Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 316: Line 316:


[[User:Patience Diez|Patience Diez]] ([[User talk:Patience Diez|talk]]) 13:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
[[User:Patience Diez|Patience Diez]] ([[User talk:Patience Diez|talk]]) 13:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

== 14:25:03, 24 January 2023 review of submission by Pluke ==
{{Lafc|username=Pluke|ts=14:25:03, 24 January 2023|declined=Draft:AliceVision}}
Hi,

I'm writing to request that Alicevision undergoes another review. I believe it now meets the criteria to be accepted onto wikipedia and the recent review lacks rationale.

The latest review of this page led to a claim that "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", with no reasoning for this given. This contrasts with months of editing and review that gave constructive feedback, with previous reviewers being positive about the page, i.e. [[User talk:BMaujean#Your submission at Articles for creation: AliceVision Meshroom (June 14)|here]]

> That is looking good. I will be leaving it to someone else to approve it as I have been involved in editing it but it should be looked at shortly. [[User:Gusfriend|Gusfriend]]

Feedback has been acted upon and the reasoning behind choices of literature to support the page [[Draft:AliceVision|made clear]].

I have been trying to communicate with @Tagishsimon, who came to final decision, for nearly two weeks now, but have had no response to my posts on their [[User talk:Tagishsimon#Rejection of Alicevision|talk page]], or my direct email, even though they appear to be [[Special:Contributions/Tagishsimon|actively editing wikipedia]] they haven't been able to respond to my requests.

I'm willing to take on further feedback if there is any, but also strongly think that this page should be promoted, for the reasoning in the links above.

[[User:Pluke|Pluke]] ([[User talk:Pluke|talk]]) 14:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:25, 24 January 2023

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


January 18

00:46:03, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Curtmarsalis


Kandiid is a valid social networking app that has credible and growing organic references. Kandiid just placed silver at the Academy of International and Digital Arts (AIVA) out of 2,302 entries. In addition, Kandiid has been featured in Forbes, Yahoo, and Market Watch. As noted, International Superstar Soulja Boy is minority holder and has announced it publicly. The App is on the Apple and Google Play store and available for download. Kandiid main competitors Fanbase, Instagram and Clubhouse refer to Kandiid frequently. The Founder Antoine McLaughlin has Miami Dolphins safety Justin Behtel and New York Jets players as investors. The app is valid and significant in today's society. Curtmarsalis (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:07:43, 18 January 2023 review of draft by Dimpizzy


I see that the reason for Draft:Miraheze being declined was "Needs secondary sources independent of the subject". I was hoping you could clarify why the secondary sources provided are not adequate. References 6, 8, 10, 14, and 15 are the main secondary sources provided for the article. Dimpizzy (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:19:04, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Vibhu51


Vibhu51 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:31:55, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Kaunitzj

03:31:55, 18 January 2023 review of draft by Kaunitzj


John Kaunitz (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]



03:49:00, 18 January 2023 review of draft by Mazenmira


Hi,

Thanks for reading my email. I was developing the content of an article on Wikipedia for my business by the name of The Arab Collector, Unfortunately, it has got rejected for three-time consecutive submissions. Since one of the rejection reasons is to support the article with reliable sources (which I completely understand should be verified).

However, I wanted to bring your attention to that considering it is servicing a limited demography (Arab World), and the scope of the business is very niche (Coin and Stamp collecting).

Thus, it leaves me with limited source options simply because they are not available, and I'm struggling to find better sources from what I have listed. Kindly advise if you can assist in finding better sources or better strategies for my article to aid with the publication.

I look forward to your feedback

Mazenmira (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:52:17, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Kaunitzj

