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 728: Line 728:
<!-- End of message -->Mohammad Faiq Shah 07:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
<!-- End of message -->Mohammad Faiq Shah 07:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Mohammad Faiq Shah}} You essentially wrote your resume; that is not what Wikipedia is for. Please review the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]] as to why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about yourself; Wikipedia summarizes what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage state about article subjects that show how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of [[WP:N|notability]](in this case, the definition of [[WP:BIO|a notable person]]). If you meet that definition of notability, you shouldn't be the one to write the article about you. Also note that [[WP:PROUD|a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Mohammad Faiq Shah}} You essentially wrote your resume; that is not what Wikipedia is for. Please review the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]] as to why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about yourself; Wikipedia summarizes what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage state about article subjects that show how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of [[WP:N|notability]](in this case, the definition of [[WP:BIO|a notable person]]). If you meet that definition of notability, you shouldn't be the one to write the article about you. Also note that [[WP:PROUD|a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

== 10:35:42, 14 March 2020 review of submission by Prasad3455 ==
{{Lafc|username=Prasad3455|ts=10:35:42, 14 March 2020|declined=Draft:Devaj_V}}

[[User:Prasad3455|Prasad3455]] ([[User talk:Prasad3455|talk]]) 10:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:35, 14 March 2020

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


March 8

00:30:18, 8 March 2020 review of submission by 71.104.11.211


71.104.11.211 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected for various legitimate reasons, including many sources being purely social media (which aren't suitable), advertorial language and non-encyclopedic language Nosebagbear (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:56:44, 8 March 2020 review of submission by Martinehilaire

i just change some stuff Martinehilaire (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martinehilaire, Your article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


03:00:04, 8 March 2020 review of submission by 71.104.11.211


71.104.11.211 (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:46:52, 8 March 2020 review of submission by Junjun odarbe


Junjun odarbe (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junjun odarbe, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

01:41:01, 9 March 2020 review of submission by Tezzadiver


I have adjusted the blurb in the box. I wasn't trying to push an agenda just stating we need to support marine conservation...

Tezzadiver (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tezzadiver Your submission was a personal statement and not an encyclopedia article. You should use social media for such statements, not Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia where articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about notable subjects, not what we ourselves want to say about them. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:52:18, 9 March 2020 review of submission by Salvadi Actor

Please let me know where to mention that it is not an autobiography Salvadi Actor (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


03:30:26, 9 March 2020 review of submission by Spiritletters


Wikipedia citations were simply removed from this draft. Is their a volunteer of Please advise of any additional issues at this point?

Spiritletters (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiritletters: - you've still got 2 wikipedia references, and Discogs is a non-reliable, non-independent source. The band's own site can be referenced for some things, but so that you're aware, it won't help prove that they're notable (as it obviously can't be independent). Your first source is dead-linking, and it looks like it would be quite key, so that would be worth checking. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:42:07, 9 March 2020 review of draft by 125.238.128.21


A page I wrote was denied for the reason "There does not seem to be any individual notability apart from the charity". That's like saying Bill Gates has articles always talking about Microsoft, or Ronaldo is always talked about in the context of football. I feel as though the article was declined for a questionable reason but am open to any further reasons :) 125.238.128.21 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@125.238.128.21: - it's not saying sources that discuss them in their main context don't suffice, but they need to have significant coverage (c. 10+ lines) about them. These sources usually have 3-4 non-quoted lines about Mussie, and then talk purely about the charity. Whereas in the Gates/Ronaldo, there are dedicated articles, plus lots more heavily about both their organisation and the individual. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:21, 9 March 2020 review of draft by Alwayslp


Hello, thank you for your help. This draft had been rejected due to lack of encyclopedic tone - I re-wrote it with what I thought to be more of an encyclopedic style, but it has been again rejected at this time. I'm grateful for any help you can give me. The draft is written in chronological order, not pyramid style..I'm wondering if that could be an issue too? Thank you so much for your help on this draft overall. Alwayslp (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alwayslp, The entire article is just one long brag about the subject. My guess is that you either are Paulie Gee, work for Paulie Gee or otherwise have a close connection to the subject that is making your tone in writing inherently biased. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alwayslp (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:13:04, 9 March 2020 review of submission by Brenchristo

My Article has been rejected and I need your assistance in rewriting it. PLEASE HELP. Brenchristo (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Brenda Mohammed[reply]

We're happy to help with questions you may have, but we're not here to write your article for you. See WP:BUILDERSulfurboy (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:17:21, 9 March 2020 review of submission by ThomasForti40


ThomasForti40 (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThomasForti40, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:50:00, 9 March 2020 review of submission by Incusgmbh

Hi everyone! My article has been rejected: "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 organizations and companies)." I'm new here and I'd very thankful if you could help me with what sources should I add! Please help me to rewrite my draft - many thanks in advance! :) Incusgmbh (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Incusgmbh[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Incusgmbh#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:29:02, 9 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 68.103.78.155


