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
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 502: Line 502:


[[User:Nicolas M W|Nicolas M W]] ([[User talk:Nicolas M W|talk]]) 13:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
[[User:Nicolas M W|Nicolas M W]] ([[User talk:Nicolas M W|talk]]) 13:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

== 14:40:49, 24 February 2022 review of draft by Kuldhar Rabha ==
{{Lafc|username=Kuldhar Rabha|ts=14:40:49, 24 February 2022|draft=Draft:Ranjan_Bezbaruah}}


The references are given in the appropriate place and requested to review. Thanks.
[[User:Kuldhar Rabha|Kukdhar Rabha]] ([[User talk:Kuldhar Rabha|talk]]) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:40, 24 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


February 18

14:50:52, 18 February 2022 review of draft by GJAHANA


GJAHANA (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Please anyone help me to publish my article about SHoxrux Hamdamov

GJAHANA (talk)

GJAHANA Please review the messages left by reviewers, and the policies and other information that they link to. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:34, 18 February 2022 review of draft by Al4He6


First I submitted a page and was told it would be up to 4 months for it to be reviewed, but then it got deleted because it hadn't been updated. Next a request for re-instatement was rejected because the wikipedia article was similar to an article I had subsequently written on another website. Then my submission was rejected because of a lack of independent verifiable sources (my article is about a programming tool that has existed for years, and has over a million users) At other times articles have been rejected because the reviewer believed it was a commercial enterprise (it is actually a not for profile organisation).

Al4He6 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al4He6 Your draft does little more than tell of the existence of this tool, and links to its official website, social media, and other associated websites. That is not what Wikipedia articles do. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please read Your First Article and if you have not already, use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:43, 18 February 2022 review of submission by Saher AlSous

is it okey to be accepted? is it possible to review it? Saher AlSous (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saher AlSous As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,091 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order, doing what they can when they can. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:09:28, 18 February 2022 review of draft by RebelRauser


You keep rejecting my draft due to "unreliable sources" - my biography is about Mary Susan James Barr, the surviving daughter of Jesse James, the outlaw. The sources I am providing are from the Jesse James Museum! Please explain to me why a museum is not a reliable source. The other sources is findagrave.com, maintained by Leo James, a descendant of Jesse James. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mary_Susan_James


RebelRauser (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RebelRauser Findagrave is not a reliable source as it is user-editable. The museum is not an independent source. There must be significant coverage of her in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

00:22:51, 19 February 2022 review of submission by Lexii60


Am requesting a review on this article I created Because this person I am writing about is very notable and I believe this article should be approvedLexii60 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Lexii60 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your sources to a one are non-sequiturs. You haven't shown he is notable per Wikipedia's definition because he's not even so much as mentioned in the lot of them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you all talking about, But What I can say is this person is very notable, He may have less mentions on the Internet/ Google searches but outside the internet he is very very notable to the public on an Social media he is verified.So What can I do more to convince you people to approve this article because am very frustrated now.Lexii60 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lexii60 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a specific definition of notability, which can be summarised as "Has this person received significant coverage in outlets with strong editorial oversight that wasn't written by him or someone else on his behalf?" Social media does not count. We accept citations to printed books/magazines/newspapers, but absolutely none of your sources are to such media. Your sources, as it stands, don't even help prove that he is notable because literally none of them so much as mention him, let alone actually discuss him in any depth. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the evidence https://g.co/kgs/2ksxSZ And Yes this person is a very talk about person and many journalist has write about him I dont know why some of his talk about article not showing up on google so I can give you evidence but it's there. But has I said he is very known to the public https://g.co/kgs/2ksxSZLexii60 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Lexii60 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a search results page. Please read the the replies above (and follow the links to policies and guidelines). --bonadea contributions talk 08:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:10:10, 19 February 2022 review of submission by Agorushin


Agorushin (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Agorushin: You do not ask a question but I recommend reading the notability guidelines for companies. S0091 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:07, 19 February 2022 review of submission by Irishsabumani


Irishsabumani (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This is my own profile. It doesn’t intend to promote, advertising or any misleading information is given. Please ask for any documentation if you believe is jot true. Kind regards. Sabu Mani

Wikipedia does not have profiles, Wikipedia has articles (profile is a social media term, but We are not social media). Autobiographys, while not forbidden, are strongely disocuraged, and there are reasons why a Wikipedia article might not nessesarely be desireable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:49:42, 19 February 2022 review of submission by Pepperlyl


Pepperlyl (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that you ask about Draft:Alshival, which was created by User:LWSHASE and has not been edited by you, and not about Draft:DR. AGIRIYE MONIMA HARRY, created by yourself which is the only page you have edited. Both these drafts are adverts for people who do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 17:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out Draft:DR. AGIRIYE MONIMA HARRY was created by User:Scicili, who also has no edits apart from that draft. --bonadea contributions talk 17:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:57:03, 19 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Joaquin89uy


Hi. I'm creating a draft on a NGO called Thirld World Network.

