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
Rubiesar (talk | contribs)
288 edits
No edit summary
Line 378: Line 378:
[[User:Abdullah Ansar Abbas|Abdullah Ansar Abbas]] ([[User talk:Abdullah Ansar Abbas|talk]]) 11:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
[[User:Abdullah Ansar Abbas|Abdullah Ansar Abbas]] ([[User talk:Abdullah Ansar Abbas|talk]]) 11:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:{{u|Abdullah Ansar Abbas}} You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read [[WP:AUTO|the autobiography policy]]. Please also see the comments left by the reviewer. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:{{u|Abdullah Ansar Abbas}} You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read [[WP:AUTO|the autobiography policy]]. Please also see the comments left by the reviewer. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

== 13:27:05, 11 December 2022 review of submission by Rubiesar ==
{{Lafc|username=Rubiesar|ts=13:27:05, 11 December 2022|page= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam

}}
please kindly review and make this page live
[[User:Rubiesar|Rubiesar]] ([[User talk:Rubiesar|talk]]) 13:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:27, 11 December 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


December 5

01:34:58, 5 December 2022 review of submission by JCMLuis

My draft was declined and I've went over the page about notability in weather and read the subsection of tropical cyclones. I thought it would meet the criteria because it did cause a reasonably sized impact across the Caroline Islands. It led to a disaster declaration from the president of the Federated States of Micronesia that was later declared by Donald Trump and also caused 2 deaths. Does it have to do with not enough sources or the meteorological history not providing enough? luis. 💬 01:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JCMLuis: did you read the reviewer's comments? They are suggesting that this could/should remain part of the 2018 seasonal article, where it is already covered, and only be published as a standalone one if there is consensus for that, following a discussion on that article's talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I have read the comments, and I do not agree with them. Most storms and typhoons (also noting the ones in 2018) that caused deaths or massive damage have their own articles. (ignoring the obviously catastrophic typhoons) There are many storms that have also caused the same size of impact as Jelawat or even less and still get their own article. Right now there is no consensus for Jelawat in the season's talk page, but it felt obvious that it warrants an article. luis. 💬 13:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JCMLuis: when you say "Right now there is no consensus for Jelawat in the season's talk page", do you mean consensus cannot be reached, or this hasn't even been attempted yet? Wikipedia is not edited to a DEADLINE, so perhaps you need to give it more time and let the community decide whether a standalone article is warranted or not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: It has not been attempted yet. luis. 💬 14:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JCMLuis Well, now you know what needs to be done: start a discussion there with the goal of reaching consensus one way or the other. David10244 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:01, 5 December 2022 review of submission by Ahmadrezaeimtn24


Ahmadrezaeimtn24 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear support I added all these sources for Kourosh Torbat Zadeh , why did you reject my request?

thanks

Ahmadrezaeimtn24

@Ahmadrezaeimtn24: We don't accept promotional content regardless of how well-sourced it is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I removed the advertising content but the article was removed by mistake Ahmadrezaeimtn24 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear support, please help me to get my article back Ahmadrezaeimtn24 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmadrezaeimtn24 There is no "support", just us editors. Your content was promotional and will not be restored. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editor, what should I do now? How to edit the article and remove the ads? Ahmadrezaeimtn24 (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmadrezaeimtn24 There is nothing you can do other than find another topic to edit about. You may want to use the new user tutorial to learn what it is we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:09:54, 5 December 2022 review of submission by Lasvegascoder

I need some help with this page so I can get it approved and published. Lasvegascoder (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lasvegascoder: please review the decline reasons and the comments left by the reviewer, and address them before resubmitting. If you still need help after that, you need to be more specific than "need some help"; please ask direct questions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:29, 5 December 2022 review of submission by Mirkhilahmad


Mirkhilahmad (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mirkhilahmad You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

09:04:30, 6 December 2022 review of submission by 62.159.14.27

In November 2021, one of my colleagues has created this draft page, and later submitted it to articles for creation. As it lacked reliable sources, it has been declined in March 2022; again in September 2022, the draft has been declined again, because it reads like an advertisement.

