of those guilds as well as the editor of its peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, he was recently honored with a Festschrif. Do you think he meets the notability requirements for academics? Also, when I submitted the article I did so in the general biography category; is there a separate category that I should have submitted it to for academics?

I appreciate any guidance you can give in this matter. Dgregory4 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Dgregory4 Dgregory4 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgregory4: - The sources you included are called primary sources. They are papers Gibson wrote himself, or directory listings or announcements made by the organizations he worked for. I don't see any third party coverage of him. Notability sometimes comes from what others write about a person or subject. Without articles written about the subject, the only path to notability (at least in Wikipedia's definition) is to see if papers Gibson wrote are frequently cited, thus showing Gibson's academic influence. Here's some information about citation metrics. Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics There's no category to submit the info. That's irrelevant. Skilled reviewers apply notability guidelines depending on the subject. Lastly, it won't help if you can't find proof of his works being cited, but if you can, you'll also want to clean up the syntax. There should be no inline citations, no bolded section titles, and section titles should be sentence case, with only the first word capitalized. TechnoTalk (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:36:57, 27 January 2022 review of draft by Fleacollar


Fleacollar (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There-

I submitted an updated article for 'Tim Mostert' last week. I made all the requested changes and am awaiting feedback, hoping the subject will be able to go up on your platform. The article was declined twice, but seems to be in the correct format now, after I learned to follow your process and article citing rules.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Tim Mostert

The reference are very poor and don't prove the person is notable. scope_creepTalk 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:37:25, 27 January 2022 review of submission by 2130598shreyamrao


I have been given the assignment to write a few lines about myself as a part of my course. The deadline is 28th January at 11.59 pm Please do the needful to publish this article

2130598shreyamrao (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a social media platform or a place to post your autobiography. --Kinu t/c 18:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:14:47, 27 January 2022 review of submission by 2409:4071:200C:9297:0:0:776:58AD


2409:4071:200C:9297:0:0:776:58AD (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The person isn't notable in the least. scope_creepTalk 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:07, 27 January 2022 review of draft by OurWayz


Greetings:

Thank you for the quick review of my draft submission.

I realize that I did not have references to support the material. I personally graduated grade school from Mullikin Elementary and recently realized that, if I didn't document its existence based on my memories for others to expound upon, the school will disappear from history. It will be effectively erased.

So, the reason I drafted the Mullikin Elementary School piece for Wikipedia is for the exact reason it was rejected by Wikipedia. There are no really reliable sources online out there, except my remembrances. The only support I can provide is a Classmates.com entry for the school at https://www.classmates.com/places/school/mullikin-elementary-school/18774611.

On the other hand, there is nothing controversial in what I wrote.

Could you reconsider Wikipedia's rejection of my draft, please?

Thanks and best regards,

Steve


OurWayz (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT for merely providing information. A Wikipedia article about an organisation must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organisation. Wikipedia has no interest in what you want to say about it only in what others unaffiliated with the school choose to say about it. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:43:56, 27 January 2022 review of submission by 59.185.248.65


59.185.248.65 (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


please advice what can i do to publish this page, this page is regarding CMD of ntpc shri gurdeep singh

There is nothing that you can do, the draft article(not a "page") was rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources, showing how the person is notable as defined by Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:15, 27 January 2022 review of submission by Qazigundstreets


Qazigundstreets (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:08:13, 27 January 2022 review of submission by Samostadxxs

Hello why it's not possible to post about Mr.Pooyan Mokhtari on wikipedia?He is famous and talented enough as google recognizes him.what is wrong with here? Samostadxxs (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:17:38, 27 January 2022 review of submission by 2402:4000:1382:E587:DA8:7505:9BEB:A32F


2402:4000:1382:E587:DA8:7505:9BEB:A32F (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:18, 27 January 2022 review of draft by Itisthebio

Hi Wikipedians, i need help checking if the sentence and words are correct or any changes needed please change it

Itisthebio (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:13, 27 January 2022 review of submission by Wintercake93

got told to go here to see why my article was declined

Wintercake93 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Poor Mans Poison @Wintercake93: The sourcing is insufficient. You can't use YouTube, Spotify and social media to show notability, since anyone can put content there. You need to find things written about the band by independent sources. See WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:RS. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:18, 27 January 2022 review of draft by Liza Zimmerman


Hi I added to the draft of Tor wines and documented it with many reliable sources but I have had few people question the listing. Can you help me fix it? Thanks,

Liza Zimmerman (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liza Zimmerman: I cleaned it up a bit to help you out. Keep thinking about reliable, independent sources that discuss the vineyard, or its wines. It's still a bit thin. See WP:RS and WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

04:29:18, 28 January 2022 review of submission by 97.92.213.66

I added a better source for this page from the Saint Louis News Dispatch. 97.92.213.66 (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected and will not be considered further. A contribution to a local newspaper website does make a reliable source especially when there is a disclaimer at top of the page telling us not that the content has not been checked for accuracy. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:16:12, 28 January 2022 review of submission by SandAndrew


