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
Gedgmoss (talk | contribs)
297 edits
No edit summary
Line 803: Line 803:
[[User:Joxley Lee|Joxley Lee]] ([[User talk:Joxley Lee|talk]]) 07:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Joxley Lee|Joxley Lee]] ([[User talk:Joxley Lee|talk]]) 07:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Joxley Lee}}, I'm afraid that this subject is not [[WP:N|notable]]. He might be notable someday, but it appears to be [[WP:TOOSOON|too soon for this particular person]]. Also, if you know this person/are this person you should probably not be writing the article, as that represents a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 07:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Joxley Lee}}, I'm afraid that this subject is not [[WP:N|notable]]. He might be notable someday, but it appears to be [[WP:TOOSOON|too soon for this particular person]]. Also, if you know this person/are this person you should probably not be writing the article, as that represents a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 07:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

== 07:31:33, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Gedgmoss ==
{{Lafc|username=Gedgmoss|ts=07:31:33, 5 May 2020|page=

John Francis Moss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Francis_Moss
}}
I had feedback on the draft above for Tone, referred to the Wiki guidelines but still require more specific guidance. [[User:Gedgmoss|Gedgmoss]] ([[User talk:Gedgmoss|talk]]) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Ged[[User:Gedgmoss|Gedgmoss]] ([[User talk:Gedgmoss|talk]]) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

[[User:Gedgmoss|Gedgmoss]] ([[User talk:Gedgmoss|talk]]) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:31, 5 May 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


April 29

09:14:47, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Chebyshevprove123


Chebyshevprove123 (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chebyshevprove123 You don't ask a question, but your draft does not have any independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:42, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Nitinsainimp {


Nitinsainimp (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:07:09, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Winecoffee


Winecoffee (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winecoffee, Your sources are entirely unusable. Also, if you are the subject, you should not be writing your own article. That is an enormous conflict of interest. It is next to impossible to write neutrally about yourself. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello: I am wondering why you state "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." This is modeled after Dr. Joel Emer's wikipedia page. Could you please advise what the issue is?

Thanks! -Shubu

11:12:43, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Winecoffee


Winecoffee (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


That is, I am trying to understand what "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." means? Are you saying Shubu Mukherjee is not notable or the article itself hasn't been created to reflect that. Very few in the industry has gotten the Maurice Wilkes award for outstanding contributions to computer architecture. Shubu Mukherjee's name is listed there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Wilkes_Award. Many in that list (including Christos) has a wikipedia page. Also, check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthasarathy_Ranganathan. How is Shubu Mukherjee's page not sufficiently notable compared to these? Any help you provide would be greatly appreciated.

Shubu Mukherjee is also listed in your Fellows of ACM page on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fellows_of_the_Association_for_Computing_Machinery. In fact, if you click on Shubu Mukherjee's name on this page, you get an error page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Shubu+Mukherjee. Wouldn't it be nice to have an actual link?

With kind regards, Shubu Mukherjee

Your sources are very poor Wikipedia, Linked In and Amazon are never reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:47, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Connernudd


Removed anything advertising related, made the article more generic to display points of accuracy.

Connernudd (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connernudd Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little to no chance it can meet Wikipedia guidelines. The draft has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support its content (no sources at all, actually). Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:07, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Micaha123

Why is it being rejected I wanted to know why because I want to know what I did wrong so I can change it. Micaha123 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Micaha123 Your draft was rejected, meaning that there is little to no chance that it can be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. Please understand that Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects; you have offered no sources at all. If you just want to tell the world about what I assume is your esports team, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:55:15, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Gitten4

1. My draft has been denied for submission because it does not "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I did enter external links as references where I could, but they don't seem to be showing up. So I would love help with adding sources. (This is my first time creating an article from scratch.) 2. Also, I know the subject (actor Mads Koudal) personally (he's a friend), and I've attempted to declare this on my user page, but I'm unsure if I did this correctly. Also, I'm unsure if it's best to leave the creation of the article to someone else. If possible, please let know where I may request assistance for this. Thank you :-). Gitten4 (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gitten4, For adding references properly please read the easy referencing guide. I have also fixed your COI declaration. In general, I would caution that it is very hard to write neutrally about someone you know. The guy looks only marginally notable at best, which would require you write a pretty good well sourced article. Everything needs a reliable source, you can't use things you know personally. I would say it is possible that you could create the article, but most folks in your situation would not be able to. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:40:29, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Jupitious


Jupitious (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Edited to be only significant notable company information. Jupitious, Seems like just another company to me, no indication of why it is notable and not just run of the WP:MILL CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:10, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Ivanajuchelkova

Hi, my article has been rejected twice as an advertisement and/or as biased etc. Would you please let me know what do I have to change for the article to get published – should we replace the photo with a different one? Should we replace specific words or references? We really do not want the article to be an advertisement so I would appreciate any help I can get. I am an office manager of the company run by Anna Maresova, so I disclaimed that I am a paid employee in my profile. Thank you very much. Ivanajuchelkova (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected because it is contrary to Wikipedias objectives, it is just blatant advertising, if your company is notable someone unconnected with it will write an article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:29:45, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Deadeyeltd


Deadeyeltd (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir , this is my first article with Wikipedia . This guy Yash Gupta is a famous entrepreneur here in India and has motivated me as a youngster . I am 24 and this guy being just 21 inspires me to work really harder as he is a self made man . He remains in news channels on television and also on news websites .

18:03:18, 29 April 2020 review of draft by Joejose1


My draft was rejected for the third time. The latest one says that it reads like an advertisement. I followed the style and language in articles about other operating systems most similar to the what I made the article about. Linux Mint & Elementary OS Kindly help me make it better. My article and the articles linked about reads the same to me in tone.

Joejose1 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joejose1, Well the tone is not neutral, and its text reads promotinal. For example, having "Pop!_OS is strives to have a 'minimal amount of clutter on the desktop without distractions '." as the second sentence is not at all how we structure articles. We try not to quote manufacturers, let alone as the second sentence. In general, an article is not trying to sell a product, but rather provide a neutral...and almost uninterested...accounting of it.
Also, be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. The second line was me following Linux Mint style. You might want to remove the second line in that article too. I've removed that line in mine. I've made some tweaks as well. Kindly give it one more read. Even in the Wikipedia:Good articles certified Debian it seems to just talk about it's features. It's so much more comprehensive but my question is related to the neutrality. What is the expected neutrality for an article about an Operating system. Joejose1 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joejose1, You may wish to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux for more guidance than I can give. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:25:49, 29 April 2020 review of draft by 198.254.193.117


I have made some changes to address concerns raised by an reviewer to an article previously submitted and rejected. How do I submit the changes?