Do you see any chance to improve the article to make it acceptable? If it is too far away from Wikipedia standards, I would rather have it deleted. Is a third submission to articles for creation possible at all?

Please be aware that I work for Beckhoff Automation, trying to disclosure my conflict of interest as best as I can. Thanks for your help. 62.159.14.27 (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can submit a third time, in fact you can continue to resubmit as long as the draft hasn't been rejected. That's the theory, at least. In practice, given the COI/paid editing, if the draft isn't substantively improved, and remains poorly sourced and/or promotional, it will not get too many more chances before rejection.
The only way to get this accepted is to forget what you and your colleagues want to say about your employer, or what your boss tells you to write, and merely summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have, in significant detail and extent and of their own volition (ie. excluding sponsored content, press releases, routine business reporting, interviews, and churnalism of various types), said about the business. If you cannot find such sources, then you cannot by definition establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT, and you cannot therefore have an article published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:17, 6 December 2022 review of submission by Tehrir


Tehrir (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


dear admin, please guide me in publishing the article on Wikipedia in respect of A S Kabir.

@tehrir, your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:00, 6 December 2022 review of submission by 39.50.94.156


39.50.94.156 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The draft is a promotional piece for a young man who does not seem to meet the definition of a notable politician. Generally, a person must hold public office, or have won election to public office, to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“writer and successful entrepreneur, with tons of potential and possibilities.” is sourced to your own website, Twitter and Amazon which all confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:39:16, 6 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Visokor


I wish to request some help on making this page on what is very much an obscure Hanna-Barbera production, but I think there's very few sources for it to find and the one that I did try, from Discogs, was deemed not reliable.

Visokor (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Visokor: if there aren't sufficient sources, then you cannot by definition have an article. Per WP:GNG, we only summarise what other, reliable and independent sources have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Visokor: If there's very few sources for it to find odds are it isn't notable as Wikipedia defines the term. Alternatively, it may be you're looking in the wrong places - I would imagine the bulk of sources on a 1989 DtVHS production would be in print media, and not online. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:51:47, 6 December 2022 review of submission by 194.39.218.22


194.39.218.22 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

08:48:17, 7 December 2022 review of draft by Ggsilverscreeneditor


I'm unsure if I successfully submitted my draft. Does everything look correct?

Ggsilverscreeneditor (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ggsilverscreeneditor: yeah, the draft is submitted. one comment: imdb is not reliable, see WP:IMDB. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is WorldCat reliable? Ggsilverscreeneditor (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ggsilverscreeneditor: do you want to cite a book? use {{cite book}}. lettherebedarklight晚安 09:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ggsilverscreeneditor WorldCat is just a database, a library catalogue if you like; it merely provides bibliographical information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:49:22, 7 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Balchanamakowcbombe



Balchanamakowcbombe (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Balchanamakowcbombe: you don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected. As I mentioned already, Wikipedia is not social media, so please don't use it as such. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:00:23, 7 December 2022 review of submission by Balchanamakowcbombe


Balchanamakowcbombe (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

so how can i use it
You can't, if all you are doing is promoting yourself. Theroadislong (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:33, 7 December 2022 review of draft by Hamzamkf


Hi there,

Please can someone help me to disambiguate the word of Reggio and fix this article to be published, many thanks!

Best,

Hamzamkf (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamzamkf: you needn't worry about the disambiguation yet, that's only relevant if/when the draft is accepted. For now, your main concern should be establishing notability, which on a quick glance seems borderline at best.
Also, you need to cite your sources inline, so that it's clear which source supports what information, and how much of the content remains unsupported. Piling all your cites at the end like that will be an immediate cause for declining. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Thank you so much for your quick reply very appreciated, I did my best to resolve all you mentioned but as a beginner its a bit difficult so please if there someone who can help me to fix that I'll be grateful.
Thanks, Hamzamkf (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:39, 7 December 2022 review of draft by Waimea92


Hi, I have a couple of questions. In terms of reliable sources, are newspaper sites the only acceptable sources? With reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karthik_(singer), I see that many other references, even facebook link, are accepted as references. Please clarify.