There is no undisclosed payment to write or Edit this Article. Article is only to provide a quality content or brief of the Newly setup Diagnostic Chain. They are doing great in his domain and getting very strong presence in Indian Market. If you find anything against the wikipedia policies then sure delete the Article otherwise expecting support to get this LIVE with any changes to meet the wiki policies. SandAndrew (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With only one poor quality source that is not going to happen, it was rejected and will not be considered again. Theroadislong (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandAndrew: "Newly setup" and similar generally means "No sources available to support a notability claim". —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:55:31, 28 January 2022 review of submission by 고양이 발자국


고양이 발자국 (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@고양이 발자국: if you have a question for the help desk, you will need to ask it, not just post a link to the draft. Your post yesterday was answered (you can find it here), and nothing has changed about your draft since then. Please do not remove the "Rejected" notice from the draft. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:31, 28 January 2022 review of submission by Shruti232002Bond


Hi, I have added minimal content from sources that can be approved. Please let me know if I am on the right track

Shruti232002Bond (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti232002Bond The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does; an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offered are not independent and do not have significant coverage, as they just document the existence of the company.
If you work for this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:29:14, 28 January 2022 review of submission by Ummar Jamal


Ummar Jamal (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ummar Jamal You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone; a Wikipedia article about a person 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 person. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:12:38, 28 January 2022 review of draft by Lofty10820


In my article, Gordon Joseph Lippman, I have inadvertently indented 10 external references under #7 of the first set of external references, creating two problems.

The first is the indentation. These references were created by using the footnoting procedure in Wiki. The second is that I have a cite error: Cite error: The named reference ":1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

What's the best way to address both problems?

Lofty10820 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lofty10820: I took the liberty of starting to clean up the article. You can see how I combined two references. You should put all the references inline, after the statements they substantiate. Don't include anything that isn't substantiated, such as a personal anecdotes or hearsay. Everything must be verified, and that helps demonstrate notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:19, 28 January 2022 review of draft by SagarVijayGhatole


SagarVijayGhatole (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sagar Ghatole Subject appears to be writing about himself. Article is unsourced. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:55, 28 January 2022 review of submission by SagarVijayGhatole


SagarVijayGhatole (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See above. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:31, 28 January 2022 review of submission by Editorialeweb1


Hi, I'm writing about the Verifiability of my article. I have read about the "Questionable sources" in the Verifiability page of Wikipedia. I found more material that talks about the Ecam Council's Meeting happened in Rome on October 2020. I'm going to link the sources in which there is the official site of Italian Senato: https://www.senato.it/4519?atto_presidente=11925 https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/27842/20201022/health-experts-meet-in-rome-for-universal-healthcare-discussions-at-ecam-council.htm https://www.kamelghribi.com/events-single/31 https://www.lamescolanza.com/2021/11/02/ecam-successo-per-il-summit-legato-sugli-sviluppi-sanitari-in-europa-nord-africa-e-medio-oriente/ https://www.ambrosetti.eu/en/news/ecam-council-2021/ https://www.agenceecofin.com/sante/2710-81778-le-role-du-groupe-hospitalier-san-donato-et-du-groupe-gk-investment-holding-dans-lavenir-des-services-de-sante-en-afrique https://www.leaders.com.tn/article/30816-conte-au-dr-mahdi-l-italie-confirme-son-soutien-au-dispositif-sanitaire-tunisien-face-au-covid-19 https://allafrica.com/stories/202010220976.html

The Meeting's goal is to talk about Healtcare and help the region of North Africa's Country. During this summit lot of promiment figures took part as the ministers of Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Kenya, Kurdistan, Mozambique and Italy. I hope that the sources I found are reliable enough. I also ask if the referrals that I have already included are used in the right way and if that's not the case how I can improve them. Thanks.

Editorialeweb1 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. The first reason being Wikipedia is not a hosting site for the agenda of the meeting or it's timetable. The second is the sourcing none of which seem to be independent of the event or it's members, which means no else seemed to care enough to write about it on their own accord and publish it anywhere reliable. The goals and asperations of the meeting or team members has no bearing what so ever on whether this event is notable or not. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:27:41, 28 January 2022 review of submission by Jim Pickens the dear leaderkevo345

it was tagged for delition and i don't know why i put correct information and everything Jim Pickens the dear leaderkevo345 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft wasn't tagged for deletion, though it probably should be the content is not appropriate namely... 'Jim Pickens is CallMeKevin's Sims 4 character. He is a cult leader, known for murdering numerous Sims and taking their money. He is a great man. All hair our dear leader!" Theroadislong (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:29, 28 January 2022 review of submission by MightyMaven


MightyMaven (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I am disturbed to find the editors removed 95% of all my work and found nothing worthy to keep. If they had taken the time to explain rather than rudely tell me I created a wall of words and other snide remarks, and explained themselves, I still haven't learned from their posts to me because they forced me to guess at what they were saying, speaking in a lot of jargon and generalizations.[reply]

I cannot believe they didn't accept FDA as a good source or clinicaltrials.gov as a good source either. Both of those are governmental sources. They are not tied to any company and are independent of them.