I consider the Org. to be relevant and important. To prove so, I added a specific reference to an Indian Newspaper in my article, this being India's The Economic Times. This Newspaper featured a list, which contained all its mentions of the NGO throughout the years. There are dozens upon dozens of these in there. This is explained by the fact that Third World Network is a very active global NGO, which was created back in the mid-80's. On the other hand, the aforementioned newspaper is also very famous and esteemed in India, of its own accord. I chose a list instead of any specific news article because I found it a more clear depiction of the amount of attention the NGO has got over the decades.

Apart from this, to support the existence and basic historical facts of the NGO, I cited three other NGO's websites, which contain a specific article about the existence and basic historical facts of the aforementioned NGO. There are many more NGO's' websites with articles about TWN on the web, of course.

All these things considered, the article has been nevertheless rejected again today. As a solution, I thought I could cite specific mentions of the NGO in the aforementioned Newspaper or in other newspapers from around the world, or maybe another list of these, as I already did once. Citations risk getting bulky though.

Also, should I delete the other NGO's articles on this NGO's background? I might be left with no such background reference. Or I could search for it in news articles. It may be hard, though, as articles are mostly focused on what articles are focused on, a.k.a. the topic at hand, and not necessarily historical backgrounds of things. But I might be wrong on that.

PS: The article itself is only a stub.

Thanks for reading. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin89uy (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joaquin89uy: the issues with your sources is none of them provide significant coverage, they only prove the organization exists. What you need to do is find sources which discuss the subject in greater detail on their own accord and not connected to the subject. Then you need to base the draft off these sources. If you cannot find these sources then the organization probably isn't notable enough for inclusion. Please see WP:NCORP, WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:40, 19 February 2022 review of submission by Lexii60


Okay then, So what can I do more to make this article to be approved, Because I'm unable to find more resources to proof to you guys that this person is very notable to the public. And the last thing before I go is this person is an Animator and an Artist he also has he's website about them.Lexii60 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Lexii60 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lexii60. The draft will not be accepted for publication because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability (inclusion) guidelines. There is nothing you can do about that, no amount of editing will fix it. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

04:12:32, 20 February 2022 review of submission by TLAGTeam


This page is not unambiguously promotional, because there are over 34,200 impressions made from people looking for adult gymnastics classes and how to train like a gymnast. The founder, Danielle Gray, is a public figure and notable in the fitness industry. The article was written neutrally with only facts, information and no persuasive language. Although short, three of the references were from national publications.

TLAGTeam (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TLAGTeam: We don't accept arguments by bizarre definition, and we don't accept investment brochures such as what you've written. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:06:02, 20 February 2022 review of submission by Deep Bishnoi0029


Deep Bishnoi0029 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deep Bishnoi0029: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This would be a slam-dunk no-context or no-content deletion if it were in mainspace. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:17:58, 20 February 2022 review of draft by Hksq


Hi. I’m looking for guidance on how to improve a page that was submitted for consideration and declined.

The page is about Stephen O’Meara, who is an important figure in the visual astronomy community: he’s been an editor and monthly columnist with Astronomy (the astronomy magazine with the largest circulation) for about 15 years; he is a noted visual astronomer, and has made two noteworthy scientific visual observations (spokes in Saturn’s B-ring before the arrival of Voyager and the rotation period of Uranus) and one other noteworthy but non-scientific observation (the first visual recovery of Comet Halley); he’s published about a dozen books with reputable publishers; he’s received awards for his observations and his work to popularize astronomy; and he’s been featured in a book and movie on visual astronomy. At the suggestion of comet-hunter David Levy, the IAU named a minor planet in his honor.

Specifically, I’m trying to figure out whether the rejection is because this person is not sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a page or whether because the references do not adequately support his noteworthiness. I’d be grateful for guidance. Thanks.

Hksq (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hksq. I think your problem lies in that your references do not show significant coverage, each one just makes passing mentions of some contribution to the field. You need to find a reference that says a bit more about O'Meara or his work (significant coverage), to adequately establish notability. Most of your references are OK for supporting the associated content, except the one about the film, which I could not verify. So we do not know whether this person is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant an article because the references do not adequately establish his notability. I hope this is clearer now, and wish you luck in finding suitable references. It can be difficult when someone is out of the public eye, regardless of the value of their contributions. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:36, 20 February 2022 review of draft by Charlesbooth12


Hello, I have a question about sources. My draft got declined due to a lack of sources, however, I noticed that another article uses Twitter to cite the birthdate of Swedish rapper bladee. I was just curious as to what the minimum requirements (if there are any) of citing twitter for posts from the musician themselves, or rather, if that is even allowed. Also, to cite the dates of albums, I used discogs in my citations as well, however I was told this is also not a reliable source. Why is that the case? Thanks. Charlesbooth12 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A verified Twitter account can be used in limited circumstances as a source, for purely factual points like a birth date, see WP:TWITTER. It cannot be used to establish notability. Discogs is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:35:03, 20 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Therealbollocksgang


hi, why was our article declined? Cheers

Therealbollocksgang (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Therealbollocksgang Wikipedia is not a place for groups to tell the world about themselves; a Wikipedia article about your group must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please see your user talk page for important information regarding your username. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:58, 20 February 2022 review of submission by Makgeeky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhanda_(prophet)

Makgeeky (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article Makhanda (Prophet) is full of inaccuracies and needs to be amended or deleted completely. The history is not certain, the sources are unreliable.