Also, how do I add background information to the article? Thanks.

Waimea92 (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Waimea92: no, newspapers aren't the only reliable sources, nor are all newspapers reliable. And the same goes for pretty much any type of source you care to mention: books, TV programmes, magazines, etc. - some are reliable, some aren't. Some are reliable for certain types of information, but not for other types. Some used to be reliable but have since relaxed their journalistic standards, or vice versa. You can read more about the concept of reliable sources at WP:RS, and see a list of sources that have been deemed reliable or not at WP:RSP. User-generated content such as social media cannot be relied upon, as anyone can post pretty much anything they want.
As for your other question, what do you mean by 'background information'? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing. I was referring to photo, birth date, and other personal information shows up in the right side of the article. Waimea92 (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Waimea92: you probably mean the infobox, see Template:Infobox person. Be careful, though, if you add personal information such as DOB, this must be clearly supported by reliable published sources, otherwise it actually makes your draft less likely to be accepted. Similarly, the photo must have a suitable licence, so you don't violate anyone's copyright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:06:20, 7 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by RRSHOPPEE



RRSHOPPEE (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @RRSHOPPEE? This draft is not viable, as there is barely any content, and no references. Please see WP:YFA for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:52:58, 7 December 2022 review of submission by Carrieruggieri


Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Hi[reply]

Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy

The AEDP article that was on the main page is not taken down and can be found here: AEDP draft is in Carrieruggieri/accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy ==

Please help me improve the AEDP article. It was deleted from the main space and put into the above user account. The issues that need attention are: weasel words: non-committal statements not backed up by reference; essay style, not encyclopedic style: too much explanation, not enough summary. Apparently, the map of change process appears to be a 'how to'. The style also appears to be promotional. The content however, is thorough and well documented by non-primary sources. A editor does not need to know the content area in order to fix the problems or make suggestions to me. Thank you to anyone willing to help make this a good article for wikipedia. @WikiprojectPsychology Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology23:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@carrieruggieri: what? accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy was redirected to Diana Fosha after the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. none of this is related to drafts. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I the articles for deletion discussion was from 2017. That article was "blown up" and completely redone. This aedp article under consideration was published in 2020 and in Nov. 2022 it was moved to Diana Fosha. Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrieruggieri Sorry that you don't understand, but what you say is correct: as a result of the discussion that lettherebedarklight linked above, from Nov. 2022, the article title was turned into a redirect to the Diana Fosha article. The linked discussion might help if you haven't read it yet. David10244 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find that discussion. the discussion lettherebedarklight is from 2017. I can'd find the 2022 discussiion Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was re-directed in 2017 and then it was re-written and republished in 2020. the conversation is regarding the 2017 version, not the 2020 version. But maybe its the same issues. Nevertheless, I am working on it and have requested help or take-over from wiki psych. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had my dates wrong. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

14:28:35, 8 December 2022 review of draft by ARKGJL


I am just wondering when you will be able to review this page. We are due to make a significant news announcement over the next month and are expecting a significant increase in searches for the company on Wikipedia so we're keen to ensure the information listed is clear. At present there is a lot of confusion between the company name (Academy of Robotics) and the name of one of our main products, Kar-go, and we would like to rectify this.