I was also told that some statement I made proved I had a conflict of interest simply because I supposedly said "my company". I really hate it when people misread what I'm saying or writing because then they get a burr under their saddle and you can't get them to see straight because they are off on some other tangent. I AM NOT AN OWNER OF TETRA BIO PHARA AND NEVER HAVE BEEN. When I said "my company", wherever that may have been said, I was referring to them as my company the one that I'm writing about, MY subject, MY hu308 page, MY efforts. My company I'm writing about as opposed to somebody else's company they are talking about.

I'm extremely intelligent, holding degrees in psychology, multiple languages and the law, and if I don't get something someone is explaining, it's not likely my fault. I got the feeling several times when I asked for help, that I was some kind of nitwit and only needed to be given cursory HINTS to correct a page or citation. Wikipedia used to have a lot of helpful people that actually would educate you and never condescend others.

I put MONTHS of research into helping my dear mother and the research helped her recover from Alzheimer's and go off her medicine. That is why I put so much effort into the HU308 page because of all the fantastic things they were finding out about it at the NIH research studies going on. I added some 70 citations most of which were directly tied to independent studies, the main of which existed before Tetra Biopharma ever became incorporated in 2015. How could those be considered Tetra's publications and not independent, I ask you. I'd hate to see what you guys would do in a court of law to the rules of evidence and the holdings of all the cases you reviewed. Probably tear society completely down.

MightyMaven, please read WP:MEDRS for a explanation of the sources required in Wikipedia medical articles. Also WP:CIVILITY is not optional.Slywriter (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:41:28, 28 January 2022 review of submission by MightyMaven


MightyMaven (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC) And PPP001 and HU308 are only related because the same company owns them now. Last I heard that wasn't a crime.[reply]

21:01:28, 28 January 2022 review of submission by 2001:569:FC49:4500:717D:5FE1:FBB8:74ED


Hi there, I am requesting a re-review for this Wikipedia page as it is a class project and it would be great if we could properly submit it. If you have any suggestions for changes to make it less like an advertisement I would love to review them!

Thank you

2001:569:FC49:4500:717D:5FE1:FBB8:74ED (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but as the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. It is very unfair to you for your teacher/instructor to require you to create a Wikipedia article. Your teacher should be familiar with the Wikipedia education program materials.
A article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. The two sources you offered are just announcements, which do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:05:18, 28 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Neelmohapatra


want to know how to published article on wiki

Neelmohapatra (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:25:37, 28 January 2022 review of submission by George-Amherst

2 questions: I receive email notifcations of comments by reviewers (I suppose), and when I try to view the comments I come to this help page. Where do I find and reply to the comments? Second: how do I change the PAGENAME for the draft which I have submitted. It was assigned without my consultation and is inappropriate.

Thanks George-Amherst (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George-Amherst Are you referring to the comments on your draft itself? The title of the draft is unimportant in terms of the review; if accepted as an article, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. Please provide guidance on the draft talk page; it should be the most commonly used name and not necessarily the official name or a past name. See WP:COMMONNAME. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope it is appreciated that the most common name is the one I've proposed, but the field doesn't seem to very well understood by the reviewers. May I forward your comment to the pagetalk? George-Amherst (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

00:41:32, 29 January 2022 review of submission by KatherineDavis150


Please re-review this article with edits because Brenda Carey is a regional political leader who also held several state appointed positions, making her a notable political figure due to her regional and state-level leadership. As reflected, she has also been involved in national politics on the committee level. The article is updated to reflect this as well. In addition, sources have been added to show coverage. Of interest, Brenda Carey also was one of the first politicians to report Joel Greenberg to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement who ended up becoming a nationally-covered figure due to his involvement with Congressman Matt Gaetz. This is now reflected in the article as well. Thank you.

KatherineDavis150 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KatherineDavis150 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. County level politicians do not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, and to meet the broader notable person definition there must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her. The sources you offer do not seem to be that. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:18:26, 29 January 2022 review of submission by 2409:4064:2E88:C03C:0:0:26CB:D40E

I think being on Wikipedia is good experience and looks like professional as well as a trusty channel. So I decided to write an article over aftotalantos as he make fantastic and ausome video so more people can know through the platform and they can entertain themselves.

Thank you.