==


FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}}

John Kaunitz (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Hi The Chunky. You recently rejected my draft on Adaptive Noise Cancelling. Thank you for your time in reviewing Wikipedia contributions. I did my best to provide in-line citations and additional references as requested but in light of your references to reliable sources and notability as your reason for rejection, may I further note the following after reviewing Wikipedia policies and guidelines: 1. The 1975 IEEE paper by Widrow et al. which is one of my main sources is the almost universally cited reference in this topic as evidenced by the number of citations (2875) and patents (382) which reference this paper https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1451965 2. Another source is the PhD dissertation which led the work in this field. Dissertations are accepted as reliable source according to Wikipedia policy provided certain conditions are met which this dissertation does. It has been reviewed and endorsed by 3 distinguished Stanford professors and is subject to the basic criterion of Stanford PhD dissertations that it represent an original contribution to scholarship or scientific knowledge. https://gap.stanford.edu/handbooks/gap-handbook/chapter-4/subchapter-8/page-4-8-1 The dissertation was published as a book (a Stanford Electronics Lab report) by Stanford University . https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Adaptive_Filtering_of_Broadband_Signals.html?id=q-oiYAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y 3. I added further examples of applications that indicate the wide relevance of this topic and its notability. 4. The topic is also of public interest as Adaptive Noise Cancelling is used in some noise cancelling headphones. There are numerous questions on the web from the public, which are currently inadequately answered by suppliers of these headphones. I thought the lack of a Wikipedia entry on Adaptive Noise Cancelling was worth attention and an entry would be a valuable addition. The draft is based entirely on reliable sources. If there is a suggestion that all part of an article must be supported by multiple reliable sources, I could not find this as an essential requirement in Wikipedia policy. This requirement would not make sense as multiple sources may not exist. If there is only one source then either it is reliable, in which case it should be sufficient, or it is not. I hope that the changes I made to the draft and the above will alleviate any concern regarding notability and reliable sources as there is not much more that I can do.[reply]

04:12:24, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Rocksonbruce

Editing source with registry Rocksonbruce (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This submission is the antithesis of a viable article and has rightfully been rejected. --Kinu t/c 01:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:46:54, 18 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Tarulliah


I need help finding reliable citations on this. There aren't many to begin with. ~Tallulah (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tallulah: welcome to Wikipedia! I get a bit confused when I look at your draft, because I can't quite tell what the topic is. Part of the problem is the fact that it is written like a personal essay, in the first person, with a lot of evaluative language and exclamations, but you also seem to be writing about several different things, and you have got some of the facts a bit wrong. Sognefjord is a fjord, not a locality, to begin with, and if you are writing a draft about the history of Norwegian cheeses, why only talk about that particular area? "Undredalsost" is not a word used about cheeses in general – it's (apparently) a brand name for cheese produced by a particular cheese maker in Undredal, and it looks like you created the draft by essentially copying their own description of their cheeses, rephrasing it minimally. (I see now that that's where the odd claim that Sognefjord was only accessible by boat until the 1980s comes from. The source says that Undredal was only accessible by boat until -82.) Unfortunately, this means that the draft is a copyright violation and will need to be deleted for that reason.
If you want to create an article about Norwegian cheeses, start by looking at Norwegian cuisine#Cheese, List of Norwegian cheeses, and the various articles about different cheeses (Brunost, Gamalost, Jarlsberg cheese, etc) and see if you have sourced information you could add to either of those articles, or if you think there is scope for a separate article about Norwegian cheeses in general. For sources, I'd normally suggest that you check the Norwegian-language Wikipedias (no.wikipedia.org and nn.wikipedia.org) to see which sources they use, but neither of them has a similar article. But regardless of how you go about it, it is crucial that you do not copy text from a source, but that you write your own text, with information that is verified in the source. Best, --bonadea contributions talk 15:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:05:24, 18 January 2023 review of draft by Brachy0008


I need help as I can’t find any good sources about the station. Can you suggest some sites where I can find reliable and secondary sources for the information? Thank you.

Brachy0008 (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about specific sites, but are there any news reports that discuss the opening of the station or the line it's on? Transit stations are an interesting case because I believe the main purpose in giving them separate articles from the line they are on is for organization purposes and less so for individual notability(so that the article about the entire line or transit system isn't too long). 331dot (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brachy0008 As a note, references do *not* need to be in English. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but some of the stations that are on lines that connect to this one have a single (appropriate) reference in Chinese. If you know Chinese, feel free to add those. Keep me up to date on this, I'm probably a little more open on the subject of these sorts of stations.Naraht (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the article title is mispelled, but oddly that's pretty minor, it can easily be taken care of as part of publishing to mainspace.Naraht (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:33, 18 January 2023 review of draft by Bulwark Alpha


Hi!