The previous page had a box similar to this one, however it said not to make any changes in it, and to press "Publish changes".

Thank you.

198.254.193.117 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are PaulFBucci, remember to log in before posting. It appears that your draft has been submitted. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:31:16, 29 April 2020 review of submission by Rickshanchaz


Rickshanchaz (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rickshanchaz, Wikipedia is not for promotion, advertising, or writing about yourself. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

00:17:05, 30 April 2020 review of submission by Dynamiccloser

I have taken out all personal promo verbiage from the article. Dynamiccloser (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dynamiccloser. I have removed the violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, and some of the material for which no reliable source is cited. There isn't much left. Valdes does not appear to be notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:19:19, 30 April 2020 review of submission by Dynamiccloser

I have remove all person and promotional language from the article Dynamiccloser (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamiccloser, For starters, it is unsourced. That won't fly. But, the guy just doesn't seem to be notable anyway. He's an average individual like you or I. If he was notable for his crimes, then we probably shouldn't cover him unless the crimes were really somethinge else, see WP:BLPCRIME, which they don't seem to be. Its time to edit another subject, perhaps one that exists already. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:44:35, 30 April 2020 review of submission by Mattyrobson

I am requesting assistance because I am trying to give wikipedia updates on the TV show, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. My article somehow got deleted, even though I added some sources to this information. I would like you to give me help on how to not only get the deleted page back, but also manage to put the information where it tells what I found, and convince them that a 10th season of the show really IS happening. Mattyrobson (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mattyrobson, Well you'll need to find some reliable sources that claim there is a 10th season. But as many folks have told you, no such sources currently exist. There isn't a tenth season happening. I would change my mind if you gave me an article in a reliable newspaper or website that says there is a tenth season. Unless you provide such sources, you are on a fools quest, as there is no way that article will get approved. Wikipedia relies soley on such sources, and accepts no other form of information. Based on this edit by you, I think you've simply misintrepeted what the extra episodes are. They seem to be merely a bonus, not actually a whole season. Also, if your source is the FIM Wiki, that isn't reliable, just as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because its content is user generated. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:14:41, 30 April 2020 review of draft by Brian.mcdonald01


The reason give for rejection of the submission was that it didnt have a compatible licence. The source material does have a compatible licence, please see https://cccmcluster.org/legal How do I resubmit the article with the above evidence? Many thanks for your help.

Brian.mcdonald01 (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian.mcdonald01, we don't permit non commercial licenses here. As the encyclopedia itself is licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike, we can't have any licensed content here more restrictive than that, so don't permit non commercial or no derivatives licenses here. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 12:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:38:14, 30 April 2020 review of submission by Brandonbibby


Brandonbibby (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandonbibby, films don't have articles here until filming has commenced. See WP:NFF. You have been told this several times. You have also been told that if you continue a discussion as to a topic ban may occur.
Please stop trying to move this article. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 13:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:22:16, 30 April 2020 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:8710:9E00:18AB:6DBC:BAB8:4F1B


2A01:4B00:8710:9E00:18AB:6DBC:BAB8:4F1B (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:38:49, 30 April 2020 review of submission by Startupfortune


Startupfortune (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Startupfortune, Wikipedia is not for promotion. If you want to promote yourself or someone you know, contact an ad agency. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:44:59, 30 April 2020 review of submission by 49.36.131.174


49.36.131.174 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@49.36.131.174: - with no sources, this draft is automatically unable to demonstrate notability. The content of it indicates that it is probably impossible to do so, even if all sourcing that is available was added. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:05:41, 30 April 2020 review of draft by GoldenEar13


I'm just wondering how to differentiate the sidebar and the discography sections in an article I'd like to publish.

GoldenEar13 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenEar13:
  • using the wikitext editor, you can add section titles by adding 3 equals signs around your title, and subtitles by adding 4 equals signs.
  • On the visual editor, click on paragraph, and then you can select the different types of headings.
Thanks,
~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 20:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:38, 30 April 2020 review of draft by Sbarclay000


I would like to delete my draft "Adam Eli" which was rejected for publishing. How do I do that? Right now it's publicly searchable :-(

Sbarclay000 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sbarclay000, I've tagged it for deletion, however, drafts should be found easily - there aren't set to be indexed by search engines, and unless you are looking for drafts, it isn't easy to find them via Wikipedia's search. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 20:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:57:34, 30 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Naomisargeant


I have entered this page as a friend for a living bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fahad_Badar

It was live but then removed with wikipedia citing that it has been removed for violation. This is the exact message: This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require clean-up to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

This is not the case and I need to know how to resolve this matter, awaiting your kind asistance.

Naomisargeant (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naomisargeant While I cannot reveal what I know publicly, there is indeed reason to believe that you have been paid to edit. If this is not the case, you will need to offer a plausible explanation as to why others might think that you were paid, if you were not paid. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:03, 30 April 2020 review of submission by Realquacktaped

Hello, I hope someone sees this. Just yesterday I attempted to create a page for a company specializes in making a Japanese toy called a kendama. My page was promptly declined with a message that said Wickepedia does not allow advertisements (or something along those lines). I am I no way associated with the company and had no intention to use that page as an advertisement. I simply passionate kendama enthusiast who wants to create a brief articles for different kendama companies with a short history of each one to add to the knowledge of wikipedia. It doesn't make much since to me why restaurants are able to have wikipedia pages but not kendama companies. If someone could either help me approve my page or further explain why that page can not exist I would very much appreciate it. Thank you!