They are 2 References And That The Previous season has finished the Regular season but why do we have to wait 4 Weeks. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the claims made in the article are unsourced. The couple of references you do provide do not show an overwhelming need yet for this article, thus it is WP:TOOSOON unless you can show significant coverage of the subject now exists. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:37, 9 March 2020 review of submission by WPisarnik


why are you not telling me what is wrong - seit nur so gemein, kein problem - I am only trying to help the professional driver to have some fun and make new friends at the Professional Driver World Championship 2020 in Croatian. if you want this article to be fetures in then help me -


LG Walter

WPisarnik (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WPisarnik, The article has been outright rejected and will not be considered further. We recommend a different outlet for advertising this race. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:17:23, 9 March 2020 review of submission by Timofebakare83

Thanks everyone for your help so far. I need to be able to get the help to make this article comply in neutrality and notability, can you provide additional guidance to me. I do not want this article to be an advertisement. The subject is indeed notable, and I do not want my writing style to connote otherwise. I will take your advise, edit and resubmit.Thanks Timofebakare83 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:09:51, 9 March 2020 review of submission by 4kingly

I edited it can you check again

4kingly (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


March 10

Request on 00:15:00, 10 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by SageMacG


Hello, I'm an brand-new user so I apologize in advance for being unfamiliar with the methods and systems here. I really appreciate the thorough vetting and dedication to good data, and value the time volunteers put into this platform.

I just had my first article rejected, so I carefully read the critique so I could make the article comply with Wikipedia's policies. However, I'm having trouble understanding how the critique applies to my article. The critique was "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." To address the latter first, all my sources were independent, reliable, published sources and the only material produced by the subject is the 'official site' link in the External links section. To address the former, I believe the only area that reads like an advertisement is "Reviews and Commentary" all of which are independent sources. I've seen other artists pages use this same technique, (for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kelly_(artist)) but I am happy to delete that section if it will make the page publishable.

It would be really helpful if someone could point out specifics of how the content doesn't meet the guidelines. In terms of notability, is there a place I can supply evidence that would be out of place on the actual wikipedia entry?

Thank you so much in advance to anyone who is willing to volunteer their time to help me with this. I'm really trying to do this fairly in spite of my stated COI.

Thank you! SageMacG (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SageMacG (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:13:13, 10 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by NooYawkah


DGG's comment on declining this article is deeply puzzling. "This is essentially a promotional press release. DGG ( talk )"

First, I question the truthfulness of this statement -- a promotional press release is usually full of superlatives, but the only superlative in this article refers to something else.

Second, there's no such discouragement at the "Five pillars" page. Is DGG enforcing an ascertainable standard or letting his personal taste run wild?

Third, and most to the point, why would an encyclopedia article on a legal scholar discuss anything other than what's on this page? Shouldn't an article explain both the scholar's publications and the effect those publications have had on the field? What could possibly be more relevant? An encyclopedia entry for a legal scholar all but necessarily lists publications -- 

  Frederick_M._Abbott
  Jody Armour

Is DGG asking that the article be loaded down with trivialities?

Fourth, note the history -- Dan arndt challenged on grounds that "requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary source". The current draft of the article responds to Mr. Arndt's request for "multiple independent reliable secondary sources". Why should the article be penalized for attempting to meet Mr. Arndt's concerns?

Fifth, DGG writes on my talk page, "This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DGG" There's no room for DGG's hostility in response to a good faith effort to develop an article that contains the facts that would be most relevant to a reader who's involved in the law. Please remonstrate with Mr. DGG.

Please either approve the article or offer a constructive suggestion.