My article about WR: Frontiers is getting declined for the second time and I don't really understand why. I got all the citations to back up the facts in the article. The sources are the news articles from various gaming sites so it's obvious that they will sometimes sound like a press release (because that's where journalists get the info). But in my article there's no personal opinions or any other questionable info, just facts: there is a game; it was announced on a certain date; it's now in Closed Beta, etc.). All this proves that the game indeed exists. What else can I add? There are reviews from youtubers and Steam users. Are they considered trusted sources of information?

Thanks for your time!

Bulwark Alpha (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulwark Alpha Three of the sources you offer are just announcements of the development of the game. The fourth is kind of a review and might be okay, if there were a couple more reviews of the gameplay that may help. Wikipedia is not just for summarizing facts- it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:15, 18 January 2023 review of submission by 114.75.148.198

I had fixed and added new info in the draft and was all like "Yeah, Let's request a re-review after being Rejected two months ago." 114.75.148.198 (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the first step in attempting to get a rejected draft reviewed again is to first ask the rejecting reviewer directly to reconsider with the new information. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:21, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Vmsportsbranding


Vmsportsbranding (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:45, 18 January 2023 review of submission by Arthurblack.social


Arthurblack.social (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Moyle is an icon to many around the world and I think that such an immediate denial is unjust. I would much appreciate a re-read, I put much research into this and I would love for the world to see my work. This could be the start of a career of Wikipedia editing for me, and it crushes my heart to see it rejected.

Arthurblack.social Your draft was rejected because it has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage whatsoever. Twitter is a primary source and YouTube is generally not a reliable source unless it is from a reputable news organization or similar from their verified channel. A Wikipedia article is not for merely telling about the topic- with regards to a person, an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and diving right in without experience and knowledge often leads to frustration and anger as things happen to your work that you don't understand. Please use the new user tutorial and read Your First Article. It's also a good idea to gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for things here. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

00:12:25, 19 January 2023 review of submission by JohN2839


JohN2839 (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JohN2839 You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:50:08, 19 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Vk8435820



Vk8435820 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:37, 19 January 2023 review of submission by 84.6.190.36

I recently submitted an article on British philosopher Peter Crithcley. In my opinion (I'm a professor of philosophy and literature at California State University) and in the opinion of thousands of his readers, he is the best living philosopher in the world. He has published over 80 books and is read by half a million readers on Academia and Humanities Commons, where he constantly shows as being in the 0.01% top writers. He also shows quoted by thousands of books and articles by scholars around the world. Critchley only publishes in free access. The reason is that he is autistic. He is not able to follow protocol in order to submit his manuscripts for publication at academic presses. He believes in free access (such as Wikipedia!) His work is sheer genius. He does have an article in Monthly Review, a renown journal, which proves that he can also be published in respectable peer-review journals, as well as a contract with a publisher in Italy, Fralerighe, for his work on Dante (I'm a reviewer for this work). Since Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia, I was wondering if you could make an exception to the rule of citations and include the entry I submitted, which contains links to his free-access websites and the full text to his numerous works, as sufficiently reliable sources for citations. You can see for yourself the superior quality of his publications. Thank you for your time. I would be very glad to see Critchley receive a well-deserved mention in Wikipedia. 84.6.190.36 (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. The relevant notability guudeline is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). When you write he is the best living philosopher in the world, that is an extraordinary claim and so you should be able to provide extraordinary evidence in the form of references to reliable sources where notable philosophers say that. We cannot take your word for it. You need to provide evidence of that in your draft. His own works are not evidence of notability, and no experienced Wikipedia would ever set out to evaluate the superior quality of his publications. We are summarizers, not evaluators. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:48:06, 19 January 2023 review of submission by Mallikarjunaswamy.m

Dear Reviewer, Request you to please help me in submitting this article successfully as this is my first article for submission in Wikipedia. I Affirm and assure that I am no where related to the person to whom this article wrote about and I am writing this article from the neutral platform perspective only. I really appreciate your help and kind advise in getting this article be submitted successfully in Wikipedia. I am ready to do further edits to improve this article to meet Wikipedia's compliance. Please feel free to let me know your advise and guidance for me to submit this article. Thank you so much. Mallikarjunaswamy.m (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mallikarjunaswamy.m The draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mallikarjunaswamy.m As 331dot says, the draft was rejected because the subject is not notable. I believe your statement that you are not related to the person the article is about. That doesn't really matter if the person is not notable. David10244 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:03, 19 January 2023 review of submission by AkashLakhotia