Realquacktaped (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realquacktaped Your draft does little more than tell about the company; that's why it was considered to be an advertisement. Wikipedia articles should do more, they should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company.(please review) You may find it helpful to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:32, 30 April 2020 review of draft by Jadelsb1


Why is Spotify not considered a reliable source? Jadelsb1 (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jadelsb1 I don't think the issue is whether or not Spotify is a reliable source, it's that your draft in general does not have enough independent reliable sources with significant coverage, showing how Oskar meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why the page was rejected. Griffin is a well known producer who is featured a such on the page entitled "Boomiverse". Jadelsb1 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jadelsb1 Please make further replies or follow up comments in this same section, instead of creating a new section. As I said, your draft in general does not have enough independent reliable sources with significant coverage. If he meets the Wikipedia definition of either a notable musician or a notable creative professional(producer), that's only one step- Oskar must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If no reliable sources write about him, he would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 3 reliable sources to his page. Am I missing anything else @331dot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadelsb1 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jadelsb1 I see that you added three links, if these are sources, you need to properly cite the information the sources are supporting; please see this page to learn about citing sources. 331dot (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just properly cited them. Please let me know if there is anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadelsb1 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:19, 30 April 2020 review of draft by Mrn helmers


Can someone here please take a closer look at Draft:Bruce Flatt? The draft was recently rejected because of a lack of significant coverage. But there is plenty of significant coverage cited: a New York Times profile, a Globe and Mail profile, a Bloomberg Businessweek profile, Financial Times and more. These are long articles all about Bruce Flatt - not interviews or trivial mentions - from some of the most reliable and prominent news outlets in the world.
Pinging M.nelson, who edited the draft extensively last month and is not, as far as I know, affiliated with Brookfield as I am. Thank you, Mrn helmers (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mrn helmers (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mrn helmers, Its rare that we would approve these articles, but there is certainly significant coverage. As a note of caution, since you have a COI, you should not make any direct edits to the page in the future. Any such edits should be proposed on the talkpage instead. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:16, 30 April 2020 review of submission by WhiteStone98


WhiteStone98 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteStone98, This seems to be an average person like you or I. She could be notable someday, but shes not there yet. If you are this person or know her, you probably shouldn't be writing about her anyway. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for taking the time to take a look at my article. I'd like to improve it and hopefully have it published. Do you have any recommendations on what information I could add, or any specific sources I could draw from to deem this artist notable? Thank you.

21:37:24, 30 April 2020 review of submission by QuincyBalius


Hello! I submitted a draft for review and was told that it appeared to be written to praise the subject, which was unintentional. The draft was for Mike Clark. Please let me know how to improve this.

QuincyBalius (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuincyBalius, Please understand that the tone of an encyclopedia is very formal. We write about subjects from a neutral and ...almost uninterested point of view. We state facts, without the traditional cruft of news articles or books. For example, "during his fifty-year-long career" is an unnecessary detail which is just trying to make him look more important. Same goes for "He was one of the first in his family to go to college", "Within a few years," and many others. In general, I would go through the article and rewrite in as neutral a tone as possible. If you need further help, please ask again. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:12:08, 30 April 2020 review of submission by Halliegrace


Hi, I've worked super hard to make this page devoid of any blatant advertising or promotional language and just have it represent the history of the company Bounteous. I'm not sure why it's still be rejected as too marketing-centric. Please tell me what needs to be removed to get this published.

Halliegrace (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halliegrace The draft just tells about the company; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You offer a lot of sources, but they all appear to be press releases, routine business announcements, or brief mentions, none of which establish notability. Wikipedia is primarily interested in sources with significant coverage, coverage that goes beyond merely stating something about the company Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:21:56, 30 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Per W


I have three references that it won the Jukola relay, which presumes that it is notable. What more should I add? Should I look for more newspaper articles about the same? 1292simon

Per W (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per W, Hmmm it does appear to be notable based on the criteria. You'll have to forgive us, orienteering is pretty obscure, and your article is very short. I would try to add some more sources and content to the article. It might also benefit from some slight translation or context, as half of the words are non-english. I have no clue what a "by Hiidenkiertäjät" is, nor would I know that Uusimaa was in finland unless it said so in the text. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


May 1

01:27:32, 1 May 2020 review of submission by Greg c1988

the feedback given is absolutely incorrect - "The Queensland Times citation just added was an exact copy of the news.com.au article that was already cited" In the Queensland Times article, their is no referencing to News.com.au - They are different articles, they both state different facts.

For example, I was going to add this reference by the Daily Mail, but then I realised at the bottom it was linking back to the News.com.au article which I have already referenced - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6857699/How-Australians-enter-lottery-potentially-win-Powerball-jackpots-bigger-1BILLION.html There are other exact articles to the one of the Queensland Times, like - https://www.dalbyherald.com.au/news/the-lott-reveals-the-games-most-frequently-drawn-n/3618774/ or https://www.tweeddailynews.com.au/news/the-lott-reveals-the-games-most-frequently-drawn-n/3618774/.

All sections have been properly referenced. There is no failure towards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies).

Also, I have addressed this issued according to the feedback I have received on Teahouse: "Hello, Greg c1988. Your understandable confusion lies in a common misunderstanding about what "notable" means in the context of Wikipedia editing. It isn't the everyday meaning, but rather one that has arisen within our Wikipedia-editing jargon. What it doesn't mean is important, or popular, or well-known, or worthy, etc., etc. What it does mean is, in summary, "has been written about sufficiently extensively by independent third parties in several unconnected pieces published in reputable, well-edited academic or journalistic organs, providing sufficient information on which a Wikipedia article can be acceptably created." The fuller explanation can be found at Wikipedia:Notable. Therefore, to be acceptable an article has to be about a subject that has been written about in this way in Reliable sources, and the article has to demonstrate this by citing those sources to support the bulk of its contents. It sounds to me (as it probably did to the first reviewer you mention) that this Company probably is a notable (i.e. sufficiently publically documented) subject, but the article has to prove that it meets Wikipedia's relevant requirements, in this case those of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), by including citations to suitable and sufficient third-party sources. Such sources are likely to include independently written pieces (so not PR releases, or interviews with subjects employees) in reputable newspapers, and text in books, etc., produced by established professional publishing companies (not self-published works). Note that not every fact in an article has to be derived from an independent (of the subject) Reliable source – uncontrovertial facts like business address, name of CEO, number of employees, etc., can even be taken from a company's own website – but notability can only be supported by completely independent sources. I hope this makes things clearer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.161.127 (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting for this to be re-reviewed. I would like this to be reviewed by another reviewer, not - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curb_Safe_Charmer.

Greg c1988 (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg c1988 I agree with the assessment of the reviewer. Most of the sources seem to be press release type articles or routine announcements, not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I agree as well that this correct assessment for rejection was made. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please advise where does it state the limit on how many articles can be used?

I started another thread below. Apologies for doubling up. I can't delete it now.

08:04:42, 1 May 2020 review of submission by NewLoaded9ja

I need you advise on the draft:HoganHost to complete the article and it to accepted Hello great editors, please why my article are dealine.