ARKGJL (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARKGJL I must be frank- for which I apologize- but Wikipedia is not concerned with search results for your organization. We are also not concerned with any deadlines you are under. As noted on the draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,270 pending submissions waiting for review." There isn't a queue; volunteers pick drafts to review out of a category. There is no way to ensure a speedy review. Additionally, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize independent reliable sources, showing how it is a notable organization as defined by Wikipedia, not merely to document the existence of the company.
Furthermore, I see that you declared a conflict of interest, but you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARKGJL: What 331dot said. And, to help you on your way, you get a Bastard helper from Hell critique. Note that I will be assessing both for Academy of Robotics and for Kar-go - notability for either is determined for that entity only.
My recommendation is that you split this into two separate articles - one for AoR and one for Kar-go - and to have a more realistic grasp of the timescale Wikipedia works on. We don't exist to do your PR for you; we want the article to be well-written and well-sourced and that's just not something we can do under strict external deadlines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing these sources. I completely agree with your recommendation to split this into two separate articles and this is what I was hoping to do. There is an existing article on Wikipedia on Kar-go which I would like to update by removing most of the content about the Parent Company, Academy of Robotics, and simply link to the Academy of Robotics article. However, this will only make sense if there is an Academy of Robotics article to link to.
Regarding timescales, I apologise if I seemed to be putting pressure on the Wikipedia team. That wasn't my intention. I appreciate that you do an incredible job and it takes a long time to review articles properly. I merely wanted to give context to my request, but I had submitted the article for review in September so I was just checking to see if there was an update as the message suggested it takes 3 months or more. Apologies for any misunderstanding.
Regarding your feedback on this article
Please let me know if there is any further information I can help with and thanks once again for your time. ARKGJL (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARKGJL: I detest sources that hide most of their content behind Javascript. I'll revise my statement on Verdict to "useless for notability for AoR (too sparse) and good for Kar-go". In re the CNN text, that is indeed the problem; the article doesn't credit Grez at all for the text anywhere that I can see (header, footer, etc.). Since the text is otherwise just as useful as the video with respect to AoR and Kar-go otherwise (The reason why I said it wasn't a transcript is for context; sometimes these pages are a video with the text transcript for deaf/blind users underneath) and you'd likely be citing that source anyway for Kar-go, I don't see this as too problematic overall. If need be, you would use {{cite news}} and add the journalist's name that way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 14:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this feedback - very helpful and much appreciated. Should I revise the sources or the article or should I leave this to the editors' discretion? Apologies, for the novice question, but any advice on how I can support the next stage of review, would be very helpful! ARKGJL (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARKGJL: I would get rid of the useless sources as described above - the longer the bad sources remain, the longer the draft is going to stay a draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 15:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:40, 8 December 2022 review of draft by Presto222


After editing my draft, I try to publish changes but nothing shows, rather it continues to display the mistakes and correction I need to make. Kindly help out.

Presto222 (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Presto222: Enable Javascript for wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org in your browser/addon settings. You're getting a CAPTCHA that is being interdicted because Javascript is disabled/blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:44:50, 8 December 2022 review of submission by Klee Bakudan


Klee Bakudan (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Hoax-y draft, rejected, and now speedied.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:54:05, 8 December 2022 review of submission by BMA-Nation2020


Sources say the film is in post-production. It should be fine for now. Can't it not be a draft right now and be as a page with some good sources? It has enough already. Not to mention it's coming in 2023 now.

BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BMA-Nation2020 Films are generally not notable until they are released, as you have already been told. Unless there is something very unusual about the production of the film itself(see Rust (upcoming film), where someone was killed in an accidental shooting), it won't merit an article until then. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or if a trailer comes out. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BMA-Nation2020 The notability guidelines definintely do not say that. Releasing a trailer is a standard activity and not unusual. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