NooYawkah (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NooYawkah An article about a legal scholar or any person should summarize what independent reliable sources state about that person themselves, not just what they do. You've written a summary of what Mr. Boundy does, largely cited to his own publications(which are not independent sources) or other sources that only describe his actions. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is "David Boundy is a patent attorney in Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts." That's what's relevant to readers, true?
In almost cases, a person is notable because of what he/she does. Athletes' articles describe their participation at Olympic games, etc. The person's height, skin tone, etc are entirely irrelevant. Isn't that correct?
I am puzzled at 331dot's statement "cited to his own publications(which are not independent sources)". A publisher's choice of what to publish is an independent evaluation. A good list of publication venues that includes the prominent publishers in a field is one of the best credentials a scholar in any area has. Take a look at the Abbott and Armour articles I cited above.
In addition to listing Mr. Boundy's publications, I footnoted to a number of unrelated sources that describe Mr. Boundy's activities and the effects they've had on the system. Please offer a constructive suggestion -- are you saying I should cut the list of articles, and leave only the sentences footnoted to observations of others? If that's the suggestion, it's contrary to what any legal academic would consider most relevant (publish or perish -- we care about each other's publications first and foremost!) and thoroughly irrational in my world, but if it's the suggestion that works in your world, and you'll approve the article if I carry out your suggestion, I can do that.
If 331dot's characterization is an accurate statement of what Wikipedia aspires to, then the review standards are irrational, this exercise is pointless and I give up. Please delete the article.
NooYawkah (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NooYawkah: To request that the draft be deleted, blank it, or paste the code {{Db-author}} near the top. An administrator will act on your request shortly thereafter. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Worldbruce -- is 331dot's evaluation correct? I think it proceeds from complete misunderstanding of what happens in academic publishing, and is fundamentally irrational. If 331dot is accurate, then please confirm, and I will give up and delete the article. If I have raised questions whether 331dot's and DDG's evaluation criteria are useful, then let's evaluate the article under rational criteria that apply to legal scholars, get the article into proper condition, and publish it. Thank you. NooYawkah (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NooYawkah: A publisher's choice in what to publish is not enough to base an article on; Wikipedia articles should only summarize what independent sources with significant coverage state about someone. Merely publishing a person's works is not significant coverage of the author or scholar. For example, Henry Ford merits an article because others not associated with Henry Ford have chosen to write about him and his effects on manufacturing in general and Ford Motor Company in particular. If others have chosen to write about what Mr. Boundy has published and how it has affected his chosen field or something else, that's what the article should summarize. If you are used to academic or scholarly publishing, there is a definite learning curve in editing Wikipedia, which has a different audience(lay people) and different goals. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just different and requires adaptation. If you are interested, you may wish to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: That discussion by third parties is in there, and footnoted at some length (see footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and accompanying text). Are you suggesting keep those references, and cut the publication list (footnotes 6-14, and accompanying text)? Even though those publications are what led those third parties to write or act as they did?
Can I observe that advancing industrialist Henry Ford as the standard against which you compare a legal scholar demonstrates the flaws in the decision-making process? If that's the standard, how did the number of biographical articles get above 1000 or so? I suggest that more-useful analogies are Abbott and Armour. If those models are not more-appropriate analogies, can you please explain why?
I am trying mightily to meet whatever objections you have. The responses I get from you and others are constantly shifting, based on no written principles, and based on extreme analogies. Is that the way things work here consistently? If you are tying to act in good faith the way I am, can you please offer advice on solving the problem you perceive? Please tell me what you want, and when I ask a specific question looking for guidance, please answer it. Thank you
NooYawkah (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about what I want. This is about what guidelines call for. To answer your first paragraph, yes. Wikipedia wants to know what others state. I was simply trying to draw an analogy to be helpful, not saying others need to be equivalent in stature to Ford. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do my best to give answers, but the answer is not always as clear as what I or you might want. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:37:51, 10 March 2020 review of draft by 82.10.37.178


82.10.37.178 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add a article on it but can't seem to get it accept

The topic is not notable, so Wikipedia should not have an article about it. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. The encyclopedia is not for any kind of advertising, publicity, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:35:01, 10 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Hotgums


I need to know what did I do wrongly..?

Hotgums (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hotgums Hello. I have removed your draft from this page, as it is linked to above and so a copy here is unnecessary. You were told why your draft was declined, is there something about it that you do not understand? 331dot (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there is ok I went to chat on help and they have given me some tips... thanks for the reply

14:08:44, 10 March 2020 review of submission by Epicgames2.0


Epicgames2.0 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:45:31, 10 March 2020 review of draft by Spacebarn


I'm confused as to why this was rejected for lacking context. I linked to other wikipedia articles, where relevant. As an example of another element with roughly the same context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhododendrin. Granted, this one has a diagram of the chemical structure/IUPAC name, etc. -- I think this one could if given proper attention, but it is very obscure. Spacebarn (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spacebarn. Thank you for seeking to improve Wikipedia's coverage of enzymes. There are many of them. Sometimes there isn't much to say about each one, and they are better covered in an article about a family of enzymes, in a list, in a paragraph about their only known use, or elsewhere, instead of in a stand alone article. Nomenclature has changed in the hundred-plus years since your cited source was published, so it's also possible that the encyclopedia already covers the topic under a different name.
It would be easier to convince reviewers that the topic merits a stand alone article if you added more context. What family of enzymes is it in? Where does it fall on List of enzymes? In addition to what it links to, what articles would link to it? You say it is very obscure, but can you find two additional reliable sources (preferably at least one of which would be considerably more recent)? It also would help your case if you expanded the draft. You may be able to get more targeted advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


March 11

03:28:13, 11 March 2020 review of submission by HarveyYaz


I have been earnestly trying to prepare an entry on Boris Berenfeld that conforms to Wikipedia's standards. A prior reviewer said, "Still not *quite* neutral, though you seem to be putting effort into getting there." Never having submitted a Wikipedia entry before, I felt I was making progress. My last reviewer, however, said of my latest draft, "This remain PR after several resubmissions. Please stop." Moreover, I was told that if I "use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." Can someone please give me some tangible guidance by providing an example in my entry of what is unacceptable? So informed, I'll then make any edits necessary to ensure my entry meets Wikipedia's standards. Thank you. Harvey Yazijian HarveyYaz (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HarveyYaz, Your article has been rejected and will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:47:04, 11 March 2020 review of submission by Playlikeastar

please let me know what i have to do ? do you want me to delete ? provide lot of information also thier is nothing like self created document i have provided the details what ever avialable in the web

Playlikeastar (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Playlikeastar, Your submission has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:15:00, 11 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by MeeraShankar123


My name is Meera and I work as an inbound marketer at Social Beat. We are currently partnered with Assetz Property Group for their digital marketing campaigns. I had submitted an article describing the work of Assetz Property Group and cited the relevant references. However, it was rejected on the grounds that the references do not show significant coverage of the subject and that the article does not fully follow a neutral tone. I am requesting for assistance as I would like to know how I can improve the article and the type of references that need to be quoted. Thank you.