NewLoaded9ja (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NewLoaded9ja, For starters, no need to ask a question four different times. Second, the article in question is just promotional advertising for a company. It does not seem to be notable, and the article is just chock full of buzzwords. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:40:11, 1 May 2020 review of submission by Rahulrstg

How to Write a Article in Wiki what is the process of new Person. Rahulrstg (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahulrstg, I would visit the Teahouse for help. See WP:TEA Sulfurboy (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:57:38, 1 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Shahkarshah


Hi JFY My article was deleted few years back, because I copied a few lines and pasted the text without making an effort to read the instructions, so I stopped writing on Wikipedia, after a few years I am trying to write again without coping any line I have used templates from Zaha Hadid, I hope it is legal, and I am trying to write this article to encourage those who love art but their families stop them from joining these professions. Please check my article can I publish it. Thank you Shahkarshah (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:13:40, 1 May 2020 review of draft by Ym2X


Someone else resubmitted this draft (I had previously submitted) so I did a short source review on the talk page to hopefully show that the draft passed WP:GNG (and then I also added a source to show the subject passed 2. of WP:SINGER), but it has since been declined again.

The most recent decline reasons were "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" and "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement" which looking at the AFC workflow sheet seems to be only a few steps away from the accept circle (taking those two reasons to be the "reliably sourced" and "neutral pov" diamonds, I could be wrong?).

Perhaps I could stubify the draft, any unreliable sources could be removed and both these problems would be solved? Then the article could be grown in mainspace where there is more room for collaboration?

I just wanted to check whether my understanding of the process is correct and whether my proposed solution would actually help? Ym2X (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:21:41, 1 May 2020 review of submission by Atim2019


This article is rich enough to publish it, why voiding it

Because the article is basically an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a business. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:48, 1 May 2020 review of submission by Nesherin

Hi, I'm looking for someone who can help me with this page. I've been trying to work on it for several months now but apparently it doesn't work, I just dopn't have the skills.... I really want this page to go online, it's about a theatre group that doesn't exist anymore. It would be good to have it archivd in Wikipedia. thanks

Nesherin (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize someone or something. If the group does not meet the notability criteria, it cannot be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:33, 1 May 2020 review of submission by Oketa daniel

My submission was rejected. Reason being that it was taken from a Blog Post. And I can prove that I am the one who othered that same blog post. What should I do now. I am the original author and I am even making a book on the same subject. Oketa daniel (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oketa daniel, You need to link to the article that you are talking about. Also, if you are writing a book about the subject, that means you have a financial stake in promoting the subject, which means you need to properly disclose as a paid editor. I've posted the applicable information on your talk page. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:40, 1 May 2020 review of submission by MedialadyCLA


I'd like to add a photo of the subject of an article to his article. How do I do that? MedialadyCLA (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MedialadyCLA, did you take the picture, or have the permission to license the picture? If not, you can't upload it except in very limited circumstances.
Because Wikipedia is licensed under a free license, where as long as we are attributed anyone can use our content, images (except in very limited circumstances) must also be released under a free license. We can't have images licensed just for use at Wikipedia, or under licenses that don't allow derivatives or commercial use. If you upload a photo here, it can be used for any reason, with the only condition you can require being attribution.
Knowing the above, you can upload the image at Commons:Special:UploadWizard. If the image wasn't taken by you, but you have permission to license the image, you should also email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, where volunteers will record and store the permission to use the image. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 17:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:27, 1 May 2020 review of draft by Andrewhistory


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prodigy_math_game help me with this draft HISTORIAN (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewhistory, It will need additional reliable sources and also will need to be written in comprehensible English. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:01, 1 May 2020 review of draft by Kojo Essel


I am a new user. My draft article was declined and would like to request for assistance to help me edit to meet Wikipedia Standard and the reviewer's comment Thank you

Kojo Essel (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kojo Essel, Well for starters it reads like an ad. Articles need to be written from a formal point of view. Secondly, are you connected in any way with the subject? If so you need to declare that by following the steps at WP:COI. If you have been paid by the subject you must disclose that by following the steps at WP:PAID. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:25:13, 1 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mrcoleprotocol522


Why is my article determined not sufficently notable for wikipedia? My topic is on a rapper who has several albums and has worked with other big name rappers. The article's decline seems entirely subjective.

Mrcoleprotocol522 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mrcoleprotocol522 Your draft does not show with significant coverage in multiple published independent reliable sources how this rapper meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Please review the criteria. Two of the references are to this rapper's own website, which is not an independent source and does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:43, 1 May 2020 review of submission by Adumbgeek

Good Afternoon, I am requesting assistance in regards to the article Chase The Comet. It was declined for reading more like an advertisement, and not being from a neutral point of view. Can someone please assist me with this? I am new to this and was looking for something to do because of this COVID-19 crap. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, I want to make sure it's done right. Thanks for your time.

Adumbgeek (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adumbgeek, I will answer your question at the Teahouse shortly, no need to post on more than one board. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:42:43, 1 May 2020 review of draft by Ronroizen


Cannot upload a photo. Ronroizen (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronroizen, Please take a look at Help:Creation and usage of media files CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

01:27:04, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Greg c1988


Hi guys,

I have removed the line which was originally marked as "citation needed", which was was just deemed to be a duplicate in the last review - which I contested. Re-reading it over again, this line is not needed anyway, as it is a fact about the parent company and not the actual company in which this article is based on.

All citations have been added where requested. Sections that have been marked as having insufficient references have been removed (as stated above, plus another in other feedback).

There are currently 8 citations, in 6 different categories: 3 x News 1 x Charities 1 x Different Charity 1 x Industry Analysis 1 x Government's Legislation 1 x Australian gaming council

Trying my best here guys. This is obviously a notable topic, as every other lottery in Australia is on Wikipedia, including netlotto, which has terrible content (no citations) and isn't even a lottery - but a reseller. This article is an expansion on the category of Lotteries in Australia. I'm trying to get this to a level of quality you require. Yes, it would be great to have this article live for The Lottery Office, but it's also a notable topic in the industry that expands on this subject for Wikipedia. It is not simply adding a business for self-promotion.

Unfortunately, the only citation I can make to the law, points to the legislation in the Northern Territory. To mix it up, I have added - https://www.austgamingcouncil.org.au/content/northern-territory-code-practice-responsible-online-gambling. But this then points to the original citation I had anyway. And, news articles are most common in this sector. Charities don't do write-ups, except on social media, it's just really hard to get anything more solid.

