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
No edit summary
Line 523: Line 523:


[[User:John.sewaa|John.sewaa]] ([[User talk:John.sewaa|talk]]) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
[[User:John.sewaa|John.sewaa]] ([[User talk:John.sewaa|talk]]) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

== 23:42:15, 26 January 2020 review of draft by Brenchristo ==
{{Lafc|username=Brenchristo|ts=23:42:15, 26 January 2020|draft=Draft:Brenda_Mohammed}}


[[User:Brenchristo|Brenchristo]] ([[User talk:Brenchristo|talk]]) 23:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I need help to edit my draft submission
My Draft - BRENDA MOHAMMED was declined on 21st December by Muriel Mary.
This is what she said:
"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I have since edited the draft and added additional references and removed those that are not suitable.

Please advise what else I need to do.

Revision as of 23:42, 26 January 2020

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

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


January 20

00:05:04, 20 January 2020 review of submission by Dlee1964


I do not understand why the article was rejected. Ali Rogers was also Miss South Carolina and 1st runner up to Miss American, just as Dawn Smith Jordan was, yet she has a link on Wikipedia. Furthermore, Dawn Smith Jordon has had a successful ministry throughout the United States for the past 30 years, where she has recorded numerous records. All of this I have added to the article, but please tell me why Ali Rogers has a topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Rogers) yet Dawn Smith Jordan does not.

Dlee1964 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:33:45, 20 January 2020 review of submission by Danazar

Review request withdrawn. Will continue to work on draft and resubmit when ready. Danazar (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:18:27, 20 January 2020 review of draft by Savannahdisanjh


I am wondering why I cant publish my page. I am Kirsten Clarksons executive assistant and she has asked me to create a page for her as she does not know how. This is my second article to not be approved, how can I write one about her so it can be approved?

Savannahdisanjh (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Savannahdisanjh: You have to start by finding reliable independent in-depth sources about the person. Don't just write what you know and you can't write what they tell you. It is highly discouraged that that you even attempt to write in an area where you have conflict of interest and you must disclose if you are paid to do so. From your article history, it looks like it was nothing better than advertisement, so there's a long way to go. You should take time to familiarize yourself with the minimum sources required to have an article on Wikipedia. If you can find such sources, you can start the draft again and only use such sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:14:19, 20 January 2020 review of submission by Pat34552

Dear sir, plz see link https://mr.wikipedia.org/s/4fto it shows aldeadly published by wiki marathi language see all press report and patent , see novel work regads pravin Pat34552 (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pat34552: English Wikipedia has different rules than other language Wikipedias. There are many similarities, but in the end we have stricter requirements than others. All the relevant links were already provided in the draft's decline text. Patent applications and passing news articles about single event are not enough. Person's own work is not enough by itself. Please do not keep recreating and resubmitting the draft, because this will only waste time for everyone. You must have additional in-depth sources about the person first, and it appears that there are no such sources available. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:29:30, 20 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Dr Samuel Masih


Thanks.

<!- End of message -->Dr Samuel Masih (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Samuel Masih: - functionally no content with no reference other than the organisation's own website means it absolutely is in no way notable. Please stop resubmitting it - if you submit any similar without major changes to both content and reliable secondary sources, it is likely to be submitted for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:50:07, 20 January 2020 review of submission by Gaurav22gaurav44


Gaurav22gaurav44 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:12, 20 January 2020 review of submission by 2804:14C:BF20:20AF:A5F3:669A:3B0A:49A6

I need help to improve my article, it is a relevant news portal 2804:14C:BF20:20AF:A5F3:669A:3B0A:49A6 (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

EGOBrazil is a great news portal and there are very relevant content spread across the internet, please ask for a review for a possible release by approval Egobrz1 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EGOBrazil is a great news portal and there are content spread across the internet that are very relevant, and from trusted and internationally known sources, please ask for a review for a possible release by approval

egobrazil.com

Egobrz1 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]



John Johnson Gallery (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

03:35:26, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Tonysy191


Would like to ask for review of this article. Tonysy191 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tonysy191, It was previously reviewed, and rejected. It is an unsuitable topic. Please find something else to edit. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 03:47:51, 21 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Severen Tezvel