MeeraShankar123 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MeeraShankar123, You need to properly disclose your paid for editing. I've commented on your talk page on how to do this. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:32:19, 11 March 2020 review of submission by Sabagull777


It's a very popular company have based in Dubai and providing and providing a lot of job opportunities to people of India and Pakistan and I want to create a wiki page for it. Comparing to this I have created a page for a local politician it's been accepted I am not sure why a company who is helping to feed a lot of families doesn't get the same opportunity.


Sabagull777 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many families a company feeds has no bearing on showing notability. Please review the guidelines outlined in your decline message. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:55:02, 11 March 2020 review of submission by 2409:4066:B:1495:93A:C3C0:7A0C:695E


2409:4066:B:1495:93A:C3C0:7A0C:695E (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:42:35, 11 March 2020 review of draft by ArunasG


Hi,

What kind of other sources you need for the article? I have put two links - one with Lithuanian department of statistics on data of Lithuania, another - with wikipedia article on countries GDP. For me this looks perfectly enpough.

ArunasG (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArunasG, The issues were already listed in the decline message. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. You also need to properly format your article (see [[WP:MOS) to look like a standard list. You also need a lead to provide context for the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:01, 11 March 2020 review of submission by ساندرا

I would like to ask for the reason for not publishing Islam Bibi article , it does not contain anything against wikipedia article rules. Waiting for answer ASAP --ساندرا (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC) ساندرا (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't link to any article. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The draft Islam Bibi was moved to main space by it's creator. Theroadislong (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:15, 11 March 2020 review of draft by NogardSg


I would like to know why my page has been rejected several times by the same person, I have tried to follow the guidelines of the other Wikipedia school pages and they continue to reject it. I really need your help to do it the right way and be able to publish it. I'd be really grateful


NogardSg (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NogardSg, From what I see it has only been rejected once. For private schools we need to see how it passes either WP:GNG or WP:ORG, so far this is not shown. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:46, 11 March 2020 review of submission by Anonys11

Because i think you people should give a chance for a modelvwe all know to be popular too Anonys11 (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonys11, The article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Your or our opinion on their popularity has no bearing on proving notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:45:35, 11 March 2020 review of submission by Annisd

Hi, added more significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources.

Let me know that this is enough coverage.

Thanks! Annisd (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


19:36:11, 11 March 2020 review of submission by 4kingly

Becouase i changed it a lot added the logo of the company and I talk about its product I show sourses and I think it is better then it was when I began. 4kingly (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4kingly, The article has been rejected and will not be considered further. Additionally, the edits performed and sources added would indicate that you have not yet read our policies surrounding WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and WP:RS Sulfurboy (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:14:52, 11 March 2020 review of submission by 82.10.37.178

I need some help on this please

82.10.37.178 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mana Up article

21:41:35, 11 March 2020 review of submission by Jedi2be


With help of user LittleBlueBori from #wikipedia-en-help i have removed all the the dubious elements from the article. I tried to write a quality neutral article. Please, review it again.

Jedi2be (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:53:08, 11 March 2020 review of draft by Shoshana9197


Hello, I am trying to edit this article that was submitted to wikipedia and rejected. When trying to save my work at the end of an editing session, I couldn't find a Save button, only a Publish button... I'm in the middle of editing this, and it still needs a lot of work. It's going to take more than one session to fix it before submitting it to the editors for review. I don't want the editors to think that by clicking on Publish I'm trying to resubmit. Is there a way to save during multiple editing sessions without resubmitting the article? Thanks very much for your help!

Shoshana9197 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshana9197 In this context, "publish changes" is equivalent to "save changes". It does not mean "publish your draft to the encyclopedia ". It used to say "save changes" but was changed for legal reasons, to emphasize that the changes are publicly visible regardless of what is being edited. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:14:48, 11 March 2020 review of submission by SymICiEl


It has been suggested the article does not align with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I have read these and they are summarized in five "pillars":

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia 2. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view 3. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute 4. Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility 5. Wikipedia has no firm rules

It is not specified which of these five pillars the article does not align with. In fact, the article is aligned with each of these purposes. It is scholarly, and as such, written from a neutral point of view. SymICiEl (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, it was a copyright violation, and I have deleted it as such. Second, it was essentially an essay of original research and not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why does my article keep getting deleted???

23:54:04, 11 March 2020 review of submission by Ima100k


Ima100k (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


March 12

00:32:41, 12 March 2020 review of draft by SystemDisrupt


SystemDisrupt (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Hello. Thank you for all your help; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jenny_Grant_Rankin?action=edit is my first original page and I really appreciate your help! I also wish to work on Wikipedia's goal of having more female contributors and also on adding deserving female profiles to the site to offset the historical gender imbalance in who is represented in Wikipedia.