Makgeeky This page is for seeking assistance with writing a draft. Please use the article talk page, Talk:Makhanda (prophet), to discuss concerns with that article. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:20:42, 20 February 2022 review of draft by Shortiefourten


Hey everyone! Thanks to Omni, healthcare has been swamped and I've been shirking my duties here to my own Wiki-work to look after "patriots"...but here I am on my only day off for the foreseeable future hoping to solve the issue with this draft! Let's do this...

So, the question is why a single page for two parks? This wasn't laziness or neglect. That's dishes left overnight in the sink by my husband. Here's the basic basis - the two parks are joined at the hip. Here's how:

  • Both founded/donated in the early 20th century; Dobson in 1905, McFadden, 1912...
  • Both have a shared history of starts and failures of getting up and running as full-fledged parks for decades...
  • Both saw traction as completed parks in the 1940's and 50's...
  • Both suffered from vandalism and neglect, simultaneously in the 1960's into the 21st century...
  • Decades of local vernacular and reporting listing the two parks together, known as the "top of the hill parks"
  • Located on the Chehalis city Hillside District, side-by-side...
  • While not directly sharing a border, the parks are separated by about 150 feet at their closet contact points...
  • The two parks share a trail, the Dobson-McFadden Trail...
  • They're both named/donated from early pioneers of Chehalis...
  • And finally, the are sadly both closed (almost at the exact time, too)

So, that was my reasoning to join the two in one page. They are just consistently joined to one another. Something happens at Dobson, McFadden follows. McFadden gets a news story, Dobson gets one, too. From a local perspective, this would make sense. The two parks are twins, in a sense. In the lede, I wrote about this "joined-at-the-hip" scenario and I do admit I am not no Inglisch scholar, but maybe that could have been written more clearly?

What better and more experienced editors here feel is best suited for these two parks is fine by me. Splitting the two off onto their own pages? I'll do that! Reword the existing draft to let the reader know the synonymous nature of the two parks! Let me see if some of my old English teachers are still alive and I'll get to work on it...

So, didn't try to circumvent any rules or be a burden or nuisance. It just made sense to combine the two parks...simply because that's what the city and people of Chehalis do.

Alright, time to enjoy my day off before me and my fellow healthcare workers have to deal with the glut of surgeries and medical care postponed by "patriotism"! Make sure to thank anyone you know who is employed in healthcare...we are going thru some, uh, excrement.

Thanks, Shortiefourten (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Shortiefourten (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: When you draftified Draft:Parks and Recreation in Chehalis, Washington and Draft:John Dobson and McFadden Parks on 10 December 2021, you wrote in your edit summaries: "improper move of AFC draft without reviewer approval". WP:AFC is an optional process for most users. Generally speaking, no reviewer approval is required to move a draft to article space. Would you elaborate on why you require these two pages to be reviewed at AFC rather than simply taking their chances in article space? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Giving new users the option to bypass AFC review and move their work into mainspace themselves literally defeats the entire purpose of AFC even existing at all, which was to control the excessive creation of bad articles that aren't ready for prime time by new users who don't actually understand what's required. So if users have free rein to submit their work to the AFC review queue and then immediately move it into mainspace themselves, then there's inherently no purpose in the AFC review queue even existing at all — and that's especially true if they move it into mainspace with the AFC submission template still on the page, with the result that Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space has any contents in it at all. That category needs to be empty at all times, so if it's ever found to be non-empty that must be fixed immediately.
But resolving that issue means looking at the page with my "would I have been able to approve this if I were conducting a proper AFC review on it?" glasses — and if the answer to that question is no (as it was for both of those pages as of December 10), then just walking away from it simply isn't an option. The only choices at that point are to either move it back into AFC, or list it for an AFD discussion, and listing it for an AFD discussion would be done in the full knowledge that the AFD would also inevitably conclude as "move back to draftspace" anyway, because that's exactly what AFD does when drafts that were prematurely moved to articlespace before they were ready for articlespace actually end up at AFD.
So the snowball clause pertains: if just leaving it untouched isn't an option, then why bother putting it through a full week of AFD just to end up with the page back in draftspace anyway, instead of just moving it back to draftspace immediately? If I come across a page like that and it actually would have been approvable, then obviously I just remove the template and categorize the page where it's supposed to be — but if the page would not have been approvable, as neither of those pages were as of December 10, then I can't just leave it without doing anything about it: it's either back to AFC or over to AFD, and there's no third way in that situation — and just moving it back to draftspace immediately is far less bitey than taking it to AFD, to boot. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