I noticed UAB School of Medicine and UAB School of Dentistry have Wikipedia pages so I created a page for the UAB School of Health Professions. This page was declined saying it should just be part of the main UAB page. Then I look at the University of Alabama on Wikipedia and notice they have separate pages for the College of Communication and Information Sciences, and the College of Engineering, and the College of Arts and Sciences, and probably all of their Colleges. Why are they allowed to have separate school/college pages but the UAB School of Health Professions cannot? While you consider granting us our own page like the other schools/colleges, I will work on cleaning up the outside links and any other errors. Thank you for your time and for your consideration of this request. Kind regards.

Severen Tezvel (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Severen Tezvel: Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality ones. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or has been "allowed". It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.
I've merged three of the college articles into University of Alabama. That's as much clean up as I have time for now, but someone else will doubtless merge University of Alabama College of Communication and Information Sciences into the parent institution.
The essay Wikipedia:College and university article guideline contains information about what should and should not be in an article in this domain, and how best to structure it. Do what the reviewer said, discuss at Talk:University of Alabama at Birmingham whether a separate University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Health Professions is warranted. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:42:34, 21 January 2020 review of submission by 2409:4066:108:7940:5B0C:6DEE:D6B4:E3C5

The topic is authentic & not a topic based on individual sources. The reference provided is real. May I know why it is rejected.

2409:4066:108:7940:5B0C:6DEE:D6B4:E3C5 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected because it is not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:34:19, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Olivia Chyntia Devi

Added an explanation about the logo and also revise some paragraphs Olivia Chyntia Devi (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olivia Chyntia Devi. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:24:54, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Torontopedia


Hello! Hope you are doing well.

I was wondering if you could re-review the Loizza Aquino page, as I recently revamped the page and updated the content on it.

Thank you so much!

Torontopedia (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Torontopedia. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 3-4 months, so you can anticipate a review by April-May-ish. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Worldbruce! Have a great day.

12:34:38, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Niftyrules

I need help on the review of the draft. I have actually done the needful but wants it to be reviewed and brought to the main space.

Niftyrules™ 12:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyrules (talk • contribs)

no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:18, 21 January 2020 review of submission by The Red Hussar

My article has been declined for lack of neutrality, but talking about the Neo-Nazi I dont really understand what does it mean. Any critics or support is highly welcome. Thanks, --The Red Hussar (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Hussar (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Hussar, This is an encyclopedia. We write in a neutral tone. That goes for every subject. For writing about neo-nazism, we don't need to add inflectives that say how bad it is. Our readers know that neo-nazism is quite evil. Our job is to write an article that presents the facts without commentary. That doesn't mean supporting neo-nazism, it just means that the article should read formally. At the end of the day, our articles do not take a political stance. They take a factual stance. So we talk about the rise of neo-nazism, and the numbers surrounding it, and the crimes they commit. Our readers are smart, they can infer the rest. Also, make sure that you are only saying what reliable sources say. Wikipedia only says what sources say, nothing more.
For examples of problems, it begins in the first paragraph. "a problem of Ukrainian society related to an increased level of extreme far right ideology promoting " is you taking a stance on why the issue exists. You could say "source X blames the problem on". But really the intro should read something neutral like "Neo-nazism in Ukraine covers the activities of a variety of far right groups that promote..."
"In public discussions the nationalists are rehabilitated and even glorified, their names are given to urban streets, in the honor of them monuments are erected and the national history is revised." While the individual points here are likely true, this reads like an opinion piece. Another example of wording that needs cleanup. An example cleanup might be ""The Nation" notes that Ukrainian nationalists are being increasingly rehabilitated, or even glorified. For example, various urban streets now bear the names of Nazi collaborators, and monuments have been erected to collaborators such as X." the last bit should stay off altogether, unless solid evidence is had, and the evidence, not the assertion, is presented.
I'm not going to find every example, but suffice to say that the article needs a general rewrite to ensure that it reads neutrally. Also, if you are not a native English speaker, you may wish to ask for some help in writing the article in good English. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:00:31, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Sharon winston