AkashLakhotia (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is blatant self-promotion and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a social media site. --Kinu t/c 02:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:19:10, 19 January 2023 review of submission by 166.62.150.101

My draft was rejected, with the reviewer leaving the following comment: 'Please elaborate on the Critical reception for the album and also indicate any charting and awards'. However, the album has not charted, nor is there any record of it being nominated for, or receiving any, awards. What can I add in order for my draft to be accepted? Would it be sufficient to add a Critical Reception section describing what music critics said in their reviews? I've already included a Professional Ratings section. Thank you. 166.62.150.101 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some albums are simply not notable. Wikipedia does not need an article on every album ever issued. Wikipedia is not trying to collect every fact in the world, just the things that have had significant coverage in published sources. David10244 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

01:47:22, 20 January 2023 review of submission by 98.97.34.148

You did not look into the draft. 98.97.34.148 (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsourced track listing for a clearly non-notable album, and it has been rightfully rejected. --Kinu t/c 02:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:56:09, 20 January 2023 review of draft by 86.185.82.189


86.185.82.189 (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

I attached the wrong link to one of my references and my page for James Begbie was rejected due to a lack of credible sources. I have since altered the citations for your review.

The editor that rejected the page confirms in his bio that he looks for 3 credible sources and I believe this page now contains them:

Reference 1: Is taken directly from the archives of the Uruguayan Football Association and is published on their website - this proves that Begbie played and scored in the match on 17/04/1974. This could be verified by the Uruguayan FA in Montevideo.

Reference 2: Is taken from the Scottish Junior FA website and proves that James Begbie played in the match 1971-1972 final at Hampden Park, Glasgow, in front of 14,000 fans.

Reference 3: Is a story taken from the The South China Morning Post and there is a picture further down in the article that shows and labels James (Jim) Begbie with the Hong Kong FA Cup in 1975. This proves that Begbie won the domestic cup in Hong Kong and the reporter from the South China Morning Post (Nazvi Careem) can verify this.

Please let me know if this sufficient or if further work is required.

14:11:49, 20 January 2023 review of draft by TigerBeats


Hello. I don't understand why this article has been rejected after such a long wait. I added sources to six books, which is rather a lot more than your average article, and I have references to multiple well established newspapers and periodicals in the entertainment space. Of these, most are in-depth, all are reliable, all are independent of the subject, and all are secondary unless Wikipedia has invented a new definition of the term. There are links to two primary texts -- actual artistic works, which is not forbidden, as far as I know. Aside from an IMDb link and Mubis link, there are just two links to blog posts by well-known genre bloggers. Is that why this has been rejected? Can I delete those, wait another three months, and... see results?

TigerBeats (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that resubmission is not possible. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. You have done well to document appearances of the character; however, there is little coverage as to why the character is important or significant according to independent sources. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:48:06, 20 January 2023 review of draft by Mhijazi

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi admin, I have worked on my draft again. Please check if it's acceptable now.Mhijazi (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mhijazi (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:37, 20 January 2023 review of draft by TonyTheTiger


I was not aware that a submission decision was pending when it was evaluated. I had not actively submitted the article. That being said, I thought the article already had sufficient sources to document WP:N. Many of the articles that are focussed on my sister as a subject have been deemed as not sufficiently independent of the source. I had been given the indication that other editors supported its notability at WP:COI. I don't think much else is out there right now. If this is WP:TOOSOON, I'll check back later, but I had thought I should continue refining it before I even attempted to submit it. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

02:01:26, 21 January 2023 review of submission by SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES

I am completely confused by your notes. You are saying that the draft reads like an Advertisement, not an Encyclopedia but to me it is the exact opposite. There is only factual substance and no "fluff". It is also completely neutral just facts. All the sources were independent, published reliable and in depth. A holding company purchasing subsidiaries are not routine business announcements. It shows the companies business structure and what they do. The article also lists the key people, its address, and Nasdaq information. I'm just at a loss. SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES, your sources are press releases. Not a single source is independently written. Press releases do not establish notability. Routine business transactions such as acquisitions, also do not contribute to establishing notability. That may all be factual information, but Wikipedia is not a business directory. WP:NCORP lays out Wikipedia's definition of notability for Corporations and will be of help as to sourcing. As to advertising, it's not a blatant we sell this, buy here (which would be ground for deletion, rather than a declination). What I meant there is that it's using the companies words and claims via Press releases which are promotional material. Slywriter (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources ,2 ,4 ,5 ,9 ,10 ,11 ,12 ,13 Are not press releases from the company and they are independent. Some additional information is from press releases and some other information comes from company auditor information and they have a duty to be independent. You would be surprised at how many companies which are already on Wikipedia get media article coverage because they pay for advertising or they pay the authors/editors. I also put most of the information into my own words and did not copy it from what I cited from. It is sad because the company is noteworthy for many reasons. First company to mass produce a solid state battery. First company to put it into a commercial product. They hold many patents. RCA Commercial is a portion of the legacy brand company. Vayu Aerospace drones are used to protect our countries nuclear missles. The difficulty I have inputting real information into Wikipedia makes me think maybe Wikipedia isn't a good source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES (talk • contribs) 06:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES No, Wikipedia isn't "a good source of information", see Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the general disclaimer. Wikipedia can be vandalized; Wikipedia can have incorrect information either inadvertently or deliberately; there are many reasons Wikipedia should not be trusted. No one should trust Wikipedia blindly; they should examine the sources provided to determine their validity and accuracy.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company and what it does. If this company was the first to produce a solid state battery, we need independent reliable sources that discuss that fact- paid for stories and press releases are not independent. See other stuff exists; it is possible for inappropriate content and sources to get by us, we can only address what we know about. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, we can and do miss things, this does not mean other inappropriate content should be allowed. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About the sources you mention in the current version:
  • 2 is a market data summary at the news agency Reuters
  • 4 is a press release (a minimally rewritten version of this, see churnalism)
  • 5 is a press release
  • 9 is from seekingalpha.com, which is categorised as "generally unreliable" – and it is a press release, original version here
  • 10 is about an unrelated topic, and Alpine 4 Holdings is not mentioned
  • 11 is another press release regurgitated by seekingalpha
  • 12 is another version of the PR in source 11
  • 13 is a press release
So there you have it.--bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all true then you can say the same about this company and it should be taken down QuantumScape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES: If you re-read the response you got from 331dot above, you'll find that this exact point was addressed there. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOLIDSTATEBATTERIES I will restate what I said; See other stuff exists; it is possible for inappropriate content and sources to get by us, we can only address what we know about. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, we can and do miss things, this does not mean other inappropriate content should be allowed.
We are only as good as our volunteers and the time they have to spend locating and addressing inappropriate information. If you would like to help out in identifying inappropriate articles for possible action, please do, we need the help. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked QuantumScape as being problematic and needing attention, thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:58, 21 January 2023 review of submission by Franklinerobe


Franklinerobe (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Franklinerobe: You do not ask a question, but Draft:Syed Fardeen has been rejected which means that it will not be considered further. Previously, it had been declined five times in less than 24 hours, and you had not even attempted to fix the issues described by the reviewers. --bonadea contributions talk 14:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:21, 21 January 2023 review of submission by 39.32.196.195


39.32.196.195 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:19, 21 January 2023 review of submission by User345627

I would like to upload this article because I really look up to Chloé Prinsloo and she has impacted my life for the better, so I thought it would be great to upload an article on Wikipedia about her.

User345627 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User345627 Wikipedia has guidelines and requirements on notability for the creation of articles for people - you can view these guidelines here for more information. Meszzy2 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User345627 If you just want to tell the world about this person, that's precisely what social media is for. There are also other wiki-type projects with less stringent requirements. Wikipedia article summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person- and you offer none in this draft. That's why it was rejected and will not be considered any more. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

11:31:00, 22 January 2023 review of submission by Ерден Карсыбеков

I created an article with one ref, and 10 days later I added three more refs; but the draft had not been accepted. So why? Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC) I've corrected the link Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC) @TheChunky could you please answer me? --Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:35, 22 January 2023 review of draft by Ed.eroticdevices


HI I SUBMITTED AN ARTICLE FOR OUR BAND EROTIC DEVICES AND WAS REJECTED. IT HAS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE BAND, BAND MEMBERS, DISCOGRAPHY AND A LINK TO DISCOGS. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT I DID WRONG THANKS!