11:48:58, 9 December 2022 review of submission by Lyla shaanvi

Dear Bonadea, Hi, this is Lyla shaanvi. I am here to state that Aditya Ram and Adityaram is the same person who is a popular Telugu Film producer. The same person's profile updated in Google and other sources in two different names, out of which someone deleted Wikipedia page that falls under the name tag of “Aditya Ram”. After the deletion of Wikipedia page (Aditya Ram), another one (Adityaram) was in public use for more than eight months. Now that page is also disabled, I wish to tell you that, I just inspired and analyzed some aspects of him, and I have used google, news, articles to refer to the person to write this content uniquely. No duplication, promotional, or violent content takes place in the article, and the content is completely related to the business person Adityaram. I just referred to different kinds of articles, blogs, and other sources to know about him to write the article as per your guidelines. However, the reference sources and the links added to the page are also related to Adityaram, which are unique and placed as per your guidelines. Hence, I have tried a lot of times to update the Wikipedia page in the name of Adityaram with a different unique set of content, links, and unique reference sources, but the page is continuously rejected/declined. To overcome that issue, I humbly request that May I know the reason for the rejection of the page, or else please guide me to update or recover the page or support me in recovering the page with your guidelines… I need your help to get that page back for proper usage. Can that page be used again in the name of Adityaram? Kindly guide me… Thanks.


Lyla shaanvi (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyla shaanvi If you want to communicate with Bonadea, please do so directly on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lyla shaanvi: No, there can not be an article about Aditya Ram / Adityaram. Please do not create any more drafts or articles about him. --bonadea contributions talk 12:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(here is why) --bonadea contributions talk 13:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:58, 9 December 2022 review of draft by PLBounds


I submitted the page on the IT'IS Foundation for review in September and have been occasionally tweaking the text while waiting for review. I have been using wikilinks wherever possible, but I am confused about how to link text to online pages external to wikipedia. What is best practice? Full disclosure: I am employed by the IT'IS Foundation. I submitted the draft to my employer and a co-worker for their input before submitting to wikipedia for review. I am aware of wikipedia's policies regarding self-promotion and have tried to write accordingly, sticking only to the facts -- the text tweaks have been mainly to tone down language that might have been perceived thus. I am currently drafting other articles about sister organizations and would like to get the linking procedure right.


PLBounds (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is just blatant advertising and stuffed with inappropriate spam external links. We don't use any external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. This is my first article, and I was confused about how to include external links. I disagree with the "blatant advertising" label. I will edit to remove all external links and resubmit. PLBounds (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that the article appears to be based on what you know, rather than on what independent sources have reported. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something, Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PLBounds: the best practice is not to include inline external links in body text; these should only be listed in the appendices, especially in the 'External links' section. Please remove all the inline external links you have included. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. This is my first article, and I was confused about how to include external links intended as support for the cited text. I will edit to remove all external links and resubmit. PLBounds (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way (IMO) to structure citations correctly is to use the RefToolbar and the cite templates. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:18:58, 9 December 2022 review of draft by EinavShoshan


Could you please clarify what are the required changes in order that the page will be accepted? it keeps getting rejected and I don't understand why. I have addressed all the required citations. EinavShoshan (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EinavShoshan: A lot of the article's claims are still unsourced. This is not acceptable. For articles like this we cannot just accept a reference at the end of a paragraph which makes 20 separate claims; you need to have a source at each and every claim. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 15:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EinavShoshan: this draft has a number of issues, but the most striking one, and the reason why it has been declined (not 'rejected') is that far too much of the content is unsupported by referencing. Especially in articles on living people (WP:BLP), you need to ensure that anything potentially contentious, as well as anything of private nature, is clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:37, 9 December 2022 review of submission by Dapig2242


He is a great actor and well respected YouTuber, and he is also a good person.

Dapig2242 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dapig2242: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:57, 9 December 2022 review of draft by 49.237.6.25


49.237.6.25 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? The draft hasn't been submitted, in case you're wondering. (You need to click on that blue 'submit' button.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:58:53, 9 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Orincore



Orincore (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Orincore: having submitted that draft, you still want to ask a question? Alright, go on then. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would kinda like to see that draft. Not that it would be appropriate for Wikipedia, but I'm sure it's entertaining. David10244 (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

00:44:39, 10 December 2022 review of draft by HumbleSolipsist1


Hi! My draft, Draft:Attack of the 50 Foot CamGirl, was declined on account of the sources not demonstrating sufficient coverage. This is not entirely unreasonable, but I'm still confused about what *does* constitute sufficient coverage. I guess my confusion really exists on 2 fronts:

1. I'm unclear if the underlying issue with my draft is more that my sources are lacking in quantity, or more that they are lacking in quality (ie they are not reliable, do not explore the film in sufficient depth, or are not sufficiently impartial). If it is the former issue, I can address that. More sources exist, but I don't think they're any more reliable or deeper than what I've already added.