02:55:32, 21 February 2022 review of draft by ChinthakaGK


Hi Dear all, This is my first submission and I have got some notes on this, could you please point out which sentence/s that I need to modify or remove. ChinthakaGK (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asked (and I expect will be answered) at Teahouse, so I see no need for a reply here. David notMD (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:24, 21 February 2022 review of submission by Adrai

@KylieTastic what are the concrete steps/information needed for the submission to be accepted? For example, what is missing compared to this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrase_(software) Adrai (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:14, 21 February 2022 review of draft by Chillibee


Hi I tried to publish an article about the geologic museum 'focusTerra' at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich). After a first revision, the added references have not been accepted as 'published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject' (comment by user Theroadislong). There has also been left a comment by user DGG saying 'museums are usually notable'. May I please ask you to double-check if there still is need to revise the article (i.e., add more references)? Cheers

Chillibee (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:36:26, 21 February 2022 review of submission by LodoVena


LodoVena (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC) gadchiroli bagiya tabana — Preceding unsigned comment added by LodoVena (talk • contribs) 09:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you SURE you want to edit in this topic area? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:55:45, 21 February 2022 review of draft by LemanXL


Hi, please indicate what I need to add and what part I need to add to confirm. Information has not been shared for 2 weeks

LemanXL (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LemanXL: This draft is written as an advertizement, and a pretty blatant one at that. What is your connexion to Locavis? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:09, 21 February 2022 review of submission by Emmy1707

Hello, I have a question about reliable sources. The article (Draft:Philipp Hochmair) was declined twice because the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I have added the filmography and a few newspaper articles, but I don't know if that is enough. It would be a great pity if the article is declined a third time. Thank you very much for the support.Emmy1707 (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Emmy1707 (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:58, 21 February 2022 review of submission by Pat-obg-79


Hello, my item was rejected twice. This article already exists in the German Wikipedia. Why was the article rejected in English Wikipedia? This is the german article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMA_CAD-Software This is the draft of the english version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SEMA_3D_CAD/CAM_Software

Pat-obg-79 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pat-obg-79 Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. Please read the comments left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:04, 21 February 2022 review of draft by Abraham Abdul Miel Smith


Abraham Abdul Miel Smith (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am Smith Miel a Gambian artist bone on july 18th 1998 real name Abraham Abdul Smith sing in Dancehall Hip Hop Ragga father name James Smith mother Awa Kamara sister Divine Joy Smith born in the sierra leone from the gambia, fajara

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:01, 21 February 2022 review of submission by Jonknox12


Hi all,

For a little while now, I have been trying to get this draft approved for Denise C. Park, a researcher at The University of Texas at Dallas, and have received a lot of feedback about sourcing information. I do currently believe that the current edition's sources match Wikipedia's guidelines, and I have added a stub template, since the current draft is far from encyclopedic. Is there anything more that needs to be done, or should this article be ok for approval?

Any and all responses are greatly appreciated!

Thank you, Jonknox12 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denise C. Park has been approved. David notMD (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:42:51, 21 February 2022 review of submission by Rfernandes1994


Hi guys,

I'd like to create this page on behalf of a company I work for. Can I get some more useful guidance on how to make this appropriate for publishing. Appreciate the guidelines and this may 'promote' the company. If terms like 'award-winning' are removed does that help?

Thanks!

Rfernandes1994 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfernandes1994:, it appears the draft has been nominated for speedy deletion based on being promotional. I did a quick search online for references and it does not appear that the company would meet notability guidelines so recreation would not be possible. The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP which the company must meet, including having references that meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


February 22

00:56:45, 22 February 2022 review of submission by Asher Wasserbauer


Asher Wasserbauer (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why my article for Draft:S._M._Chäruzu got refused. I understand he's a fairly new author but I tried to stay impartial in my article. The world should learn about this guy, his work is stunning with a lot of potential to come!

Asher Wasserbauer When you say "The world should learn about this guy, his work is stunning with a lot of potential to come" those are clues that he probably does not yet meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author. It is too soon for an article. He must already have arrived and be notable in order to merit an article. You offer no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him to summarize. Please read Your First Article. If you just want to tell the world about him to spread the word, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:12:50, 22 February 2022 review of submission by SDC3021


Hi my draft Draft: Samsung Developer Conference has been rejected, not considered to have enough notability to be included in Wikipedia. However, it has several references from different sources. I am wondering why it is considered not enough notable for Wikipedia and if there is any way to publish this page in the future. Thank you. SDC3021 (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:37, 22 February 2022 review of submission by Twistar48


I believe my draft would add valuable content to Wikipedia and below I will explain why I'm requesting a re-review.

My draft was rejected by user:Eviolite with the following reasons cited:

- "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."

- "Wikipedia is not a gallery. The text info/equation you have here is better off incorporated in existing articles, such as Atomic orbital."

Regarding the second point, after asking in the community for advice I was further referenced to review WP:GALLERY.

I will now address the objections. First I will address the gallery objection. First I look at WP:GALLERY. Frankly, my entire goal with this article is perfectly captured in the paragraph which describes when galleries may be permissible:

"Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made."