2409:4064:2E88:C03C:0:0:26CB:D40E (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote a clear advertisement; Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:57:15, 29 January 2022 review of submission by SandAndrew


Now, I have added several high quality reference websites and article to support the authenticity of the Redcliffe Labs.. Kindly check and do the needful SandAndrew (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandAndrew The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. The authenticity is not at issue; this organization does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you work for this organization, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal declaration, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:14, 29 January 2022 review of draft by UikiHedeo


I wonder why the edition of article Flash (weekly magasize) does not seen as the addition from the credible source. Doesn't they mispersepted the edition was not the addition? The addtion of sentences about the history of Japanese photo magazine and the number of copies statistics are not valuable?

which "one of the references is a Wikipedia link" indicate does you mean???UikiHedeo (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UikiHedeo (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UikiHedeo. Greenman may have mistaken the second reference for Wikipedia because it strangely links further down the page, to the single entry in the bibliography section, something none of the other references do. The underlying source is Twitter, which is questionable in most cases. It might be a reliable source for where the editorial office is located and the day of the week on which the magazine is published, but definitely is not a reliable source for the statement, "is sold at each bookstore and convenience store in Japan." A further problem is that the Twitter account is unverified, and weeklyflash is different from the (also unverified) info_smafla account linked from the external link you've given. An explanation of the difference between Flash and Smart Flash is called for.
The other sources are the publisher's website, an interview with the publisher, and a database of the Japan Magazine Publishers Association. These may be useful sources of information, but none of them help show that Flash is notable (suitable for a stand alone article) because they lack independence or are indiscriminate. If you can't find sources to demonstrate the notability of Flash, perhaps you can find sources that would support a more general article about the history of photojournalism magazines in Japan. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce. Thank you for your comment.
First I think if Greenman have mistaken in somewhere and I cannot fix the problem which he did pointed, couldn't your help me to reject his rejection? Because I cannot solve the problem which does not exist.
Second, I hope you will be more tolerant to the credibility criteria and existence of the article. When you want to know where a magazine is soled, the most credible information source is not the publisher of the magazine? FLASH may be sold in each bookstore and convenience store in Japan, that is not the overstatement. The magazine may not sold in drugstore which is also well-seen retail stores in Japan because the publisher do not affiliated with them.
The sentences from the interview is not always from the insider, but sometimes from the interviewer whom not dependent to the company.
The statistics from the Japan Magazine Publishers Association, which is not perfectly independent from the publisher of the magazine but is a officially recognized alliance of many publishers, is relatively objective and may be the only statistics available about the number of copies of weekly magazine published in Japan. When in 1980s, there exist 5 or more weekly photo magazines on that statistics, but now there only exist two magazines. That might explain these two magazines are notable to explained.
There already exist the article of Friday (magazine), the rival of the FLASH, and the source of that article is similar with the FLASH article. I don't think the information of the article FLASH is so rich, but I think are sufficient to publish in main space now.
Twitter account of editorial office and collecting office of weekly FLASH also exist and I wrote them. But were removed by other user Special:Diff/1046340369/1063887892. So is not difficult to modify them. Please select some of them, as you like. THANK YOU! UikiHedeo (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a comment to the draft explaining that the second reference is not really to Wikipedia. That isn't why Greenman declined the draft, though, it's just a comment they made. The big pink box at the top contains the reason for the decline: the draft fails to show that Flash is notable.
It is impossible for anything on the publisher's website or tweeted by Flash to prove that Flash is notable. The Japan Magazine Publishers Association database cannot show that Flash is notable because it is an indiscriminate source. It aims to cover all magazines in Japan, not just those that fit Wikipedia's special definition of notable. I speak very little Japanese, so I will leave it to other reviewers to determine whether there is sufficient independent analysis in the ITmedia interview for it to count as one source towards demonstrating notability. In any case, editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage of their topic. Even if the interview is one, one will not be enough.
Essays Wikipedia:Notability (media) and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) emphasize the importance that publishing award-winning work has in determining notability. It would help the draft if you could add independent sources that prove Flash has won a notable Japanese journalism award.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:06, 29 January 2022 review of draft by Lofty10820


In my draft article about Gordon Joseph Lippman, on Reference footnote #1 - you noted an error in my ISBN citation. However, this book, "No Place to Die" only has an ASIN number which is included. I have not been able to locate an ISBN number for this book. I have a personal copy which does not include an ISBN. How do I correct this error?

Lofty10820 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you. I'll make the change and remove ASIN, but not sure how to do that as when I try to edit the Reference, Wiki presents me with an edit box that doesn't allow me to remove ASIN. Can't figure out how to get in that line and edit just that issue. Lofty10820 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Robert Lofthouse[reply]

Lofty10820 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Robert Lofthouse[reply]

Hi Lofty10820. Don't put an ASIN in the |isbn= field. Not only is it wrong to call it something it isn't, but ASINs are of limited value on Wikipedia because they're one bookseller's product number, and Wikipedia tries not to promote any particular bookseller. Instead, set |oclc=924353238 in the citation. This will allow readers to easily locate a library copy. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lofty10820: I've made the adjustment for you. I can't describe how to do it in the visual editor, if that's what you're using. Out of habit I use the source editor. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:20, 29 January 2022 review of submission by 2409:4064:4DC5:48CB:0:0:260B:A602

I think being on Wikipedia is good experience and looks like professional as well as a trusty channel. So I decided to write an article over aftotalantos as he make fantastic and ausome video so more people can know through the platform and they can entertain themselves.

Thank you.

2409:4064:4DC5:48CB:0:0:260B:A602 (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the wrong reason to write an article, as that is a promotional purpose. See WP:PROMO. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:14, 29 January 2022 review of submission by Summerhouse21


The page on 'epistemic insight' that I submitted for consideration was reviewed and rejected by AngusW on 5 July 2021.