Ed.eroticdevices (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to add reliable sources to your article. Additionally, you should avoid writing about yourself or your band. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed.eroticdevices TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you well I did changed it and re-submitted. The article is a plane description of the band ...few lines. 2 lines description, band name, band memebers, discography with references, a external link to discogs and that's it. I followed a template from other bands. Ed.eroticdevices (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:21:04, 22 January 2023 review of draft by Tornadotom666


Hi, I'm interested in the history of buildings at the the University of Maryland but I'm not sure where exactly the line is on notability. I'm aware of List_of_University_of_Maryland,_College_Park_Campus_Buildings, but I don't know which buildings or Communities (groups of residence halls) could merit their own articles. Or maybe there should be a page that lists University of Maryland residence halls, like has been done with the University of Pennsylvania College Houses. Does anyone have advice on this?

Some of the more significant coverage on residence halls is for older ones - https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=14610 - or more recently built ones - https://yaledailynews.com/sjp/2022/08/24/university-of-maryland-dedicates-newest-residential-hall-in-honor-of-its-first-african-american-students/. But again I'm not sure how much is enough. I want to research and contribute information about these buildings but I don't know where is the best place to put it.

Tornadotom666 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

10:33:26, 23 January 2023 review of submission by "ankitkumarofficial"


"ankitkumarofficial" (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:37, 23 January 2023 review of draft by BethanyGraceAB


Hi, I am trying to work out how my draft got the comment that all articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I am confused because none of the references and citations have been produced by Cytiva. All of them are independent of the subject. Can you help clarify please?

BethanyGraceAB (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BethanyGraceAB If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. You should also read conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place to document the existence of a company and tell what it does. A Wikipedia 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. The key here is "significant coverage"; coverage that goes beyond just telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as significant or influential about the company, not what it sees as significant about itself. Your sources are almost exclusively announcements of the activities of the company, which does not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BethanyGraceAB: There are a couple of things here. First, Cytiva is a company that in one sense has a fairly long history, in the form of older companies that have been merged and/or bought and changed their names and so on. Several of those companies are clearly notable, and there are articles about Pharmacia and GE HealthCare and Amersham plc, and even about Pharmacia & Upjohn – and a considerable part of Draft:Cytiva is about the history of those companies. I don't see the relevance of any of the acquisitions and mergers listed in the History section up until the Danaher Corporation sub-section. Secondly, you say that All of [the references] are independent of the subject – I'm afraid that is not correct, though. Sources 1 and 2 are two copies of the same press release, slightly rephrased. That it is a press release would have been evident even if there had only been one copy. Source 3 is an interview with a Cytiva manager. Source 4 is another press release. 5 is a listing in a business directory, clearly written by the company itself. So it's definitely not the case that all sources are independent.
So the first thing to do is cut away a lot of the content that isn't really about Cytiva, and finding actually independent sources (I found this and maybe one or two others but it does seem to be a bit hard) – if such sources can't be found to show that WP:CORPDEPTH is met, it would be better to add a section to GE HealthCare or Danaher Corporation about the current name. --bonadea contributions talk 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:47, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Rockoutto

Hello, previously the article was not posted because "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Since then PHELIXX LAKE has been added to playlists consisting of 666K Likes curated officially by Spotify as well as released music through the Ghost Killer Entertainment youtube channel consisting of 260K subscribers. Please reconsider to include the topic/band. Rockoutto (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockoutto Being on large number of playlists or a large number of social media followers is not one of the notability criteria for bands. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:47, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Mayukhsenkar

Hello all, I got the following message on the review of the submission. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

It seems I have referenced sources adequately and all sources are vetted and reliable. Including sources from reputed national dailies. Please let me know what changes to do, to get the write up published successfully.

Could someone please help and explain the reason behind decline in a little more detail?