Is there something else that needs editing?

Really hope these changes satisfy the Wiki's stringent requirements. I absolutely understand why you reviewers are strict. Wikipedia has reached a level where every man and his dog want to advertise their own business, and obtain solid backlinks. After reading through all the feedback on this page, I don't envy the work you do as volunteers.

But I genuinely ask you to please, have a re-read though all of this, and allow me to fix what ever needs to be readdressed - If still need be. What you need, where, and how. I will do my best, but I don't know what more I can do. I have researched this topic everywhere for further references. I can't get anything. I don't have any contacts who can help me in the company, but then again, if they give me a reference, it would be from them anyway.

I have found a copy of the Northern Territory license, in PDF format, issued to The Lottery Office. That's the only thing I haven't included. I can, if you think it's relevant.

Cheers, Greg

Any updates on the above? The review draft has been left with an Ask For Advice button and I've received no further updates on two comments left on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg c1988 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg c1988 (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:46:45, 2 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Gumshoe2


My article on mathematician Peter Li was rejected for not establishing notability. Peter Li is a Guggenheim fellow and an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as indicated in my draft. Wikipedia already has pages to list each year of rewarded Guggenheim fellows, and most recipients have wikipedia pages - so it seems like that should already be enough. On the laudation from his Academy of Arts and Sciences election, which is even more prestigious, the reviewer said

"That is a primary source and does nothing to establish notability. Wikipedia requires multiple in -depth coverage of him in reliable sources unconnected with the subject."

In addition to being, I think, directly wrong about establishing notability, it seems to me like this sets a bad standard for articles about academics, since such sources do not exist (except for publicly famous figures), and it doesn't seem to matter anyway in articles about other academics of similar standing and reputation. What exactly do I need to add to my draft to make it publishable?

Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gumshoe2, Well you have just a single source. In general articles require at least three sources, and ideally more. Also, receiving the Guggenheim fellowship does not automatically make one notable. It can certainly help, but it is not qualifying by itself. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:28:31, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Bgbluesky


Bgbluesky (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bgbluesky, You have a single source. That is not suffucient. However, this organization appears too localized to actually be notable. Perhaps if it were a national organization with a bunch of chapters, but not like this. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I removed most of the achievements of the university, and left on non promotional information on the page.

06:26:21, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Dean197

This article I wrote was declined and I am unsure how to action the feedback given, as I believe it has been adhered to. The feedback was 'This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article...they do not show significant coverage from reliable sources.' And yet, all of the citations I provided on the subject matter were from national news organisations in New Zealand (the location of the company). Any guidance on what next steps to take would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Dean197 (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dean197, We don't write about everything. This appears to be just an average company, nothing special about it. Unless you can show that this company has received significant media coverage, i.e. it is in someway more interesting than the average company, we can't write about. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:16:17, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Roblongg


Hi, sorry, I'm not requesting a re-review, I was hoping someone could help remove/delete this draft completely. I'm not sure how to go about simply deleting the page entirley, other sites have copied the rejected draft page and won't remove it until its removed from here. Hope you can help, really appreciate it.

Roblongg (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so, per your request. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:08:02, 2 May 2020 review of draft by NotCory


If my Globo affiliate list got rejected for lack of sources, then how come List of RecordTV affiliates, which doesn't have any sources whatsoever, got created and remained here? NotCory (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NotCory Please see other stuff exists as to why that is a poor argument to make. Possibly that article is inappropriate as well. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:43, 2 May 2020 review of draft by JohnMorganEvans


Hi. PLease can you explain what the 'CV issues' are which are referred to by the reviewer. Apart from the track listing the revised article is all in my own words with additional material plus citations. Please explain what teh issues are so I can fix them

JohnMorganEvans (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JohnMorganEvans, CV means copyright violations. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material, and deletes it whenever found. An adminstrator should get to the page soon to remove the copyrighted material from the page's history, and then you can get back to business as usual. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:18:29, 2 May 2020 review of draft by 210.6.22.101


Why is there such a huge double standard regarding Notability for MMA fighter? (WP:MMANOT)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jiri_Prochazka_(martial_artist)

You declined the above for not being notable even though he is in the UFC now. Plus he won a title at Rizin Fighting Federation

Meanwhile you let wiki pages like this be created

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Lee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriano_Moraes_(fighter)

IN YOUR OWN WORDS for WP:MMABIO

Criteria supporting notability

Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization

According to WP:MMATIER ONE Championship isn't a top tier organization. So why does she get to be considered notable again? In fact this is not a one off case. This double standard has been applied to other ONE Championship fighters too.

210.6.22.101 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks and we are in the process of finding them and fixing them. Just because another article is bad does not mean yours can be bad. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Part of the issue with your article is that it has a mere three sources. You need to make sure that all information in the article is supported by a reliable source. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:30, 2 May 2020 review of draft by Jojo.nguyennga


I see the category of my sandbox is my user name. How could I change the category to be specific to the subject of the article?

Also, how to publish an article with a title? I only see the sandbox as title.

Thank you very much!

Jojo.nguyennga (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo.nguyennga, When a reviewer approves the article they will give it appropriate name. Until that point, you should consider that the article lacks inline sources. It is also quite promotional in its tone and approach, lacking the formal tone and neutrality of an encyclopedia article. Also, there is no evidence that the topic is notable, i.e. reasons that we should cover it CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:08, 2 May 2020 review of draft by EndlessSound301


Hi - I am looking to figure out how to improve the article that I submitted. The subject of the article is the subject of many newspaper stories, including "Cold Spring Harbor scientists discover new form of lung cancer" and "Researchers test treatment for type of leukemia". Could you kindly explain why these do not meet wikipedia's secondary source criteria? Thank you!

EndlessSound301 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:32, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Surelyshubham

Please let me know why wikipedia is rejecting my article? Surelyshubham (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surelyshubham, We've merely declined it, meaning that it could be improved and resubbmitted. WIth this draft, you've yet to show that he is notable. You'll have to prove he meets one of the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:20, 2 May 2020 review of draft by MichaelHolemans


Hello there, This is my first wikipedia article on the CBR Building in Brussels. So far it has been declined twice, first due to lack of a neutral tone, now for a lack of references. I feel like I succeeded in removing subjective elements and peacock terms in the text, but I do not yet understand why it's not referenced correctly. (or other problems that I'm not aware of) The list of references are all valid sources, which contain all the information I used in the article.