The reviewer's comments were very helpful and I resubmitted the page with changes. the status of the page then said 'under review'

The next reviewer comment was made by Rusalkii on 14 December 2021 - recommending I reduce the number of external links.

However the status of the page continued to say 'under review' - it did not change to 'rejected' as before.

I would like the page to please be considered again as I have made changes to the page to respond to Rusalkii's useful comments. But there's no button to resubmit.

As the status says 'under review' does that mean it will be reviewed again anyway - or do I need to activate a resubmission somehow? Sorry to query and thank you for your help,

- please see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epistemic_insight

Summerhouse21 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summerhouse21 It was declined, not rejected(rejection would be it could not be resubmitted). You submitted it for review again and it is pending. It will be reviewed in due course by a volunteer, please be patient. As noted on the draft, it could take some time. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:17:38, 29 January 2022 review of draft by Flagship1

need to delete all changes made on Jan 29 2022. There are errors that are mutiplied every time i tried to delete an incorrect change Hence probably 25 edits non of which need to be on wikipedia

how do i delete any involvement with wikipedia including all edits regarding article draft:charles arthur Williams

Flagship1 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flagship1. Editor Mcmatter reverted all your January 29th edits of the draft. They aren't exactly "deleted", they're still visible in the page's history, but the current text has been restored it to the way it was on January 22nd. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I decide to delete the account and the draft article do edits remain? How would i permanently delete the account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.221.159.238 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted, you can simply abandon the account and no longer edit from it. As for page deletions, it really is only hide from public view, administrators can still see all the edits and text in the history. There is a heightened version of deletion called oversight, however in this case I don't think it would be warranted or approved since none of the edits revealed any sort of identifying information and the gmail links don't work for anyone else. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

04:27:07, 30 January 2022 review of draft by Ashleymaeb


Ashleymaeb (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleymaeb You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:32:10, 30 January 2022 review of submission by Kaustavdeka500


Kaustavdeka500 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaustavdeka500 You don't ask a question, but the 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 read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:07, 30 January 2022 review of submission by Slavesfromheaven

I am trying to submit a draft for review but get the following error: An error occurred (TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'length')). Please try again or refer to the help desk. What should I do?

Slavesfromheaven (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slavesfromheaven Don't submit the draft for review. An article on the topic already exists, at Ali Asad Chandia, so the draft won't be accepted. Because your previous edits to the exiting article have been reverted for removing reliably sourced information and not adhering to a netural point of view, you should explain at Talk:Ali Asad Chandia what changes you want to make and why, and seek consensus for them. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:29:03, 30 January 2022 review of submission by Shavizea


Shavizea (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shavizea You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:05:19, 30 January 2022 review of submission by Cyanlemur82


Cyanlemur82 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanlemur82 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

09:00:48, 31 January 2022 review of draft by Arunudoy | Requesting re-scan


A former Director General level Police Officer, with the charge of the Chief of a state's Intelligence branch, Mr. Bhattacharyya definitely has enough citations to pass WP:GNG. Kindly help me to expand/edit the page. This Police officer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyanendra_Pratap_Singh is too junior than Pallab Bhattacharyya is listed well and none complains. Police officers are usually listed in Wiki as per their TOP rankings, instead of interview sources. (Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Allan_(police_officer)) I would be happy if 2 or 3 Editors peform a thorough look. -- Arunudoy (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arunudoy. The number of citations is a poor measure. It takes only three to demonstrate notability, but there needs to be significant coverage of Bhattacharyya. Examining 10% of the references at random, all are primary sources, and none of them address him in detail:
  • "Pallab Bhattacharyya also addressed the gathering and said that the selected Home Guards personnel would be entrusted with work very soon."
  • "The other members include ... Pallav Bhattacharya ..."
  • "Assam’s Additional Director General of Police (Special Branch) Pallab Bhattacharya had a week ago warned of a bid by Islamist organisations such as Hizb-ul-Mujahideen to strike during the festive season."
  • "said Pallab Bhattacharya, Assam Police additional DG (special branch)."
Citation bombing the draft with worthless brief mentions like these is toxic to the draft's chance of acceptance. Eliminate all such references to make the better ones (if any) stand out.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce I have made major edits to the Draft. Can you check now please? Can you guide me in checking Draft whether I am going/doing it in the proper way or not? --Arunudoy (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to ask more senior Editors and Admins to attend. Regards --Arunudoy (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:15:07, 31 January 2022 review of submission by Akbalusu


Akbalusu (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why my article not published

Akbalusu The reviewers have left messages on your draft telling you the reason. In short, your draft is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone; a Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia has a strict policy when writing about living people that all information must be sourced, though all articles must have sources. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:08, 31 January 2022 review of submission by User5305


User5305 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


wtf?