I appreciate the feedback I have gotten so far (hi to MurielMary; the page said I should post any questions here but I hope you see this thanks) and want to meet Wikipedia's criteria. In order to provide the “significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject)” that is needed for the page to then be published/approved...

Do you/Wikipedia mean things like this (below)?

I have listed 5 samples that seem to me to fit the “Wikipedia:Notability (people)” criteria but I’d love to please check with you first (because if they don’t fit the criteria I am not understanding why they don’t fit; also, there are more where these came from, e.g., just googling her name brings up 1,800,000 webpages); thank you so much:


A) SAMPLE OF COVERAGE IN SCHOLARLY ORGANIZATIONS

Dr. Rankin was interviewed (and is the sole focus of the interview) by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) for an issue of AERA Highlights.

AERA was established in 1916 and is the largest educational research association in the world (larger even than the World Educational Research Association). AERA is completely independent of Dr. Rankin (e.g., she has never worked there, she has never served on its board or in its offices, etc.).

The interview can be found online here: https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/AERA-Highlights-E-newsletter/AERA-Highlights-September-2018/AERA-Member-Jenny-Rankin-Discusses-How-Education-Researchers-Can-Share-Their-Findings-Widely


B) SAMPLE OF COVERAGE IN MAINSTREAM PUBLICATIONS

Dr. Rankin was sometimes interviewed for articles in Good Housekeeping.

Good Housekeeping was established in 1885 and (according to Wikipedia) is the 7th most widely circulated publication in the United States. If you only count its U.S. circulation, it reaches an audience of 4,315,026 people per year.

Good Housekeeping is completely independent of Dr. Rankin (e.g., she has never worked there, she has never served on its board or written for it, etc.).

The articles can be found online; here is one (Dr. Rankin is mentioned in 3 times even though the article is quite short): https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a27044118/what-is-helicopter-parenting/


C) SAMPLE OF COVERAGE IN SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS

Dr. Rankin has been interviewed (16 times) for issues of Education Week.

Education Week was established in 1981 and is funded by the likes of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

Education Week is completely independent of Dr. Rankin (e.g., she has never worked there, she has never served on its board or in its offices, etc.).

The 16 interviews can be found online here: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2020/02/educators_must_have_a_plan_of_action_to_confront_our_challenges.html http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2019/12/instructional_coaching_conversations_must_be_built_on_relationships.html http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2019/10/invite_students_to_write_real_arguments.html https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2019/06/response_administrators_cant_lead_from_the_confines_of_their_office.html https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2019/06/response_principals_shouldnt_be_lonely.html https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2019/05/response_a_trauma_informed_classroom_is_a_safe_and_secure_place.html http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2019/01/response_technology_will_never_replace_a_great_teacher.html https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2018/11/response_students_as_teachers_in_the_classroom.html http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2018/08/qa_collections_advice_for_new_teachers.html http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2018/05/response_avoid_burn-out_by_remembering_what_first_drove_you_into_teaching.html http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2018/03/response_teachers_must_encourage_students_to_make_meaning_together.html http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2017/09/response_new_teachers_must_create_a_balance.html http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2017/06/response_leaders_can_support_innovation_by_listening_more_speaking_less.html?cn=bWVudGlvbg%3D%3D http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2017/06/response_career-changers_are_attractive_teaching_candidates.html?cn=bWVudGlvbg%3D%3D http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2017/05/response_the_toughest_part_of_teaching_is.html http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2017/01/response_challenging_moments_in_teaching.html?r=1953741459


C) SAMPLE OF COVERAGE IN SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS

Mensa World Journal did a book review of one of Dr. Rankin’s books.

Mensa World Journal is the international journal of Mensa, which was established in 1946 and is the largest and oldest high IQ society in the world.

Mensa World Journal is completely independent of Dr. Rankin (e.g., she has never worked for the publication, she has never served on its board or written for it, etc.).

The book review can be found online here: https://www.us.mensa.org/?LinkServID=ECB6C2BD-E35E-D520-7FF5145152348936&type=mwj&name=2018-07-MWJ.pdf


D) SAMPLE OF COVERAGE IN MAINSTREAM PUBLICATIONS

Dr. Rankin was interviewed for an article in U.S. News & World Report.

U.S. News & World Report was established in 1933 and (according to Wikipedia) its circulation reached an audience of 2,000,000 people in 1973.

U.S. News & World Report is completely independent of Dr. Rankin (e.g., she has never worked there, she has never served on its board or written for it, etc.).

The article can be found online here (Dr. Rankin is mentioned in 6 times even though the article is quite short): https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a27044118/what-is-helicopter-parenting/


E) SAMPLE OF COVERAGE IN SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS

The book Data as a Feature - A Guide for Product Managers by Alice LaPlante and Matt Lemay builds heavily on the research of Dr. Rankin, includes an entire segment on Dr. Rankin’s Over-the-Counter Data concept, cites her for all of this, etc.

The book was published by O’Reilly Media, which was established in 1978 in Cambridge.