Sharon winston (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

the article not finished yet !!
@Sharon winston: It looks like you accidentally submitted the article for review. I readded the submission template for when you are ready. Don't click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button until you want it to be eventually reviewed. Edit and save the page by using the "Edit" at the top; see Help:Editing. You can continue editing it and adding sources. It also looks like you have not followed WP:DISCLOSE, you must disclose conflict of interest. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:48, 21 January 2020 review of submission by Ajnk1234


Good morning! Just want to flag that I updated the Wedding Spot entry with suggestions given to me by the help desk. I added a few more pieces of information and cited a handful of additional credible news sources to help with the notability issue.

Thanks in advance for your consideration!

Ajnk1234 (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:18, 21 January 2020 review of draft by Siegien123


Siegien123 (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siegien123, please let us know why do you need a review. The reviewer has explained on the draft page that notability is not established properly. Kindly read WP:GNG (or WP:ANYBIO). Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


John Johnson Gallery (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Dear QueerEcofeminist please assist me with this article. Thank you very much.

Best regards, John

John Johnson Gallery I cleaned up the article syntax, but it does not demonstrate notability. There need to be more references showing that independent writers and journalists have written about the artist. Also, your user name and singular focus of your account suggests that you should read WP:COI. And please sign your comments with four tildes so we know who you are and can respond to you. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

01:43:14, 22 January 2020 review of submission by Castor KakuWakako


Castor KakuWakako (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you very much for your support. We first created the Wikipedia page on 6th of Jan. 2020. Then we received the message regarding the copyright infringement from Wikipedia.*

  • For one section of our texts we used texts from

https://www.poetryinternational.org/pi/site/poet/item/13889/31/Wakako-Kaku

We immediately deleted the section.

After this, we received another message from Wikipedia saying

"This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement."

This page appears to be a direct copy from https://wikitia.com/index.php?title=Wakako_Kaku&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

It seems that this wikitia site was created after we uploaded our first text on July 6th.

Everything in our current contents is written by us in our original words and we would like to know what we should do to complete this process. We appreciate your support on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castor KakuWakako (talk • contribs) 01:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castor KakuWakako, out of curiosity, when you say 'we', you're referring to the person who alerted you to the situation, right? I'm just double checking you're not sharing this account with anyone.
It's likely that the deleting admins, Ritchie333 and Justlettersandnumbers, will having something more to say about this than I will.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dream of horses,Thanks for your quick reply.I have contacted Ritchie333. but have not received a reply. I will wait a reply from Ritchie333. Thanks for the advice.
And... I consult a friend. However, we do not share accounts. Is that the answer? Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 09:44:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dream of horses, sorry. I understand now. I'm not good at English. I am asking my friends for help with some advanced issues. And a friend is writing. So friends use " We ". It is " I ", not " We ". Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 10:32:15, 22 January 2020(UTC)
@Castor KakuWakako: I did get your message, but it was the middle of the night where I live, so I have only just read it. The latest revision was deleted as being a copyright violation of the Wikia page created on 7 January, but the article here (Wakako Kaku) was not created until 14 January. The editor who tagged the article for deletion, Fram, may be able to give further insight into this. Copyright violations are one of the most misunderstood concepts on Wikipedia for new users, particularly as an administrator can delete them unilaterally and without hesitation (which they must do, for legal reasons). User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios has further information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333:, Thank you for your reply. The situation changes one after another. I have a hard time understanding. I will contact Fram. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios, Is this an article written by Ritchie333? Awesome! I will read it well. Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 12:29:45, 22 January 2020(UTC)
Castor KakuWakako, recreating a page that's been deleted as a copyright violation, as you've done both at Draft:Wakako Kaku and at User:Castor KakuWakako/sandbox, is extremely unwise, and can lead to loss of editing privileges. There still appears to be a quite unacceptable degree of overlap with the wikitia page in both of those. Was the content in fact translated from here? If so, you must provide attribution.
Your username suggests a connection to the subject – do you have one? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers:,Thank you for contacting me. Originally, I should have contacted you. sorry.
Most of the duplicate text on the two pages is the Japanese publisher name, work title, event name, and award title. These will always overlap when presenting her career. What should I do in such a case? Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 16:56:03, 22 January 2020(UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers:, Finally a question about usernames came. That is a natural question.
The Japanese wiki only added text, but never posted articles. Did not know three checks. I am a fan of her creations. This is a fact. The mind of "OTAKU" = Geek has created such a username. I failed. Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 17:56:58, 22 January 2020(UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers:, Following advice, deleted draft text. Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 03:30:20, 23 January 2020(UTC)