Your draft Draft:SEO Analiz Google Sıralama Yarışması is not a potential article, it has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User5305: Your "article" is a single link repeated three times. This would be a "no context" deletion if it were in mainspace. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:31:54, 31 January 2022 review of submission by Elysium99


Elysium99 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC) hi i am trying to translate an article from english to arabic the article is weird tales I am having a problem on how to link it to the english on and start editing it[reply]

@Elysium99: This is a matter for the Arabic-language Wikipedia, if you're translating it for that. (Policies and rules differ between the various Wikipedia projects.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

07:23:06, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Itisthebio

Hi Wikipedians, i need help on my work, kindly check if it there's wrong with it or something that needs to be change please change it thanks!

Itisthebio (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:10:51, 1 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SRIKANTH2304


SRIKANTH2304 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SRIKANTH2304 You don't ask a question. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, instead this is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in your case, that of a notable creative professional. Please also be aware of the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:48, 1 February 2022 review of submission by Ogouogou

My draft article was declined and the reviewer said "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"

I disagree with that and can show it. I do not think the reviewer knew the quality of the sources that were cited. Their are multiple mainstream reliable news, magazine, and government website citations that refer to the article subject. They aren't just passing mentions.

How can I contest the decline? Ogouogou (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ogouogou You are free to resubmit a declined draft(a rejected draft could not be resubmitted); simply click the "resubmit" button. However, I believe that the reviewer was correct, and without substantial changes the draft would be declined again. The issue is not the sources themselves, but their content. The sources you have offered are not significant coverage of the topic, they just document its existence and what the project is. A Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(not based on press releases, interviews, announcements, brief mentions, other primary sources) to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Instead of a large number of low-quality sources, a small number of high-quality sources would go further towards the draft passing this process. Most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage- coverage that is in depth and goes beyond just documenting the existence of the topic. Please read Your First Article.
I see that you declared a conflict of interest; if you have a paid relationship with this topic, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot The primary 3 sources are a printed profile in a mainstream magazine, a newspaper article about the project, and a government website describing the project. I believe these constitute significant coverage. Many other links are included to support specific details, such as date ranges and quantities, within the text description. I spent a month gathering citations to justify notability, along with researching this process. I also looked at a large number of articles similar in nature. I believe I submitted a substantial draft. It's surprising to hear a suggestion of removing the supporting links. The submission process has been opaque and seems arbitrary. I feel like a value judgement is being made on the subject and not a consideration of the actual supporting material. BTW, I am not being paid to create the article. -- Ogouogou (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou Okay, but please note that you don't have to be specifically paid to create this article to be a paid editor- any paid relationship triggers the disclosure requirement(such as being the subject's PR/communications person). Otherwise every paid editor would say that they weren't specifically paid to create their articles, rendering the requirement toothless.
Please link to those sources here. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content Magazine
San Jose Mercury News
City of Palo Alto
Ogouogou (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I have been looking at other artist and musician article pages and see many citations based on sources that include interviews. It is a very common approach to the discourse about contemporary artists. Art history texts also quote artists describing their intent and practice. By excluding these, I am at a loss for how to establish notability for any artist or musician. I don't know how to proceed with this feedback. --11:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou I believe you that there are many other articles that likely do not follow guidelines. See other stuff exists; this does not mean that more inappropriate articles can be created. Only new users and IP users are required to use this process(though it is a good idea for all until one gains experience) and it has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us, even for years. We can only address what we know about.
Note that interviews are not completely prohibited as sources for articles, but they cannot be used to establish notability as it is the subject speaking about themselves, a primary source. I'm not sure which claim to notability you assert that this artist meets- but it is usually demonstrated through unsolicited reviews of the work which explain why it is significant. The two interviews you linked to here seem to just summarize what the artist says about themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot From the link you offered, I submit 3 examples of notability. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique: The Art Review Generator he made uses modern AI techniques to generate those art reviews. There is nothing like it right now. An unsolicited review of his music states, "his November release Critters is its own language. It is unlike anything we’ve heard." 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. The Wolves project mentioned in the article is very well known, in the San Francisco Bay Area. The newspaper article is one example of the coverage. There are many others, but they use blogging platforms. No, it didn't get national coverage, but it is absolutely notable from a regional point of view. There are many many Wikipedia articles that are regional in nature. The person's work (or works) has: (c) won significant critical attention Winning first place in a global film contest sponsored by the Internet Archive is pretty significant.
331dot I can tell that you personally don't think his project is notable, but from a regional perspective he is. The sources cited in the article make use of all the media outlets (except broadcast TV) available for a non-national topic. I wonder what path forward there is to reference independent creatives and cultural figures on Wikipedia. The interpretation of notability criteria you are using seems less like scholastic rigor and more like gatekeeping. I made a substantial effort to satisfy all the requirements I could quantify. If I can't convince you or the original editor then I'll let it go. But, I do feel like this is a notable project and deserves inclusion. -- Ogouogou (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou A topic does not have to get national coverage(though it helps), but it does have to get significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Local projects can qualify, but not always. I think that the topic is potentially notable, but the sources do not support that yet, or at least the ones that you offer. I encourage you to not just listen to me; I make mistakes sometimes, feel free to get other opinions. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:47, 1 February 2022 review of submission by SaffaGugliani

I have seen this figure on tiktok and youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCES7l9FqHZyvJzd3eido6ow he is very popular and I think he deserves a place on Wikipedia.