Regarding the first sentence, if I felt there was room in any of the atomic orbital, hydrogen atom, or hydrogen-like atom articles I would have put the gallery there. However, those articles are already encumbered with covering many topics and they are already highly redundant with each other. Adding the content of my draft page to one of these articles would have resulted in additional duplication, rather, my longer term goal is to make a personal (and hopefully community supported) effort to curate these pages involving some content shuffles and merges. My goal with this page is to lighten the content load borne by those other pages so that they can more surgically focus on other interesting topics without getting bogged down in specific important details about, specifically, the equation describing the solution to the non-relativistic schrodinger equation, the geometric properties of that solution, and visualizations of that equation. Instead, they can focus on other aspects of atomic orbitals such as historical information, more sophisticated model, applications, etc. In summary, it is my feeling that "there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text" is something which is not the case for the current nexus of atomic orbital, hydrogen atom and hydrogen-like atom, all of which describe atomic orbitals.

Regarding the second sentence: "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". My gallery falls exactly under this category. My gallery, by showing many atomic orbitals in close proximity, as well as in an exhaustive way (rather than only showing some representative orbitals), allows the reader to glean multiple aspects of the subject that cannot be easily described otherwise. These aspects include: (1) An easy opportunity to visually compare patterns between orbitals of different quantum numbers. Including orbitals out to a high (high being relative to what is "typical" or found elsewhere on Wikipedia, but not necessarily anywhere in the literature) principle quantum number makes these patterns particularly more apparent. and (2) an easy opportunity to compare and contrast real and atomic orbitals. Something which is rare to come across in the literature or Wikipedia, though it can be found[1].

I have taken great pains to ensure that this gallery is very well crafted and presents the information in a way that is very clear to the reader. This includes explanatory sections before the main gallery begins and explanatory captions throughout. I've made sure the images are all of high quality and themes and formats are consistent throughout. This is because I understand the importance of clear presentation. Because of the complicated nature of the atomic orbitals it can be difficult to show all of the 3D information. For this reason, at the top of the gallery, I explain multiple types of visualizations that appear in the literature and how they work. I carefully chose a 1/8 hemisphere cutaway for the main gallery to balance showing the full orbital with showing the geometric detail within the orbital. I will mention here that there are higher quality (in terms of resolution and visual beauty, not content) versions of some of the images I've included in circulation on Wikimedia commons and on the other pages I've linked. It would be one of my future goals for this page to bring all of the images up to top resolution, but I don't think such detail is necessary at this point for publication of this article as it would only slow me down and have me spending my time focussing on a less critical aspect instead of adressing more important issues like those I'm discussing now.

Finally, regarding the last sentence: I would say the gallery definitely collectively adds to the readers understanding, and if someone would claim many images are similar I would counter that it is critical to include all images shown because I am trying to draw points of contrast and comparison between the different images. In particular, if any images are excluded then the reader is left to infer certain patterns, and it is exactly my goal for this article that the reader does not have to infer the patterns, but rather, can see them, guess as to what they are, and then mentally test them against other examples in the table.

So in summary of this point, I would say that this paragraph on galleries perfectly describes, and elegantly anticipates, the case of my proposed draft page.

I will now address the two statements and links from Eviolite. First, about Wikipedia is not a gallery. I will address the bullet points that appear when following that link. I am not trying to use Wikipedia as a mirror or repository. Rather, I am trying to present visuals to help aid readers understanding of a particular subject. I don't believe the bullet points about external or internal links applies at all to my draft page as I am not using a large amount of links. I am not using public domain material, rather I am using self-generated images that were generated according to procedures described in relevant literature [2]. Finally regarding photographs or media files, I would say that two things will provide "encyclopedic context" for the images in the gallery. The first is the accompany text at the top of the gallery. The second is the context in which this article will be placed within the nexus of articles about atomic physics, chemistry, and atomic orbitals in particular. I want to take this moment to share that it is my full intent to support this article, if it is created, with work spent on these other pages to link to it in a way that jives with the context and themes of those articles, but further supports them. In short, I see little in this link that stands as a mark against my article.