11:55:08, 22 January 2020 review of draft by Urfavrapper


Im asking a question regarding on why my Draft:LIL MU$TARD got declined event though I am writing it about myself and it says there is false information not found from reliable sources. Urfavrapper (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by independent reliable sources so that information can be verified. Adding an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. Theroadislong (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:59:10, 22 January 2020 review of submission by Pratik jadhav111

My page is getting rejected even after more than 4 independent and original articles from the web. The reviewer said not many references. so i am not able to understand what is happening? it has been rejected twice and i am not getting clear understanding why it is not getting accepted Pratik jadhav111 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik jadhav111, Well the page still doesn't have inline citations (see WP:ERB for help on that). Its also written like a promotional puff piece, not a formal and nuetral encyclopedia article. Wikipedia does not exist to promote its subjects. You actually only have 3 sources, as two sources are actually the same article on different websites. And the sources are not very high quality either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:18:08, 22 January 2020 review of draft by Peter.corke


Peter.corke (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter.corke, Reads like a resume, not a neutral encyclopedia article composed of formal prose. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:04:24, 22 January 2020 review of submission by FactsOnlineUS

I really wanna publish something about my friend on Wikipedia! FactsOnlineUS (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FactsOnlineUS, I'm afraid that you probably shouldn't write about your friends, as that is a conflict of interest. Also, most YouTubers are not eligible for articles. Subscriber counts are meaningless on WIkipedia, only significant media coverage counts. Most YouTubers don't meet that standard, alas. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RayanTDM YouTuber who sells pirated songs like Muffin Time or O banana he also wants to make a video of every game in the world!


John Johnson Gallery (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Just what I did this account and I started this article about this artist that seems worth considering. In the future I will contribute to the improvement of articles on wikipedia.

January 23

10:57:19, 23 January 2020 review of draft by Rathee nag


Rathee nag (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:15:40, 23 January 2020 review of draft by HP7wiki


I am requesting help as I don't know specifically what I have done wrong or how i can better the article in order for it to be published. Could i please get additional help and guidance as I am confused. HP7wiki (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HP7wiki. The bulk of any article should come from sources independent of the subject. Fourteen of the draft's eighteen sources are the company's website or YouTube channel. Three more are from an organization that partnered with them. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites only one. So you need to find at least two more, throw away the text you've written, and rewrite the draft using the independent sources.
Also, the only independent source so far, https://asianmediaawards.com/, fails verification. That page doesn't say DESIblitz.com won the Best Website Award at the UK national Asian Media Awards for 2013, 2015, and 2017. Possibly you can find a deeper link on that site that does support the claim. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:58, 23 January 2020 review of draft by Saharraz98


I am requesting for an update on my re-review, published about 3 weeks ago. Thank you.

Saharraz98 (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saharraz98: Please be patient, drafts may take five months or longer at this point to be reviewed. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:28, 23 January 2020 review of draft by Tlaserx


I'm requesting help because I have two questions. I am a published author in the industry that I work in. Published in multiple industry magazines that are in print. So my Wikipedia edits typically revolve around the industry as a whole. However as I understand it, Wikipedia editors need to be broader in their choices for edits? I was encouraged to speak on more topics perhaps unrelated to the industry. Is that a requirement or is that more to prove I am not a shill for a particular company?