SaffaGugliani (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SaffaGugliani The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to honor or recognize someone. This is an encyclopedia, which has criteria for inclusion. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to state about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You offered no sources whatsoever. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:36, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Jc4400


I am seeking guidance on how to improve my submission so it meets approval criteria. I understand and value the fact that Wikipedia is not a promotional outlet and that is why I tried to only include facts backed by trusted third party sources such as Wall Street Journal, ABC News, Harvard, etc. Can someone advise me what I should remove and/or change so that this article passes the Wikipedia threshold? Many of Bryan's peers (Ray Dalio, Warren Buffett, Bill Frist) and companies he founded (GCTR, Cressey Thoma Bravo, etc) have Wikipedia pages which suggests people of his stature are worthy of being included in Wikipedia as long as the page is written properly. Thank you in advance for any guidance you provide a lost soul such as myself. :)

Jc4400 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jc4400 A Wikipedia article does not just summarize facts; it summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. The sources you offered do not have significant coverage of Cressey. Profiles and similar do not establish notability. To pass this process you need only have three reliable sources with significant coverage; I would focus on just summarizing your three best sources, the rest can come later. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:36, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Ntndude


Ntndude (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry sir your decision may be right But I hope for your help, If I have any mistake in this article then please help me to correct it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntndude (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:01:28, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Japan.Travel


Hello, I would like to add a picture in the infobox but the name keeps getting denied even though I follow the instructions. How can I fix this issue? Thanks for your help!

Japan.Travel (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japan.Travel (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pointless adding a photograph, the draft is just blatant advertising and will shortly be speedy deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Japan.Travel, worry about writing an acceptable article first. Also see WP:PAID, WP:COI, WP:PROMO, and WP:NCORP. In short, Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your business and will only accept articles that have significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:46, 1 February 2022 review of submission by HadyElmadany


HadyElmadany (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I want example about the reliable source is[reply]

22:44:10, 1 February 2022 review of submission by SFManagement


Hello, I am new to wikipedia and got a rejection for my first article draft saying that the article I created was lacking "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - what exactly does this mean for a musician, a classical composer who's works have been published by a major publisher? Would the publisher count as a reliable, secondary source? Are press articles, interviews, concert programs considered "significant coverage"?

Also I had Wikipedia:External links which I removed now upon the reviewers request. Why are external links wrong?

Thank you

SFManagement (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SFManagement First, you must change your username immediately to represent yourself as a individual(real names are not required); business usernames are not permitted. Please see your user talk page for more information.
A Wikipedia article about a musician 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 musician. We don't need citations to document the existence of her music(such as from her publisher), we need to know what people say about her music(and not based on materials put out by her like an interview). Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

04:29:38, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Garvincarter

User:Wgullyn Issued a decline notice saying the article reads like an advertisement. I guess that is a fair enough conclusion, but does not specify in which part such an offense has taken place. Each statement is made with a specific citation from a published and reputable source not associated with the subject. I would appreciate how to state the facts in a way that minimizes what is perceived as advertising.

Then the declination states that citations need to be from materials not created by the subject. Out of the near 70 citations, only a couple point to sources that the subject may have access to and only then to materials they did not produce. The remaining citations and the statements made from them are from either established media groups, industry trade or government sources. If this reference is to the table of published materials by the subject, this can easily be removed. It seems strange that many wikipedia entries have lists and links to published materials by the subject of the entry.

I guess I would be looking for more guidance on why this entry would not meet Wikipedia's basic guidelines. No product was promoted. The facts about the subject's career and accomplishments are supported. If these accomplishments are considered advertising, then how is that different from an entry touting Academy Awards for an actor or director. Other than greater notoriety, the principle is the same - industry recognition and recitation in the entry. Please help me understand what needs to be adjusted to make this entry successful.

I apologize in advance for the lack of understanding. I have edited many entries on wikipedia in the past (different user accounts) but never attempted to launch a new topic. Very difficult process.

thank you

Garvin Carter (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Garvin Carter (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:23:14, 2 February 2022 review of submission by 2A03:C5C0:107E:545:91E1:629D:D9A4:136C

Hello, I am working on a draft for David Moshe Lieberman and apparently the tone which I use in the article is too informal even though I made sure to use an informal, encyclopaedia like tone. Could someone help me with some tips? 2A03:C5C0:107E:545:91E1:629D:D9A4:136C (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only edit from your IP, what is the drafts name? If you use an account to edit, please log in. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:49:27, 2 February 2022 review of submission by ShreyK123


Hello, my draft for the article titled Wilfrid Oswald Jose (link) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wilfrid_Oswald_Jose, was declined. I received a notification which stated that it contained copyrighted content. However, I created the original article which I believe is the cause of this result: https://www.stpeters.sa.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-Premiers-Anzac-School-Prize-Essay-Shreyas-Khanna.pdf How can I fix this? Is it possible to publish the Wikipedia article I created and remove the copyright claim?