Eviolite also states "The text info/equation you have here is better off incorporated in existing articles, such as Atomic orbital." I agree to some degree that some of the material could be incorporated into existing articles, but as I've described above I do not believe it would be "better off" to do so. As I've said above, I believe that the atomic orbital, hydrogen atom, and hydrogen-like atom articles could use revision and merging so that they more clearly present information about atomic orbitals. One difficulty that all of those 3 pages are jockeying to explain and visualize exactly what I am trying to show in my proposed draft page. Like I said above, this page would unburden each of those pages from feeling the need to (a) describe and visualize the mathematical equation for non-relativistic hydrogen atom and (b) do so without stepping on the toes of the other pages. This is how I feel about the organization of the current state of Wikipedia's presentation of atomic orbitals, however, I admit that this is a topic on which reasonable people could disagree and somewhere where I would value feedback from more experienced Wikipedia editors. The reorganization is likely something I could not do by myself so I would need buy in and support from the physics/chemistry community. The only place I know where to start is the talk page for WikiProject Physics, but I would welcome suggestions for where else I could start a conversation about a re-organization of these pages. What I'll say here is that this is my only personal hesitation about this article. I do realize that, created as is now, it would duplicate information that appears in those articles. However, if my vision for these articles is a good one, I think it makes sense to start with the existence of this article, rather than trying to modify those articles in anticipation of the existence of something like this article appearing somewhere. For example, I could decide "ok all the atomic orbital information should go in atomic orbital" and beef up atomic orbital with a lot of info that is already covered in hydrogen-like atom, but then I'd have to pretty much delete the entire hydrogen-like atom article. While I think that may be a good course of action I could easily imagine myself very valid protestations of that course of action. The existence of this draft article would give an unambiguous place for a certain subset of the information in these articles to land and I think that would be valuable and aid in the general cleanup process.

Finally, Eviolite said "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." Frankly, I don't see how this article is in any way contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. (1) This is encyclopedic information. Thought of one way, it is a visual compilation of particular facts about a particular mathematical/physical phenomenon. These facts will be properly contextualized within the field with supporting references and via internal Wikipedia links. (2) this article takes a neutral point of view. It is difficult to not take a neutral point of view on a mathematical equation, but as a point of example, I will point out that there was some controversy on the talk page regarding the naming nomenclature for some of the images. I had a particular point of view on nomenclature and user:Geek3 had another. Frankly, Geek3's criticism encouraged me to do more research and as a result I modified the images to include both nomenclatures in, what I think, is a nice way. I think this was a perfect example of Wikipedia working as intended and I think the draft is stronger for it. (3) As these are all self-made images that I've released under appropriate licenses by publishing on Wikimedia commons, I don't think there are any use issues whatsoever. I've spent hours working on this because I am excited to share about it. (4) Again, I think the interaction with Geek3 provides a nice example of users treating eachother with respect and civility. I was in fact original inspired by a number of images that that user has posted about atomic orbitals throughout Wikipedia to go forward and make this page, so I am very happy for their input on it, and as I said above, this involvement only made the article stronger. (5) Wikipedia has no firm rules. I think many editors' and reviewers' kneejerk reaction to my article is "Wikipedia is not for galleries". Upon digging into some of the policies about galleries it is clear that while Wikipedia is wary about having galleries, it does recognize that in some cases galleries can be an important part of an encyclopedia. I encourage future reviewers to think about the importance of good visualizations for understanding of complex mathematical topics, and I even link to a successful popular youtube channel that demonstrates this astoundingly: 3Blue1Brown, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw.

Finally some closing comments: I am a new Wikipedia editor. I'm excited to share some of my knowledge and understanding that I've gained through hard training as a scientist with others so it doesn't have to be as hard for them. This article is a good faith effort on my part to do that. I'm excited for detailed feedback on my article on ways to improve the content and making it more valuable for readers. I have ideas for the broader sub-topic of atomic orbitals, but I want to come in with humility and work to fit myself into the community. There is a lot I still have to learn about the Wikipedia community and I will need help from more experienced editors, whose input I value, to help get me up to speed.

Thank you very much for your time, attention, and consideration in reviewing this article for creation.

References

  1. ^ Thaller, Bernd (2004). Advanced visual quantum mechanics. New York: Springer/TELOS. ISBN 0387207775.
  2. ^ Thaller, Bernd (2004). Advanced visual quantum mechanics. New York: Springer/TELOS. ISBN 0387207775.

Twistar48 (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Twistar48: Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions so far. You have chosen to take on one of the most difficult and daunting tasks on Wikipedia. Let me give you some advice on getting more effective feedback. Don't write a large wall of text, everyone here is a volunteer and will generally not read a wall of text like the one above. You points may be valid but are lost in the verbose comment. I would perhaps recommend condensing your point down to 5 sentences at the most, below my comment, and let discussion grow from there. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for the thoughtful comment. I would firstly like to apologize for the statement "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" – I agree that it is very harshly worded and the link was not the most helpful, but it was the only relevant option the software gave me (as it indirectly links What Wikipedia is not). My main concern with the draft that it was primarily a gallery, and per WP:NOTGALLERY Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of [...] Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. The majority of the article was images with short captions and no further information, the lead section consisted of equations that could fit in existing articles, and the body sections appeared to be uncited original research that specifically related to the rendering of atomic orbitals. As WP:GALLERY (which you linked and is different from WP:NOTGALLERY) also notes, Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.
When we review articles, our main question is whether the draft would likely survive a deletion discussion if it became an article; I based my decline on the fact that the only deletion discussion of a gallery in the past 5 years had consensus to delete or move out of mainspace, and several earlier discussions that kept the article had arguments based on the fact that it helped link to many other articles, which is not the case here. I of course welcome any other reviewer to reevaluate the article, though my suggestions for increasing the chance of acceptance are to:
  1. Reformat the Wikipedia draft article to be more of a list or table format, so that you could note more information about each orbital with citations, although I am not sure if it's possible to have more info than what's already at Atomic orbital#Orbitals table.
  2. Create a gallery page on Wikimedia Commons (here), in a similar fashion to the gallery of graphs in graph theory, which is Wikipedia's sister site for hosting and showcasing images and media. As Bduke pointed out, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, not a teaching tool, so even though the image collection may be helpful it is better fit to other sites.
Happy editing! eviolite (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would a rename to Wavefunction solutions to the Schrodinger equation for the Hydrogen atom or something similar help? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:54:02, 22 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by User6483701