If you could help me a bit I would greatly appreciate it!

Michael

MichaelHolemans (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is largely unsourced, the content requires inline citations, not merely a list of sources dumped at the end, and as advised the section on "Constantin Brodzki"and "Prefabricated concrete modules" seem to be outside of the articles scope and should be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:34, 2 May 2020 review of draft by Jaicecaver


I have made sure my references came from google scholar. I have no idea what other reference problems that we have.

Jaicecaver (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" user accounts are very strictly for single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:38, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Razvan112002

Hello! I have a question regarding the rejection of my article about a new Romanian airline. The rejection reason was that is not notable enough, but I don't think so. It's an airline which will be used by many Romanians this summer as part of flight+hotel deals and moreover, Aegean Airlines, a major airline in Europe has a stake in this business. I have collected all the information carefully, from reliable sources, and I have provided a source for all of the content published. I don't understand why this page may be less relevant than other pages. For example I found on Wikipedia the page of an old Romanian airline which has been flying for almost 6 months and no more. There are as well articles about many other smaller, less relevant charter airlines, but with less information than on this page. If you want I can provide examples of that kind of pages as well as more sources for Animawings article (such as ch-avia, a well-known site for aviation). Thank you for your time and I hope that you'll reconsider your decision about this page, as many tourists wish to find out all this info about their airline in only one place- Wikipedia. Razvan112002 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Razvan112002, It might be notable in the future. But at the moment, an airline with a single plane that hasn't even flown a route yet? No way. Maybe try again in 6 months, but almost zero businesses are notable before they have begun. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:22:39, 2 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by AdatOmor007



AdatOmor007 (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdatOmor007, Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. It is not for promotion. And it must be neutral. All you have written is Adat Omor Is A Awesome Photographer His Photography Maximum 40000..[1]Adat Omor Very Intersting And Funny Chracter, which is about as non-encyclopedic as it gets. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:11, 2 May 2020 review of submission by Idokon210

Thanks for this opportunity to contribute. More so i'm sorry i didn't inform you that the contribution was a paid contribution and it in conformance to the paid disclosure agreement to the best of my knowledge. would be grateful if assisted properly. thanks idokon210Idokon210 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Idokon210 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idokon210 Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

04:20:05, 3 May 2020 review of submission by Jadelsb1

I AM WRITING AN ARTICLE ON GRIFFIN OSKAR AND DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT KEEPS GETTING DENIED. HE IS AN UP AND COMING MUSICIAN WHO WAS SIGNED BY REPUBLIC (A MAJOR LABEL), HAS RECENT SONG RELEASES AND KEEPS GETTING DENIED. Jadelsb1 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jadelsb1, Please don't SHOUT, that is seen as rude. To the article in question, "up and coming" usually means not yet notable to us. Please show how this fellow meets some part of WP:NMUSICIAN, our guideline on music notability. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Wikipedia does not have articles on "up and coming" musicians, the musician must already have arrived, so to speak. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on that: see "Up and coming next big thing". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:38:14, 3 May 2020 review of draft by KevinNlc


Hi, I require help as I'm trying to write my first article and 'NO' it is not a 'Conflict of Interest', I don't work for them or have any close links. New Life City is a church which I'm writing about and they are pretty famous here. To start with writing articles I has thought they would be a good choice. if possible suggest me edits and help. KevinNlc (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KevinNlc, Well you haven't shown that the church is notable. You'll need reliable and independent sources that talk about the chruch. Also, the tone of the article is pretty informal. Phrases such as "way back" are not encyclopedic. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:02:57, 3 May 2020 review of submission by 37.111.43.38


This subject clearly meets the WP:ACADEMIC. So please kindly review this BLP ASAP. Thanks

37.111.43.38 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is in the review queue. Please be patient. It would be unfair for you to jump the queue CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:57:33, 3 May 2020 review of submission by Nyiminsan


I'm very new for Wiki.

I made draft article about her because of her effort and contribution to local women's community. I don't make any promotional related in my article. Even the celebrities and social bloggers are on Wiki, my honest question is why can't she? She have a lot of media appearance, even she is Young Southeast Asia Leader Initiative's country lead, but I didn't mention in the article because the announcement is only source at social.

Please help me for correct, and help one reviewer who know Myanmar language.

Nyiminsan (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nyiminsan I would first suggest that if English is not your primary language, that you may feel more comfortable editing the version of Wikipedia that is in your primary language. Regarding your draft, it is good that this person does good work, but Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good work or good causes. A Wikipedia article must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how the person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. The reviewer felt that this person did not. I cannot read the Myanmar language so I cannot evaluate the sources for myself, but if the person does meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, the sources and article text need to better indicate that. If you just want to tell the world about this person, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:20:59, 3 May 2020 review of submission by Charles Oliver Burns


Charles Oliver Burns (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have fixed the issues, please can you now approve the page.

Charles Oliver Burns Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that the reviewer felt there was little to no chance it can be improved enough to meet Wikipeda's standards of notability. No matter how well you write it, no amount of editing can confer notability on the subject. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Oliver Burns (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The page should not be rejected, The Apprentice is an international phenomenon and Charles is widely known in the UK, therefore the page is relevant and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.

Please do not create a new section for follow up comments, just edit the existing section. If what you say is true, then you need to demonstrate that because the draft doesn't currently. Please read Your first article for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the BBC source which is a primary source, none of your sources mention him? Nothing there to suggest any WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:36, 3 May 2020 review of submission by Ruthwyshogrod


Hello, I am requesting a re-review of this article. I have updated my user page disclosure to state that I am did create this page on behalf of a client. However, I also believe that the person the page is about - Smadar Nehab - fulfill's Wikipedia's noteworthy requirements, and has made significant contributions to the development of an Arab high tech sector in Israel and a shifting socioeconomic landscape in the Arab community. These, I feel, are entirely worthy of Wikipedia pages as they represent objective, significant change and shift in Israel. Now that I have disclosed that I am being compensated to write the page, I believe it does not violate Wikipedia's standards and that it should be re-reviewed.

Ruthwyshogrod (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is stuffed with promotional puffery, poorly sourced and basically just a CV. not a Wikipedia article Theroadislong (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:24:19, 3 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Georgeadelmoureed


Sir did you check my proof in my youtube video well ?

Georgeadelmoureed (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up one day. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:22, 3 May 2020 review of submission by Kato Kei


The information i had provided is upto date as per the reference from the Wikipedia, please let me know how i can make this Wikipedia page.