Next, one of the articles I wanted to create was about a new device in our industry that one of the manufacturers released. It has a US patent and is currently only sold by one company. How do I source and provide reference for the article without referencing the main page where the information on the device is contained? Any advice would be very appreciated. or even a link to some good training videos maybe? Sincerely, Tom... Tlaserx (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:28, 23 January 2020 review of draft by Kunigonde


I do not understand how to get my article from the user page where it seems to be currently to the sandbox for publication. NotTheFakeJTP wrote "We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer."

I do not understand what "extra text above your entry" means. The heading?? Thank you for your help!

Kunigonde (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kunigonde Your draft submission here User:Kunigonde/sandbox has no content. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kunigonde: Is it the article on Tatjana Masurenko that is on your user page, User:Kunigonde? If so, someone can move it to a better location, such as User:Kunigonde:Tatjana Masurenko. This will create a redirect that you can then edit to make a user page, or simply to remove the redirect and give yourself a blank user page. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:38, 23 January 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:1221:8C47:1066:B82C:8189:9D61


2605:E000:1221:8C47:1066:B82C:8189:9D61 (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is not notable, fails WP:BAND. Theroadislong (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:27:43, 23 January 2020 review of submission by Jordan.miller296


Jordan.miller296 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi David, you rejected a page I was trying to create last month on the basis of not relevant. Recently, the group in question crossed 100,000 streams and received mention in several online articles. I believe they're as relevant as many artists with pages. Given the new information, I ask you reconsider.

Thank you so much for all you do.

Hi Jordan.miller296. If you wish to communicate with a specific editor, use some type of notification template, as described at Help:Talk pages. The draft was rejected for being not notable. The number of streams is irrelevant to notability. If they've been written about in depth by multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, that could establish notability. But Google searches of web, news, and books for "Know Wonder" along with the name Taeleifi returns zero such sources, so there isn't much hope for the topic. If articles about other artists exist with such poor sourcing, they should be improved or deleted.
Go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, a list of sources Wikipedians have found useful in writing about albums and musicians. If you can show WP:THREE sources from that list, someone may be willing to reconsider the rejection. If not, try a different topic, we have over six million to choose from. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


January 24

02:47:10, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Rulercoaches

This draft was declined for person that I believe meets the requirements for Wikipedia. It was stated that it reads like an advertisement. He does not sell anything so I am not sure what it means. I removed a list of articles he has written as maybe that was the concern but there were no specific comments on what was needed. I also received a troubling message saying that I need to review PAID and COI. I read both and PAID definitely does not apply. For the COI link, that can be pretty subjective and likely determined that anyone can have a COI with creating a draft. The only connection I have is meeting him on a tour of the facility and taking a picture. Was impressed with his work so submitted an article on him. I am not sure if that amounts to the COI stated in the rules. Can you direct me to what is needed here? I need to know what else would be considered advertising and anything else needed for the draft.--Rulercoaches (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main issue would be the potential conflict of interest which you partially addressed above. Topic does seem notable per WP:NACADEMIC due to the named chair. For WP:PAID, keep in mind that it can also qualify you even if you were not paid directly. If you are being paid by an institution and they are requiring you to do this as part of your job, that would still be considered paid. Also, if he asked you or someone else asked you to create the page that would qualify under WP:COI. Whatever the case may be, disclosure is required if it applies. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:50:56, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Mazharul101


I was a new user of wikipedia and i did not know how to write wikipedia article at first. But I took time, I leaned about Wikipedia, how it works and how to write good articles. Here I am with my first article about a very popular Internet company of Bangladesh.

I am sorry because I provided a few information about this company when I first wrote this article, but now I know much information about this company and I think many people will be helpful with this information. I learning how to be a good wikipedia article writer, I am trying to contribute many other article where I believe I have some expertise. Mazharul101 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there still are insufficient references to review the draft. Please review WP:REFB for help on finding and adding sources. Since this is a company, there is a high threshold of notability that must be demonstrated through WP:ORGCRIT. Please follow both links and provide references showing how the topic is notable. Once you are done you can resubmit or ask someone here to do it for you. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:33, 24 January 2020 review of draft by Radarman444


I was asked by a leading authority on Cranch to update the Wiki article on John Cranch, English Painter. As (according to him - I have no knowledge myself) the current article contains several errors, there are several guesses masquerading as facts and much of the article has simply been abstracted from the Net, continuing the errors from those original sources, he thought it impossible to merely correct the article but felt that it needed a complete rewrite.