ShreyK123 (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShreyK123. There is a procedure for donating material to which you hold the copyright. Keep in mind that what makes a good school research project may not make a good encyclopedia article. Good research makes use of primary sources (passenger lists, newspaper reports, identity documents, photographs, letters, military documents, etc.) to draw new conclusions, whereas a good encyclopedia article summarizes what secondary sources say. There may not be enough independent, reliable, secondary sources about a 22-year-old Lieutenant killed in WWI to demonstrate their notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia). If you decide to proceed with this topic, then in addition to taking steps to resolve the copyright matter, review Help:Your first article#And then what? for other tips on improving the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:32, 2 February 2022 review of draft by Ruchikalra


Ruchikalra (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to enquire about the Draft (Aayu and Pihu Show) I submitted. It has been more than two months since I submitted the draft, however, still there's no update on it. I want to understand the process of review and publishing and want to know what I can do to make the review and publishing of the article faster.

Please help me with it.

Ruchikalra The draft was declined today; please see the message left by the reviewer. There is no specific timeframe in which a submitted draft is reviewed, it is possible that it can take weeks or months. Reviews are conducted by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:17:05, 2 February 2022 review of draft by Wk350


hello, i have update the article to add more citation as was requested, and i am unsure how to trigger an need review

Wk350 (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wk350 You have successfully resubmitted the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:03:44, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Qazigundstreets


Qazigundstreets (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:55:34, 2 February 2022 review of draft by An.xtrovert


I have made an Article about an Individual which contains basic details of Childhood, Education, Family, Achievements. However the article has been declined by the reviewer stating that 'it seems like an advertisement, Hence I need some help in editing the article to get it published.

If I can have some brief points about working on the write up, it would be prove to be of great help. An.xtrovert (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An.xtrovert Please review the comment left by the reviewer below the templates. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article.
If you have a connection to this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:45, 2 February 2022 review of draft by Tushar3011


Hello, Can I submit this draft for afc please review this and tell me Tushar (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tushar3011. It is surprising that the draft doesn't cite a single source from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force's list of reliable sources. Any reliable source may be cited, but perhaps the draft's sources aren't reliable. Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), are self-published, and thus not reliable. The draft will stand a better chance if every statement in it is supported by a reliable source when you submit it. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:17, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Bballforever123


I wrote a page for my favorite professional women's basketball player and you denied my page. This is very frusterating because ALL MALE Professional Basketball players get to have a page but because she's a women she's not important enough??! I need answers to this. Be better Wiki....

Bballforever123 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bballforever123. No one "gets to have a page", thinking that way misunderstands the encyclopedia. A biography on Wikipedia is not a right or a reward for a player. They don't own it and have no control over it. I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy. With regard to bias, I very much doubt that there are biographies of "all male professional basketball players" on Wikipedia. For example, players in the British Basketball League (a men's professional basketball league) are not presumed notable (suitable for inclusion). --Worldbruce (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:22, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Maximilian775


I'm not quite sure why my article got denied. If one looks at the page for a comparable American bishop, say, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Henry_Walsh or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Charron, there is very little difference in terms of the sources cited for those entries and the sources cited for mine.

Additionally, the same person has entries on German and Polish Wikipedia with even less citations from even fewer sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian775 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian775 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maximilian775. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.
Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. That the topic already has a German version and a Polish version will carry no weight in the question of whether it should have an English version.
When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines. News coverage from UCA News is generally reliable. I don't know if the same applies to their biographical database of bishops. Catholic-hierarchy is a generally unreliable source, according to WP:RSN. Source Bollettino is too inadequately specified to determine its reliability. Is it a newspaper, a parish newsletter, a press release? Publisher, author, title, and, if available, URL, would all help in evaluating it. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, (talk) - if i format this wrong, sorry, I'm still new to this. So, the main issue is not in the notability of the topic but rather in the reliability of the sources I cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian775 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximilian775: Right. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The reviewer concluded that the draft did not do so, so it failed to establish that the subject is notable. They also found that the draft included information about a living person either without identifying a source, or without citing a reliable one. This doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable, just that the cited sources are insufficient to prove that he is notable. P.S. See Help:talk pages for more information about how to use them. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:34, 2 February 2022 review of submission by 157.51.35.208


157.51.35.208 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing further to say, detailed comments left on rejected draft by reviewer.Slywriter (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:00:40, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Samsaiyan


Samsaiyan (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my article declined.

@Samsaiyan: because it wasn't an article so much as a CV and Wikipedia is a social media site or a place to post your CV. An article about a person must be based on what others have written about the subject in reliable sources. They must also be shown to meet the requirements of WP:GNG which is not in this piece.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:58, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Dcontu


Hello Team,

I have just modified the Sandbox page in order to be according to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Therefore I am requesting a re-review of this article.

Thank you,

D. Contu

Dcontu (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1069558616"