Thank You very very much

Mayukhsenkar (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:26, 23 January 2023 review of submission by El Indio Deportivo


El Indio Deportivo (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:44, 23 January 2023 review of submission by JDHumphreys


JDHumphreys (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my article on a feminist writer and thought-leader keeps being rejected. First for a bad citation I made (to Daily Mail), which I corrected. Then for notability (so I added additional references, and a reminder that women working collectively like this person does are often only acknowledged peripherally). Then on chat for being "a subject that is quite volatile right now" (meaning feminism). My concerns are that it is being rejected because it is not a subject of nuanced interest to the Wiki editors. It is, however, of great interest to the larger, decades-long topic of women in society -- people like this subject (whom I have read about for many years) need to be acknowledged for their role in moving this important global conversation (that affects the lives of half the planet's population) forward over decades. Would love some expert advice on how to improve the article and have it approved. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joanne_Sandler

20:32:47, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Brava55

The page was rejected by Mattdaviesfsic because it was written by someone with the same surname as the person in question: Naief Yehya. Is this a rule that disqualifies a submission? Are there any doubts about the veracity of the information? It also says that "a lot being unsourced". Could the reviewer be more specific? Thank you in advance.Brava55 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Brava55 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brava55 Please communicate with the reviewer directly on their user talk page to ask them specific questions. It is not forbidden to write an autobiographical article, but it is highly discouraged. (see WP:AUTO) People writing about themselves must set aside everything that they know about themselves and all materials they put out and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about them. That's usually very hard for people to do about themselves. Most attempts at autobiographies in my experience fail because the person wants to post their resume or list their accomplishments, not write an encyclopedia article. While I do not speak for the reviewer, perhaps they felt the prospect of the draft being written as an encyclopedia article was low. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brava55 If this draft is not written by its subject, please make sure the reviewer knows that, when you contact them. David10244 (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:32, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Charles pines

i would like to have this article published as this will gratly help the mental health of the peolple Charles pines (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to help people's mental health on another website. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:30:57, 23 January 2023 review of submission by El Indio Deportivo


This is a podcast of wrestling, the data is on facebook, instagram and youtube, that have the videos of interviews with wrestlers, analysis of wrestketling show. All are jornalist. That make a tremendods work. is something serious. The fans what to know more about us, and youtube and instagram has the evidence of that with a good base of fans.

El Indio Deportivo (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

05:18:57, 24 January 2023 review of submission by Arun Yesubalan


Arun Yesubalan (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:00:02, 24 January 2023 review of submission by Mallikarjunaswamy.m


Request you to please help me in getting this article be published in Wikipedia as this is a notable article worthy to get publish in Wikipedia.

Mallikarjunaswamy.m (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mallikarjunaswamy.m: did you see the replies you got to your earlier questions about the same draft, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for_creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 16#13:20:22, 16 January 2023 review of submission by Mallikarjunaswamy.m and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#12:48:06, 19 January 2023 review of submission by Mallikarjunaswamy.m? --bonadea contributions talk 11:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:17, 24 January 2023 review of draft by Patience Diez


Hello,

It is my first article on Wikipedia. I am learning, can you please help me?

The article I drafted has been rejected.

But all the sources cited in footnote are independent of the subject: they are press articles, peer reviewed publications and websites of institutions. What shall I do more?

About the comment of the reviewer: "Not clear what really makes him notable. An advisor and chair for lots of things, it seems - but what has he done to get there? What's he known for?"

He is a respected and well known curator. I thought the article was explicit about what Gregory Castera has done to get there and what he is known for: - He has curated many international exhibitions and events in major institutions – He has published books and catalogues with internationally renown publishers - He has been director of institutions

Again, can you help me to improve this article?

All the best Patience

Patience Diez (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:03, 24 January 2023 review of submission by Pluke

Hi,

I'm writing to request that Alicevision undergoes another review. I believe it now meets the criteria to be accepted onto wikipedia and the recent review lacks rationale.

The latest review of this page led to a claim that "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", with no reasoning for this given. This contrasts with months of editing and review that gave constructive feedback, with previous reviewers being positive about the page, i.e. here

> That is looking good. I will be leaving it to someone else to approve it as I have been involved in editing it but it should be looked at shortly. Gusfriend

Feedback has been acted upon and the reasoning behind choices of literature to support the page made clear.

I have been trying to communicate with @Tagishsimon, who came to final decision, for nearly two weeks now, but have had no response to my posts on their talk page, or my direct email, even though they appear to be actively editing wikipedia they haven't been able to respond to my requests.

I'm willing to take on further feedback if there is any, but also strongly think that this page should be promoted, for the reasoning in the links above.

Pluke (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1135411720"