I have received various comments, most of them extremely unhelpful, irrelevant or wrong e.g.

@Radarman444: Hello. Please read WP:AUTOPROB for advice on how to deal with inaccuracies in an article about oneself. Any content you add to the existing article should be traceable back to a published source. Information your friend has about their relative based only on their personal experiences isn't suitable for adding to a Wikipedia article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

<My reply>"I must admit to being a bit puzzled here; maybe because I'm a newbie. (a) How is "advice about inaccuracies in an article about oneself" relevant when the painter in question died 200 years ago. (b) The information about Cranch is not based only on personal experience as, again, Cranch died 200 years ago. My friend has written a learned book on Cranch and so can be seen as an authority on the man. Radarman444 (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)" 

 The latest is from Theroadislong in response to my updating the original Cranch article -

"This content is not written in the formal tone that an encyclopedia article requires, it may contain original research and the sources are incorrectly formatted, it would be better if you made smaller incremental changes to the existing article rather than replacing it wholesale with inferior content."

Before making the edits to the article, I placed a rough preview of the article I wished to submit on the Talk page of the original article with a request for comments, objections etc as I realised that the original author might have had some concerns. Having had no feedback, I asked for guidance on what to do and, having no replies, I went ahead and published the article, properly formatted as far as I can tell. The rejection from Theroadislong seems to be referring to the rough draft rather than the final article. Either way, it contains no useful help that would enable me to correct our article if there are errors.

In my replies, I have admitted my newbie status, asked for helpful comments and tried to be polite. If I can't get any helpful comments, we will have to withdraw the new article and leave the original, erroneous, article in place. A great shame.

Radarman444 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Radarman444 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:55, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Rebeccamchung

I need point by point guidance on which use of sources create the impression that this artist lacks notability. She is a founding member of a significant artist's movement (Cass Corridor artists). She is cofounder of most of the most signficant literary small presses of the twentieth century. She is one of be best-known regional artists in Michigan. She collected by significant institutions and her entire archive has been purchased by a world-ranked university (University of Michigan Ann-Arbor). Most recently, her work was gifted to Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who has hung the piece on her wall.

I'm happy to rewrite to make these points more directly. I have sources. I need point by point guidance, please, on the areas of this submission that have caused concerns.

Many thanks,

Rebecca Rebeccamchung (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeccamchung, Howdy hello! So I took a look, and I have some notes. In terms of sourcing, you are actually good I would say. However, some other issues remain. The style and tone is not very encyclopedic, and it borders on promotional. Some suggestions:
  • The name dropping, such as at the end of the alt press section, is totally unnecessary.
  • Order: our articles are in chronological order, thus early life should go first, then alt press, then at the end you can discuss her style
  • The lead is far too dense. It should summarize the article, and be easy and pleasant to read. The list of exhibitions is not suited for a lead, and will just be glossed over. Perhaps note three or so of the most prominent, but no more.
  • Make sure there are no external links in the body. They can exist in an "External links" section at the end if you desire
  • Ensure, generally, that the article is neutral in tone, and reads like a formal encyclopedia article, not an essay or other form of casual prose
  • The list of exhibitions, collections, etc, is too long, and ought get cut down
  • The further reading should use the Template:cite book (or other appropriate citation template)
  • I don't see any mention of her death in the body? Do you have any obituaries, or sources that discuss her death date?
The subject is almost certainly notable, the article just needs some cleaning up. If you have questions or concerns, please ask on my talk page, as I will not see your reply here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:59, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Edugossip

There is no possible copyright violation as I hold the copyright. I am grateful for your review and hope the article will be placed into the knowledge-base. Thank you.