I rewrote the page and pressed resubmit. Literally one minute after the resubmission, it gets declined. That's a bit odd to me. I don't really understand what you are going on about that it "reads like an advertisement". Every company profile you have on Wikipedia reads the same.. Microsoft, Apple, BlackRock, Google, whoever.

Please be more descriptive in your rejection. What parts are reading like an advertisement? I merely described the company, what it is about, and provided relevant information regarding the management fund.

Is it that I linked to external sites? What is it exactly? What exactly are you rejecting here with your generic, un-attentive, robotic, unhelpful rejection and response.

User6483701 (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are ZERO company profiles on Wikipedia. We have articles on notable businesses. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Microsoft article is nothing like your draft. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a company. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User6483701: If you removed the press releases and the links to the companies' own sites (known as primary sources), there's not much left to demonstrate notability. I suggest you take a look at WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. And also WP:COI will help you avoid future frustration. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:17, 22 February 2022 review of submission by Chriswchen

I just submitted a draft and it was rejected for lack of references. There are not any public sources that I could find on-line. I referenced a Newsweek article of which I have a hard copy. Unfortunately, much of what the article is about took place decades ago, so references are hard to come by. Any suggestions? Chriswchen (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:The First Singles Church, USA @Chriswchen: Unfortunately, without proper sourcing, there's no way to determine if the Church is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. There may be ways to identify archives for the material you have in hard copy. You can cite print sources and put them in the reference section. Someone else will have access to scanned print archives and can verify them. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to do proper referencing. Of greater concern is that you may be writing about a family member. See WP:COI for how to address this. Lastly, the article seems to be as much about the founder as the Church. The focus will need to be tightened. See WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE for general content advice about writing an article. It's a hard process even for experienced editors. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

10:12:36, 23 February 2022 review of draft by 2404:C804:1905:7E00:8CFE:CAFA:8766:21AB


Looking at the draft Tailscale article and the big pink box guidance about subject needing coverage seems met so I am not sure what this isn't set as a real article rather than a draft.

" significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

There is several references in the draft and I note:

significant coverage - the references have Tailscale as the whole subject; so it is not a passing mentiion at all

published - web articles but established/openly accessible webpages - so I think this is ok?

reliable / secondary - the websites have been around for a while (eg include TechCrunch.com) and obviously secondary - they have business outside of Tailscale and only reporting on Tailscale as part of their wider remit.

The article should be meeting the criteria? 2404:C804:1905:7E00:8CFE:CAFA:8766:21AB (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe re-read the criteria. Crunchbase- useless profile, Hanselman- Blog useless, github- useless, ethulhu- blog of a developer so useless. That leaves TechCrunch which is written by a writer who covers startups. Quite simply, needs more independent secondary sourcing.Slywriter (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:25, 23 February 2022 review of submission by Mehediabedin

}}

I got a message in my account stating that my draft was rejected because it already exist. But I looked and I am sure that it is not exist in English Wikipedia. It states that Sutrapur Thana and Hrishikesh Das Road is same topic. But they are not. The first is a police station. Second topic is independent from Sutrapur Thana. There are many streets like Hrishikesh Das Road in Sutrapur area. So why telling me to write the topic on the page of Sutrapur Thana? It is not a street even! My draft has enough references. Most sources don't mention about Sutrapur, some are. The sources are independent and reliable too. You can check them. I just can't understand the reason behind the rejection.

Mehedi Abedin 10:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mehediabedin. The way to read the submission declined notice is not that the thana and the road are identical, but that it would be better to start by describing the road within the article about the thana. If the road is so significant that a stand alone encyclopedia article should be written about it (as you believe) then it is strange that there is no mention of the road in the article about the community where it is located, or in anywhere else on Wikipedia. Fifth Avenue, for example, comes up repeatedly in the article about New York City. Does that help you understand what the reviewer meant? There is much more to say about Fifth Avenue, over 10,000 words, than can reasonably fit in the article about the city. If, after describing Hrishikesh Das Road in Sutrapur Thana, you find that the same is true of the road, then you can discuss at Talk:Sutrapur Thana spinning out a separate article about the road. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce Thanks for reply. Yes the road is significant. But in Sutrapur Thana the road is not mentioned because the article (Sutrapur Thana) is incomplete. For example, you said that it is strange is Hrishikesh Road is not mentioned in the article. But did you notice that no street of Sutrapur is not mentioned in the article. Why? Because the article is incomplete. Also it is a historic road. That's why I think it should have a seperate article. Putting the texts of the road in Sutrapur thana then starting a discussion about the seperate article, is there any alternative way? Because you see that the Sutrapur Thana article will be nothing but about "only a road" if I put my writings in the article. That would be unreasonable. (Note : Also I think that we should not compare the draft with Fifth Avenue. It is a major road of New York, like Airport Road is a major road of Dhaka. And you see my draft is about a road of a neighbourhood of Dhaka.) Mehedi Abedin 18:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mehediabedin, It is OK to expand an article by adding a lot about a particular aspect. If it begins to overwhelm the nominal topic it can be split later into a stand-alone article. This happens all the time and is a natural development process for complicated topics. It is also far easier to establish notability for inclusion in a notable topic than to establish notability on its own. Worldbruce has given you good advice. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:04, 23 February 2022 review of draft by ReneRam63