O’Reilly Media is completely independent of Dr. Rankin (e.g., she has never worked for the company, she has never written for it, she has never spoken at any of the conferences listed for it on Wikipedia, etc.). The book’s authors are also completely independent of Dr. Rankin (she seems to have never worked with them or written about them).

The book can be found online here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47943735-data-as-a-feature---a-guide-for-product-managers

SystemDisrupt (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:46:37, 12 March 2020 review of submission by 103.192.78.154


Hello, As I'm The Public Figure & Entrepreneur People Want To Know More About Me And This Article Will Inspire Them. I Request You Look Once Again On This And Approve As Soon As Poosible. 103.192.78.154 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:21:39, 12 March 2020 review of submission by Barthmelo Cubin

This article is on Salar Shamas; an emerging artist and entrepreneur in Lahore, Pakistan with notable achievements in the field of music.The person has been recognized by various international platforms includinf Spotify, Apple Music and even Google search and in turn needs a Wikipedia page to further reinforce the online presence. Kindly look into this matter. Barthmelo Cubin (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barthmelo Cubin: WP:Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. They don't need a Wikipedia page to further reinforce the online presence. If they are notable, someone else will write about them. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:07, 12 March 2020 review of draft by Fyodor Sam Brook


why is my article being rejected? how can I submit a scanned document on my computer as a reference? how should I make a reference like? Fyodor Sam Brook (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:27:47, 12 March 2020 review of submission by Twinphile

I have reviewed the old article and enriched the missing content with more notable information links. Twinphile (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


07:41:09, 12 March 2020 review of submission by Cimfalab


I have added external links (GitHub and OWASP) mentioning DeepScan. As of GitHub especially, DeepScan is a member of its Marketplace and now a partner of its Student pack recently. I know GitHub is the largest developer community/platform so to being with GitHub is an evidence of notability. Also, when I search 'javascript static analysis' in Google, DeepScan is shown up at the very first rank.

Cimfalab (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


07:45:58, 12 March 2020 review of submission by HZyk

Hello. I was wondering if you could tell me exactly why was my submission declined? When creating it, I was looking at already published articles about similar topics which are already approved, and I simply cannot understand why there is an issue with mine. I made sure to only disclose factual information, and I am not quite sure what is meant by it being an "advert". Articles regarding similar topics - like Dropbox, WeTransfer or MEGA that are approved on wiki disclose in my opinion a huge amount of detailed information that could be considered an advert, yet, those are allowed?

Please, if you could explain in detail what is wrong with my submission so that I can work on it more and fix it, that would be really helpful. Thank you for your time and I am looking forward to hearing from you.

HZyk (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:OSE. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:37, 12 March 2020 review of submission by Boongalings


Boongalings (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:05:14, 12 March 2020 review of submission by Fyodor Sam Brook

What information should be added?

Fyodor Sam Brook (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fyodor Sam Brook, unfortunately a Wikipedia editor has determined that the subject of the article isn't notability. As such, no amount of editing would likely get the article included in Wikipedia. But if you do believe that your article complies with WP:Notability, you can list the sources here and I'll see if they do in qualify the article. Then your article could be resubmitted. However, given the experience of AFC reviewers, I believe this is unlikely to happen. I would strongly encourage you, if you want to continue to edit Wikipedia, to focus your efforts on a subject that likely meets the notability guidelines of Wikipedia but doesn't have an article yet (you can see a list at WP:Requested Articles). Let me know if you have any other questions!Sam-2727 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:06, 12 March 2020 review of draft by Teak11

I’m trying to create an article about high fashion model and actor Karolina Muller. She’s had a successful career in fashion and entertainment industry since the 1990s. I don’t understand why the article is still declined.

I’ve sent a lot of references too.

Teak11 (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Teak11: I have declined your submission again. Please see your draft for tips on how to move forward. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:35, 12 March 2020 review of submission by Baghirovmusa

Hi, I hope you're doing well, I would like to get advice for making our company's page acceptable for Wikipedia community, as I read you G11 I found out that it's declined for reason that it had promoting content, i have seen this type of message on the top of page of 'Deloitte' which is also consulting company like ours.Please give me information that how i suppose to do that in a proper way to get confirmation. Baghirovmusa (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baghirovmusa Any article about your company would not be "your company's page", but an article about your company. Your company has no special rights to it as the subject. I see that you declared a conflict of interest, but you still need to formally comply with the paid editing policy and make the stricter paid editing declaration; a Terms of Use requirement.
Regarding your draft, I think that you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to merely tell about a company. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes information that appears in independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing how a company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field, it all depends on the sources. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years- this is why it is not a good idea to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist. Each article is judged on its own merits.
In order for you to be successful in writing about your company, you in essence need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources. Using press releases, the company website, staff interviews, or other primary sources are not acceptable for establishing notability. Most people in your position have great difficulty writing in such a manner. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use its own website, social media, or other alternative forum where what you want to do is permitted. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:18, 12 March 2020 review of submission by Lendale Johnson

Looking to add hometown Kalamazoo, MI

https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2015/03/kalamazoo_celebrity_lendale_jo.html Lendale Johnson 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lendale Johnson (talk • contribs)

Hi Lendale Johnson, this article already exists in the mainspace (at Lendale Johnson). There is no need to create a separate article if the article exists. Also, the fact you are referencing about him is already in that article. Let me know if you have any other questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:32:42, 12 March 2020 review of submission by Jeff E Mayo Jr


Jeff E Mayo Jr (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff E Mayo Jr, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

04:39:05, 13 March 2020 review of draft by Azim.atma


I am not very much on why this article has been declined? I need to know specific reason. I have just use School information, nothing promotional or advertisement materials. I have given all references to create this article.