Edugossip (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edugossip: Wikipedia articles are different to academic essay writing. Such content usually needs to be rewritten almost completely to comply with our standards. The most important policies are no original research and no synthesis of sources. In short, you cannot draw conclusions or combine sources. For example, "Every human on the planet ought to care about providing [..]" is original research. Or "Taken together, these examples point to [..]" is synthesis. These are two things that are not only present, but encouraged in academic works, but which Wikipedia cannot accept. When citing a source, you have to include content only directly present. You also have to include all major viewpoints, which means you cannot only include sources to support a given narrative. Finally, the article has to be about a specific topic supported by multiple independent reliable in-depth sources and I am fairly certain that "Theory of self-transcendence and social change" is a title you came up with yourself. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:06, 24 January 2020 review of draft by Sarvmangal


I want to add source |translated from Rag parichay,|part 1,|page no.62,|written by Harishchander Shrivastva,|publisher sangeet sadan|Prayagraj Sarvmangal (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find more sources besides one that is offline? Are there some books, newspapers or magazines that explain the term? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please assist me make this article publishable. Is an emergent artist and I think the he deserves an article on the Wikipedia.

John Johnson Gallery (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please assist me to publish this page.

thank you

John Johnson Gallery (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]



how can improve please
I m new
I do not understand everything
is so hard to assist me ?

BG J. Johnson (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He would need to pass WP:NARTIST which of these criteria fits do you think.
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I'm not sure that he passes any of them? Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BG J. Johnson: (edit conflict) It has been two days and there are thousands of draft, please be patient as we are all volunteers. Don't create multiple help requests. Do not remove the red banner at the top of the draft, this only hinders future reviews. It also looks like you created a second account, which is not really allowed; you must normally use one account.
As for the draft, Wikipedia requires multiple independent reliable in-depth sources for an article to be accepted. The Roman newspaper is good, although the 2 article wouldn't really count as separate sources. The TV section is good, but very brief. It's not clear who the author of ICAC review is and it looks like self-publised source. Express Cultural is very brief and I am unsure about who exactly contributes to it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

00:09:07, 25 January 2020 review of draft by Sociable Song


The article I'm attempting to create already exists in many languages on Wikipedia. A similar English article can be created by splitting from the more general article Pipeline transport. But the edit activity on that article is quite low, even for a topic of that importance. Thus I have been waiting on the talk page for many months. I think my splitting is following the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and topic separation. In fact, that's why there are already articles for "Oil pipelines" in other languages. (Also I have no idea what this code is doing and what I'm supposed to copy-paste in the question/request help desk. Sorry.) Sociable Song (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sociable Song (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting oil pipeline from the general pipeline transport article requires a discussion on the pipeline transport talk page. If there is consensus to split, then the article can be boldly created and not require a draft. However, if there is no consensus to split then it should remain a redirect to its current section in that article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sociable Song: I've weighed in at Talk:Pipeline transport#Giving the oil and gas pipeline their own articles. If you're interested in improving the article, there are many more useful things to do than split it:
  • A natural question is, "What is the most common type of pipeline?" My guess is hydrocarbons pipelines, but our article is silent on the matter. See if you can find an estimate of the number of kilometres of pipeline by type, or maybe the volume transported by type.
  • The lede concludes with the sentence "Pipelines are one of the safest way of transporting materials as compared to road or rail and hence in war, pipelines are often the target of military attacks." That's ridiculous. They may be one of the safest ways of transporting materials, and in war time they may often be targeted, but they aren't targeted because they're safest. Sure enough, that isn't a summary of anything in the body. Instead, the body says "In war, pipelines are often the target of military attacks, as destruction of pipelines can seriously disrupt enemy logistics." That's more plausible, but it cites no source.
  • The "as targets" section reads, "Pipelines can be the target of vandalism, sabotage, or even [why even?] terrorist attacks. For example, ... In 2019, a fuel pipeline north of Mexico City exploded after fuel thieves tapped into the line. At least sixty-six people were reported to have been killed." The reader expects Mexico City to be a second example of "vandalism, sabotage, or terrorist attacks", but it's a fourth type, targeting by thieves. And why use that example? It isn't the first time it has happened in Mexico, and it happens with some regularity elsewhere in the world, such as in Nigeria and India. Rather than using a news source for a recent event, it would be better to cite a scholarly source about the risks of pipelines being targeted.
  • A Forbes blog is cited several times, but according to WP:RS/PS, such contributor blogs by non-experts are not reliable for facts.
--Worldbruce (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:23, 25 January 2020 review of submission by ClocksRule