I'm trying to create a page for an item in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Economy_and_Finance_(Italy)#Unlisted_companies for Consap S.p.A. that is missing in the English version of Wikipedia but is present in the Italian Wikipedia at the following address https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consap

If the article is refused, could it be possible to know what exactly is wrong. All the information is correct and also from third party sourcesReneRam63 (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC) ReneRam63[reply]

ReneRam63 (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ReneRam63, Your sources are all WP:PRIMARY and mostly citations of law. Please review WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY for a better understanding english wikipedia sourcing requirements. this guide may help as wellSlywriter (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:30:05, 23 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Klevack



Klevack (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:05, 23 February 2022 review of submission by Klevack


I have revised the submission for law firm Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP so it's completely accurate and backed up factually, and no advertising as you suggested. Please could this be published now. Thank you.

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Klevack#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:53, 23 February 2022 review of submission by Junuzsalihi99


I edited the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gazeta_e_pavarur. Please review and let me know if there is anything I need to revise. Thanks!

Junuzsalihi99 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:43, 23 February 2022 review of draft by Alwayslp


Alwayslp (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm writing because I had requested deletion of this draft as its author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paulie_Gee

I wrote a new draft, labeling it with the same name but with a 2 at the end, and I submitted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paulie_Gee_2

But it wasn't approved because the initial draft is still under review. Therefore, I requested deletion of the initial draft with the Db-g7 tag, but I'm not sure if I did so correctly? I don't know how long it takes to delete a draft? Thank you for your help.

Alwayslp (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alwayslp: Why would you request to delete an old draft then make a new version? Why not just fix the first one? I will request a history merge. I do caution you on requesting deletion of a draft and then start right into creating a draft on the exact same topic this is frowned upon and makes it look like you are trying to game the system for some reason. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the last decline I see now why you did this. The history merge will keep the most recent version and allow for it to be resubmitted. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help in this matter. I saw the notice that you've placed on top of the original version of the draft, requesting that its history be merged into the 2nd (and new) draft. Is there anything else that I need to do besides resubmit the 2nd (new) draft version? Do I need to wait for anything before doing so, or may I resubmit it now? Alwayslp (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alwayslp: I would wait until the merge is complete and then resubmit at that point. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - Will do. Appreciate your help.

Alwayslp (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:19, 23 February 2022 review of draft by Jerrythemannet

I am trying to make a page for my favorite band however my sources keep getting denied. I would love to know what I am doing wrong in my source selection or if there is anything else I need to fix.

Jerrythemannet (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

06:28:10, 24 February 2022 review of submission by Alphaed


Good day. You stopped the publication of article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ANCOR with a reason "Resubmitted without even attempting inprovement". Please note that the previous time this article did not pass moderation, as there was a duplicate of another draft. The duplicate was deleted, this article was resubmitted for moderation again (ofcause without improvements), but you rejected it because there are no changes. What's the best way me to do it?

Alphaed (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:03:31, 24 February 2022 review of submission by Damiron007


Please the proposed Wikipedia page "Serenity Health Training Institute" is a well established Health Institution situated in Southfield Michigan United State. For more details about the existence of the Institution. https://www.serenityhealthtraining.com. Kindly approve the page Serenity Health Training Institute. Thank you. Damiron007 (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damiron007 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for documenting the mere existence of a topic. An article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Your draft does not do that.
If you are associated with this organization, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:02, 24 February 2022 review of draft by Nicolas M W


Hello, my article about Lisl Schorr (my Great-aunt), was rejected because it does not "show significant coverage (...) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The problem is precisely that, because of her banishment from the art scene by the Nazis between 1935 and 1945 and her deportation to different camps, there are very little information about her work. I gathered the little data available by corresponding by email with various museum curators and archivists from Austria and elsewhere, and most of the reference I used are in the published books included in the reference section. So I don't understand the reason for this rejection. Thanks for helping! Nicolas

Nicolas M W (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:49, 24 February 2022 review of draft by Kuldhar Rabha


The references are given in the appropriate place and requested to review. Thanks. Kukdhar Rabha (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1073775932"