Azim.atma (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azim.atma, The specific reason was provided. You need to prove the notability of the subject. WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:52:04, 13 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 2020USER



2020USER (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020USER, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:30:29, 13 March 2020 review of submission by 45.64.227.49


45.64.227.49 (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:33, 13 March 2020 review of submission by Tjkeeran


I have removed the sections Prepay plans and External links, if you find that as a promotional material. Please let me know if any other sections need edit. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Tjkeeran (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Munjarin Abony (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:03:16, 13 March 2020 review of submission by Munjarin Abony

{{Lafc|username=Munjarin Abony|ts=10:03:16, 13 March 2020|page=

Hi, I am interested in knowing specifics on why my page is being declined. The reason states "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject...". Do I need more reliable sources? Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Spherical45 (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spherical45 You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject himself, not just citations of his accomplishments. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:56:34, 13 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Munjarin Abony

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

12:37:54, 13 March 2020 review of submission by Eeberbach


Eeberbach (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Can somebody else, more competent in computer science and mathematics than Sulfurboy review our Evolutionary automata draft submission to Wikipedia? To whom can we officially complain? We made substantial corrections for Sulfurboy three times. This time he "invented" as the new pretext for rejection that our submission is "not notable" enough in his opinion. Nobody else mentioned that to us before. Does it mean that before it was notable and now it stopped to be? We are recognized experts in the area of computer science, mathematics and evolutionary computation with hundreds of reputable reviewed publications, with Ph.D. and D.Sc. degrees in those areas, thus we know perfectly well what is notable in that area. It is a complete nonsense that a neutral encyclopedic submission, supported by multiple reliable sources, on foundations of evolutionary computation and its expressiveness, something that is badly missing in evolutionary computation, is not notable enough. It provides new venues for research and knowledge in that area, and Wikipedia readers (specialists and general public) deserve to read about that. What else can be more notable on this subject? See for comparison existing Wikipedia pages on evolutionary algorithm, genetic algorithm, genetic programming, evolutionary computation. Are they not notable too? Sulfurboy, with his Bachelor in political science and English, does not have the slightest idea what is "notable" or not in that specialized area. He may not like our submission, but he is not Wikipedia's God and does not have, we hope, an absolute power on submissions to Wikipedia. We never had such problems with publications before, but compared to Wikipedia, the reviews were done by the experts in specific area and not by ignorants. Note that the ignorant reviewer rejected before Alan Turing's, the founder of computer science an AI, famous "Intelligent Machinery" report labeling it as a "schoolboy essay". Of course, we cannot compare ourselves with the genius of Alan Turing, but we strongly believe that Sulfurboy would reject Turing's submission too if he had a chance. Fortunately, he had not. We spent one year on corrections to Wikipedia of this specific page, and it was a very unpleasant and frustrating experience so far. Note that our submission to Wikipedia does not constitute an original research, but it is based on such research. We hope that our comments will not be ignored and the last version will get an independent, neutral formal review.

Sincerely,

Eugene Eberbach and Mark Burgin

Firstly, attacking other editors calling them "ignorant reviewers" will not help you here, secondly you are sharing your user account which is expressly forbidden. Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the core purpose of Wikipedia. No article should require a review by anyone "more competent in computer science and mathematics". If the article does not provide sufficient context and explanation to a general reader without speciality technical knowledge, then the article simply isn't suited for this encyclopedia in that state. There is no academic essay-style content on Wikipedia, everything must be directly attributed to sources without conclusions, synthesis or bias. Fact-source(s), fact-source(s), etc. You jest that "Sulfurboy would reject Turing's submission too if he had a chance", but that would indeed likely be the correct decision by any of the reviewers. We do not accept content based on primary sources, original research, synthesis of sources or essay-like exploration of topics like one finds in academic writings. Your extremely hostile tone suggests you have no desire to actually adapt your work to Wikipedia requirements, so I agree with the decline. Wikipedia is not the platform for this publication in this state. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:55:55, 13 March 2020 review of draft by Cjhmace


Hi. I am waiting for a draft in relation Chris Guest (Artist) to be reviewed but have received a comment to say that if the page is accepted I will need to create a disambiguation from Chris/Christopher Guest. I am assuming this means the actor Christopher Guest but my query is how do I create this disambiguation as I seem unable to find any information on how to do this. Also do I need to do this now or will it only need to be done if my page is accepted? Thanks for your help!