Kato Kei (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kato Kei, The article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not the place to post someone's resume. I recommend job boards or Linkedin. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


15:11:05, 3 May 2020 review of submission by 2A02:C7F:CA19:2F00:44CC:3B64:167E:C924


2A02:C7F:CA19:2F00:44CC:3B64:167E:C924 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

06:36:49, 4 May 2020 review of submission by Nemtudom88

1. It suits the requiremnts

if u have finished, click the "Publish changes" button or your request will not be posted!!!-->}}

@Nemtudom88: Very few youtubers are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:39, 4 May 2020 review of draft by Masato.harada


I am unclear why my film submission has been declined. The reason given is:

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 films). 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.

Has the submission been declined because: 1. The entire subject, that is this film, is not suitable? In which case, is the problem whether or not the film exists? My external links to independent sources demonstrate that there is such a film. Should I change the external links to make them references? Or

2. Is the problem that the two statements in my submission which are supported by references do not have sufficiently strong sources? In which case, should I delete the references and leave the submission unreferenced (which is the situation with many articles describing less well known films which have been accepted on Wikipedia)?

Masato.harada (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reference [1] doesn’t mention the film and IMDb is not a reliable source, so you have in effect, zero reliable sources to support any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:30:39, 4 May 2020 review of submission by Nemtudom88

1. there are no Copyrights 2.it's not a fanpage 3. it's objective 4.it was written in English Nemtudom88 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Noone Has talked about copyright violations
  2. If this refers to the first decline - It contained some WP:PUFFERY but nothing to serious. Note that the first reviewer was since indeff'd for violating WP:PAID (which is a Terms of Use requirement).
  3. We had this before
  4. Dont know how you came on this
The much more serius concern is that the Draft lacks sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. YouTube isn't considered a relieable source because it's user-generated. I failed to find other sources linked in your Draft's history. A quick Google search also doesn't brought up something relieable. Please read WP:AMOUNT and WP:42. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:05:20, 4 May 2020 review of draft by 2A02:8109:9D80:3124:8DB8:9044:F022:B53E



Dear Wiki community. Thanks for checking my submission so quickly. :D As I would like to become a more active member of the Wikipedia community, I am eager to learn why this article was rejected. Its a direct translation from German Wikipedia (should be pretty encyclopedic, I don't know who created it there), and the article has been requested in the English Wikipedia in at least two other articles (eg here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct_for_Syrian_Coexistence and here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bloc_(Syria) ). Sources like DW, FAZ, Die Welt, ZDF are highly established mainstream news platforms in Germany. And I basically chose this topic because I thought it was a quick way of getting my engagement here running and I am somewhat surprised by the rejection reasons. Hence, I would like to know better how to improve the draft or future contributions. Any feedback highly recommended. Thanks ;D

2A02:8109:9D80:3124:8DB8:9044:F022:B53E (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:29, 4 May 2020 review of draft by 56-k Maz


Hello,

I would like some help improving the submission I wrote about Alexander Boldachev. My submission is declined for 2 weeks because "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter." Could you help me by specifying what I could improve or clarify so that the context is sufficient for everyone?

Many thanks for your help,

56-k Maz ==

56-k Maz (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 56-k Maz. The fundamental problem remains that your submission contains material copied from other websites in violation of copyright. As a consequence, the text portion of the draft has been hidden until the copyright problem is fixed. I've unhidden the first sentence, which does not violate copyright, but without any other text, the draft has insufficient context to be accepted.
There are instructions on your talk page and in the large "Investigation of potential copyright issue" box on the draft about how to resolve the issue. New editors who dive into the deep end of the pool by trying to write new articles (one of the most difficult tasks novice editors can attempt) instead of learning their way around in the shallows (by improving existing articles) tend to be left to sink or swim on their own. If you want assistance, you may find it easier to attract if you explain on User:56-k Maz what your connection to Boldachev is and why you are writing about him on Wikipedia, instead of improving the encyclopedia's millions of other articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Worldbruce.
Thanks for your quick feedback. I fully understood the principle of copyright infringement which was pointed out to me a few months ago. It has since been corrected. I thought the issue would be solved in this way.
I am a new editorial on the English Wikipedia but I have written some submissions in French. I have never seen this issue "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter." and I wish I could correct it. --56-k Maz (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:45, 4 May 2020 review of draft by DanWASB


Hello. My draft article was recently rejected for reading too much like an advertisement. I'm wondering if an editor can give me an example or two of the non-neutral language in the draft that was cause for rejection.

I could see making a few minor changes — such as replacing "represents" with "is a membership association representing" in the introduction — but these seem, well, minor.

Could an editor explain what I might need to add or remove to correct this issue? I've added a number of other sources in an earlier revision.

My username is DanWASB. I have disclosed my affiliation to the association about which the page is written.


DanWASB (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text The WASB, based in Madison, Wisconsin, provides member services such as legislative advocacy, leadership development and legal and policy guidance. and the entire "Services" section are typical of promotional articles. I often see such wording in drafts about law firms and consulting and other service firms. I can't say what aspects RoySmith (a very experienced reviewer) had in mind, but those are my thoughts. I would also mention that the section "About School Boards in Wisconsin" seems to have very limited relevance to the topic of the WASB. More about the various actions that the WASB has taken over the years might be helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DanWASB, I noted a couple of phrases in particular:
  • "provides member services such as legislative advocacy, leadership development and legal and policy guidance."
  • "provides services intended to help board members be more effective and run their districts run more smoothly"
I hesitate to call those out in particular, however, because I don't want to leave the impression that if those two phrases were excised, what's left would be acceptable.
Dan, while I thank you for complying with our COI disclosure rules, I do need to draw your attention to WP:COI where it says, COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. ... Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. I'm sure you meant well, but your desire to promote the WASB comes through loud and clear in just about every sentence of this article. That's why we so strongly discourage people from writing about organizations they are connected to. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:44, 4 May 2020 review of submission by Mateo1259

I have revised the content based on the feedback I received and I think it meets the standards wikipedia has set. Mateo1259 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope...just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:35:54, 4 May 2020 review of submission by Exotic pop


Exotic pop (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

advice?