ClocksRule (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ClocksRule, This person does not seem to be notable. We only cover folks who have multiple reliable and independent sources that give them significant coverage, which this individual seems to lack. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:24, 25 January 2020 review of draft by Grimefan1998


Hi,

I have created this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mr._Mitch

The first version was declined due to "Submission is improperly sourced"

I have attempted to improve the quality/reliability of the sources in further edits since that review.

However, is there any steer on what is needed to get the sources up to scratch? It says it might take 3 months for the next review. I feel I am flying blind a little right now and don't want to see 3 months pass only for another article rejection for similar reasons.

Thanks.

Grimefan1998 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grimefan1998. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is a list of sources Wikipedians have found useful for writing about albums and musicians. If your sources are from the reliable section of that list, that's a good start. Then concentrate on how independent they are. Are the sources based on journalism or press releases, or are they primary source interviews where the musician talks about themself without critical analysis by the interviewer? Finally, consider whether they contain significant coverage of the musician, at least several paragraphs instead of brief mentions.
I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that may make you feel less at sea. While you wait for the next review of the draft, edit existing articles. You'll learn more and more quickly that way than through reviews of the draft. If you aren't sure where to start, seek out a WikiProject in your area of interest, or see Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:22:15, 25 January 2020 review of draft by TK421bsod


I found a draft article about a pseudonym that a person used. The person that used the pseudonym doesn't have an article. How would I say that the article might need to be moved? TK421bsod (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TK421bsod. If you wish to communicate with the author(s) and/or potential future reviewers, use the draft's talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

06:50:03, 26 January 2020 review of submission by Md. Zahirul Islam 1987


Md. Zahirul Islam 1987 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:13:26, 26 January 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:141F:5155:C0FB:E435:882F:2F8E


just added in more text Ill edit it after 2605:E000:141F:5155:C0FB:E435:882F:2F8E (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 11:38:19, 26 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by RomanceLove88


I noticed about the series I watched the Tooniverse channel Please you need to Learn Korean Language. And can you help me please.

The user korean created the page for the characters and the series. you guys need to create the page korean please click here to read korean and then create the page.

Main Article https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트

was created in 2014 the pilot name The Haunted House Number 444 click here.

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트_444호

Series:

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트:_고스트_볼의_비밀 Season 1 Episode 1-24

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트:_고스트볼_X의_탄생 The Season 2 name is The Birth of The Ghost Ball X Part 1 Episode 1-13 Part 2 1-10

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트_시즌_3 Season 3 2020

Movies:

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트:_금빛_도깨비와_비밀의_동굴 The Haunted House: The Secret of the Cave Movie 1

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/극장판_신비아파트:_하늘도깨비_대_요르문간드 Movie 2

Drama:

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트_외전:_기억,_하리 Season 1

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트_외전:_기억,_하리_2 Season 2

https://ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=신비아파트_외전:_연애공식_구하리&action=edit&redlink=1 Season 3

Games:

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트_고스트헌터 Getcha Ghost

https://ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=신비아파트_고스트_시그널&action=edit&redlink=1 Ghost Signal

Channels:

https://www.youtube.com/user/cjenmtooniverse Official Channel

https://www.youtube.com/user/enmtooniverse Tooniverse Channel

https://www.netflix.com/title/81028939

RomanceLove88 (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:13, 26 January 2020 review of submission by John.sewaa


John.sewaa (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:42:15, 26 January 2020 review of draft by Brenchristo


Brenchristo (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need help to edit my draft submission My Draft - BRENDA MOHAMMED was declined on 21st December by Muriel Mary. This is what she said: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I have since edited the draft and added additional references and removed those that are not suitable.

Please advise what else I need to do.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=937737071"