Cjhmace (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cjhmace. Robert McClenon's comment about disambiguation is more for any future reviewers that for yourself. Novice editors are not expected to know all the ins and outs of the encyclopedia. If you're interested, the process is described at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:47:38, 13 March 2020 review of submission by Jack Cherrett

Hi, I was just wondering if there is anything you'd suggest that I can do to get this published, Thanks Jack Cherrett (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Cherrett Your band needs to be shown to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable band, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Facebook posts and locations the band has played do not do it. Not every band merits a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:50, 13 March 2020 review of submission by Arjun dhiman11


Arjun dhiman11 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun dhiman11, what is your question, exactly? Sam-2727 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:17, 13 March 2020 review of draft by M.A.Sarmiento


I have made a few revisions to my page and have eliminated outside sources but I think I am still struggling with figuring out what language is considered neutral or encyclopedic. If someone could read through my draft and point out anything that really stands out I would appreciate the help. Also, should I cut down the lists of commissions, panels, publications, etc? Thank you! M.A.Sarmiento (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.Sarmiento Before you edit any further you need to make a statutory declaration, you have a conflict of interest and you need to declare this on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong Thank you, I believe I correctly noted COI on the article. Please let me know if I made a mistake. Thanks.
M.A.Sarmiento, you made a slight mistake in the placing of the template. I have corrected it for you. As to regards for neutral language, as editors have said in the past, you should remove all the "select" sections. These skew the neutrality of the article to portray the subject in an overly positive manner. Also remove language like "custom-made, one-of-a-kind" as this makes the article read like an advertisement. If you have any other questions, let me know and I'll be sure to answer them. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:23, 13 March 2020 review of submission by MC Choji

Information required in order to have this article on this specific person published on wikipedia. MC Choji (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it is not suitable for Wikipedia, there isn't anything you can do. Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:08:13, 13 March 2020 review of draft by Laurenroche1


Laurenroche1 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurenroche1, I assume you are asking why your article was declined? It is because your references don't establish the notability of this person, and may be unreliable. All of your sources are autogenerated (i.e. not reliable), or not independent of the source. For an article to be notable, references must be independent and reliable of the subject (articles from the website of a golf course the subject helped design aren't independent). Also, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a reference. Finally, the decliner noted that this reads like a resume. Wikipedia articles shouldn't just be a blatant collection of every single one of a person's accomplishments. They should address parts of the subjects life, without going into too much detail. Adding an indiscriminate collection of facts can skew the neutrality of the article, giving undue weight to one section of the article. To learn more about this, I encourage you to read WP:Notability, WP:Neutrality, and WP:TooMuch. Feel free to ask me any other questions you might have. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:32:53, 13 March 2020 review of submission by 74.51.153.252


I am working with my school mate and friend Actor Ciby to get his wikipedia page setup. This would help him in reaching to his audience and know more about his life. I am not sure why it's being rejected multiple times. Can I get a layman example of mistakes I am making? 74.51.153.252 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For an article to merit inclusion into Wikipedia, the subject of the article must be notable. That is, the subject of the article must be supported by multiple independent, reliable sources that cover the subject of the article significantly (that is, not just trivial references). You currently have two sources. imdb isn't considered a reliable source by Wikipedia editors, so it doesn't meet the reliability criterion, and a link to a netflix show isn't independent of the subject (Nor does it likely mention the subject beyond trivial coverage). Not everybody merits inclusion into Wikipedia, and AFC reviewers have determined that the subject of your article likely doesn't. I would recommend that if you enjoy editing Wikipedia, you find another article to create (or expand on the many existing Wikipedia articles). A list of potential articles to create can be found at WP:Requested Articles. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


March 14

00:29:15, 14 March 2020 review of submission by Frank Marrows


Frank Marrows (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verification is apextv.net instagram.com/apextvofficial Google ApexTV and you'll find it.

I'm assuming you're wondering why your article was declined. To merit inclusion into Wikipedia, the subject of an article must not just exist. It must comply with WP:Notability. That is, it must be supported by multiple independent, reliable sources that mention the subject of the article significantly (that is, not just trivial coverage). An instagram page and the company page aren't independent of the source (nor reliable), so they don't count towards the notability criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Your article has been rejected, which means AFC reviewers have made the determination that this subject isn't notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. I recommend that, if you enjoy editing Wikipedia, you edit one of the many articles already created or create a new article of a subject others have deemed to be likely notable (you can find a list at WP:Requested Articles). Let me know if you have any other questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:17:34, 14 March 2020 review of submission by Fyodor Sam Brook

Give me some advice Fyodor Sam Brook (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fyodor Sam Brook. You've already started this article at Samkutty Pattomkary. There's a lot more information in the new draft article, but it's mostly unsourced, and we can't have two articles about the same person. Please continue adding reliably sourced information to Samkutty Pattomkary. You're welcome to ask for help on improving that, either here or at my talk page. Thanks, Capewearer (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:30:35, 14 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mohammad Faiq Shah



Mohammad Faiq Shah 07:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Mohammad Faiq Shah You essentially wrote your resume; that is not what Wikipedia is for. Please review the autobiography policy as to why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about yourself; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that show how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable person). If you meet that definition of notability, you shouldn't be the one to write the article about you. Also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:42, 14 March 2020 review of submission by Prasad3455


Prasad3455 (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=945496346"