Hello Exotic pop The draft in your sandbak is pretty much pure advertising. There is no indication that the company is notable (see WP:NCORP) but even if it were notable, the draft is much too promotional for Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:31:25, 4 May 2020 review of submission by Keaton lariver


Keaton lariver (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keaton lariver, Your professor wants to have you turn in all of your work like that? You may have misunderstood them, as Wikipedia drafts are not for schoolwork like that. The only thing we can approve from students is actual articles that would fit in our encyclopedia. All of the extra cruft has to go. If your professor really wants you to turn that in via Wikipedia, they are mistaken. Send it to them in a word doc or something. Also, your draft is nowhere near the standard of a Wikipedia article. That doesn't mean you've failed your class, it just means we can't publish it. It will need improvements if we could publish it. However the real issue is that the topic is unclear and unsuitable. You've essentially written a how to guide, not a formal encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what I'd even title your article if I were to accept it. What is it about? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to submit a draft paper to my professor from Wikipedia with all my edits/enhancements. Can you please help me to do so? Thank you.

Your professor seems to have some pretty grand misconceptions about Wikipedia is for. I would advise you to tell them to go to: WP:ASSIGN Sulfurboy (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not going around attempting to add this info to existing articles. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:12:55, 4 May 2020 review of submission by Brenchristo


I am requesting a review of my article because I have truthfully declared all information for my biography. If I have done something wrong please tell me, because I cannot understand why it has been turned down so many times. I really need some help to get through all of the red tape. I am not good at writing code and that is my problem. If I can be shown a sample of how I should rewrite it I will greatly appreciate it. My biography at World Nations Writers Union was updated by the authorities and I request that you have a look at it once again. Brenchristo (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brenchristo, The article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further at this time. Per the message already provided: "Page creator has continually ignored suggestions to improve page and just keeps resubmitting article. It's very likely the subject is not notable and even if they are the article would have to be wholly re-written to comply with Wikipedia notability guidelines and MOS. "
I would recommend in the future not attempting to write articles about yourself. If you actually are notable, someone will write about you eventually. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


May 5

00:01:07, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Cdg1072


Dear editor,

Concerning this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_contradiction_of_Poetics_chapters_13_and_14

only one editor (out of several) was supportive of the article I submitted, and he suggested what changes he thought would make it sound more objective and free of any synthesizing or opinion that was my own. I incorporated his changes and resubmitted (it had already seen a few previous submissions). But since that one editor, the last two have both tersely stated that the article seems "non-neutral in tone." It has at this point received a "stop" notice, presumably indicating that more advice should be sought before resubmitting, or do not submit again at all.

My article does not, in fact, contain my opinions or original research, and it is neutral. It only contains the opinions of people who are experts on the topic, which is appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles contain many opinions, but never strictly the opinions of the individuals writing articles. Every opinion mentioned in Wikipedia is mentioned as a fact, the fact that someone holds that particular view of the topic. In other words, many topics covered in Wikipedia lack a single consensus view of the issue, whatever the subject is. Some topics do enjoy a consensus, of course, and perhaps those are easier to report on. But some topics are still under debate, so that multiple views and positions have to be mentioned. This is not against the rules of Wikipedia, on the contrary, many of its articles exhibit this feature.

If the editors are right, then, there must be some expressions in the article or long-winded passages that make it look like it is a new opinion, of the person submitting the article. But that is a distorted view of the article. So to solve the problem, it is necessary to either decide (1) that the topic is too esoteric and obscure for Wikipedia, or not important enough to be found in an encyclopedia. Or (2) Wikipedia editors should try again to state what specific things in the article actually make it look like original research (which it is not). What are those things, so that they can be changed? I personally cannot see anything in the article that strongly gives this impression. It all looks objective and neutral to me.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Cdg1072 (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cdg1072, The article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks on wikipedia. I would recommend working on existing articles first to get a better idea of the tone and structure we look for in an article. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been interested in creating a wikipedia article, per se. I have 1000 edits on Wikipedia articles, a few of which are not minor. That experience, while not extensive, has nothing to do with the change of fortune paradox. I only created the article because it is a very notable topic that's 500 years old. I have no idea what you mean, by talking about this article being different from other Wikipeida articles on similar subjects. You suggest looking at other articles in Wikipedia? Well, I've been reading them for 20 years. I could look at other articles, like the one on Theories of Humor, or Theory of Descriptions, forever and not see a difference. It's exactly the same. The tone and structure is exactly the same, and if you could show otherwise, you would. But you can't, and I don't care -- thanks.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:59:07, 5 May 2020 review of draft by Whisperjanes


Is there a way to withdraw an AfC submission that I submitted? Although I think the subject is notable, I don't think it's obvious from the article at the moment and the article as a whole could use more work. I don't want to have a reviewer put in time reviewing it right now and I rather not have it rejected at the moment, since I think it would be good to work on it longer in draftspace.

Also, additional question: If I want to leave a comment on the draft for future reviewers, is there any specific way I should do it? Thank you!

Whisperjanes (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperjanes,  Done If you want to post a comment, I would just continue to do what you've done previously in the comment that you left. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sulfurboy! I wasn't sure if I had to use the comment template that reviewers use or not, so good to know. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:25:30, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Qaasid


The reasons to why my contribution was rejected are vague to me. My request is, as I am new to this and as perhaps this may be my only contribution for a while, that someone either post this for me or explain specifically and explicitly what is still required. If someone can help, that would be awesome; I can provide authentic sources and references and help in any way possible, but I'm just not tech savvy enough to continue. And I find it extraordinary that it hasn't been covered already. I look forward to hearing back from you! Regards

QA (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qaasid, The article you linked to hasn't been submitted, much less reviewed. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:53:46, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Cabotweeps

I'm asking for re-review, this draft article was got deleted in the first and second attempt to publish it , for the reason of sock puppetry. How can we appeal when we already blocked and don't know where to ask assistance or advice what to do. I thought you don't bite newcomers? Why the article is always getting deleted by the same wiki admin? I hope someone can help me on this matter. Thank you and take care.

Cabotweeps (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that user Cabotweeps has been blocked as a sock of Fourmilesc (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). GSS 💬 07:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:12:51, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Joxley Lee


Joxley Lee (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joxley Lee, I'm afraid that this subject is not notable. He might be notable someday, but it appears to be too soon for this particular person. Also, if you know this person/are this person you should probably not be writing the article, as that represents a conflict of interest. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:31:33, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Gedgmoss

I had feedback on the draft above for Tone, referred to the Wiki guidelines but still require more specific guidance. Gedgmoss (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)GedGedgmoss (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gedgmoss (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=954968875"