2. The notability requirements I've read about on Wikipedia:Notability seem much steeper than many current articles adhere to. When using Special:Random, it seems like around 1/3 of the articles I arrive at only have one or two sources, and they are often sources which do not go into great depth on the topic, or are not reputable publications. Is it more the case that the requirements are exaggerated on Wikipedia:Notability, or more the case that there are a lot of articles that lack notability and aught to either be improved or removed?

HumbleSolipsist1 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HumbleSolipsist1,
  1. TBH, I don't know what the reviewers had in mind, you may need to ask them directly. From my point of view, I'd say the quantity is there, as the first four sources all provide significant enough coverage, and four should be enough to establish notability. I'd maybe question the quality of the sources themselves (rather than of their coverage of this film), as they seem like they might have somewhat lower journalistic standards than what we normally expect. Would be nice to see at least one or two solid, mainstream sources amongst them.
  2. This is an easy one: there are indeed large numbers of articles out there which fail one or more of our publishing standards, and need to be either improved or deleted. There are many reasons for this: either they were published before the current standards were implemented; or they were published by editors who have the right to publish directly without going through an approval process; or they were of a higher standard when first published but have since deteriorated for whatever reason. In any case, we certainly don't want to create more such problem cases, and therefore nowadays apply the notability etc. rules rigorously wherever possible. So no, the notability guidelines are not 'exaggerated', they really are what we work to.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:50, 10 December 2022 review of submission by Eddie Ruzzi

I have included references but I'm still being rejected and I don't know why. I've done everything that was requested.

Sincerely, Eddie Eddie Ruzzi (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Ruzzi You haven't. You have been declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean resubmission is not possible. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Any Wikipedia article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:26:16, 10 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by TheRealFashun


The Sara Rivers article is valid and yet the person reviewing is denying Wikipedia credible. Yet the individual can easily be searched under the previous performance name Sara Stokes and is also referenced with the name change as Sara Rivers. TheRealFashun (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRealFashun: I don't know what "the article is valid" means, but this draft was declined for a reason, namely lack of evident notability. Therefore, if you wish to see this published, your task is to address that reason. And also, to declare any conflict of interest you may have in the subject. Now, did you have an actual question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

02:14:29, 11 December 2022 review of submission by Iranrevolution401

My submission was declined because the editor thinks it is a news about a single event and may not be noticeable on Wikipedia. I understand the editors point, but I would like to mention that the purpose is solely to inform officials outside Iran, including UNICEF about what is happening right now in Iran and wikipedia is the best platform to do that. Please re-consider my submission or at least provide me with some hints to make it publishable. Thanks! Iranrevolution401 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iranrevolution401: as I mentioned in the decline comment, this subject (IMO; happy to hear other views) fails WP:BLP1E. In any case, Wikipedia is not an appropriate channel for informing "officials outside Iran what is happening right now in Iran". Which isn't a comment on your cause; only that you need to find a different platform for disseminating such information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:26, 11 December 2022 review of submission by Raash world


Raash world (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Raash world? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:59:49, 11 December 2022 review of submission by Raash world


Raash world (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't submit duplicate questions. echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially without actually asking a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Raash world: No sources, no article, no debate. The constant screaming in the draft is also inappropriate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 12:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:31:53, 11 December 2022 review of submission by Abdullah Ansar Abbas


Abdullah Ansar Abbas (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Ansar Abbas You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Please also see the comments left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:27:05, 11 December 2022 review of submission by Rubiesar

please kindly review and make this page live Rubiesar (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1126835051"