Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dangelvoice (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 17 April 2021 (→‎18:33:23, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Dangelvoice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


April 11

00:03:23, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Elijah King Bethel


Major changes made to page and notability and outside sources now at an arguably reasonable level. Review requested.

Elijah King Bethel (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah King Bethel The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can make the subject meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:47:29, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Baseballnewz123


Baseballnewz123 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baseballnewz123 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:49, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Legotwin

I am confused by the reasoning for the declining of my draft. I saw the film today at Seattle International Film Festival and was inspired to create a page for the film. I can guarantee that principle photography has been completed and cited so in my article. If additional sources are all that is needed, that is understandable and I can create a new version with more references to corroborate the information present. Legotwin (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legotwin Most reviewers look for at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. You only have one, not including the film website(which is not independent). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:10, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Dokta Moyo


Good day, Kindly assist as to where I can improve on this submission.

Dokta Moyo (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dokta Moyo please confirm that you have read the message in the big, pink decline box. This gives you advice. If you find something difficult to understand, please add to this thread and ask with precision for the explanation you wish for Fiddle Faddle 11:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:17, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Jonh takuma

I want to write about this person who is the best artist and rapper in Cambodia. Jonh takuma (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonh takuma uploading pictures of doubtful licencing to Commons is not the best place to start. Those have been nominated for deletion there.
Here, your draft is set for speedy deletion as an advert. Likely this is the total lack of references. Nothing shows he passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) and you need references to do that. You will be welcome to create a new draft is this one is deleted, with references, or, and this is important, you can contest the deletion using the bog blue button the deletion box, and state that yiu will be improving its to add references to it. If you succeed in contesting the deletion successfully then you must approach @ CommanderWaterford, the reviewer who rejected the draft and seek retraction of the rejection Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


10:07:55, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Profgeraintrees


I'd like some guidance on why my editor is requesting inline footnotes, as these were already provided in the draft to evidence any potentially contentious statements. I don't know whether my editor is asking for *more* footnotes for statements that s/he considers inscope, or wants me to format the footnotes in a different way (perhaps I have missed some key information), or remove footnotes that are irrelevant? I'd very much appreciate any guidance so I can continue editing the draft as a newbie. Thank you. Profgeraintrees (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Profgeraintrees I share your perplexity and am studying the draft and references to seek to determine the reason. All reviewers are human and errors do happen. @Tom (LT) - courtesy ping to see if you are able to shed some light? Fiddle Faddle 11:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Profgeraintrees Accepted It is to be expected that reviewers will disagree. I do not guarantee to be correct; I believe, simply, that the best place to enhance this is as an article, not as a draft. I've left a comment about referencing on the article's talk page. There is no compulsion on you to enhance the article further, nor to enhance the references, but you are welcome to choose to do so Fiddle Faddle 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddle Faddle Thank you very much for your help, much appreciated Profgeraintrees (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and for your contributions in writing the article. There are a number of statements in the article that I considered to need citations, the most notable of which was His work focuses on the pathological mechanisms that underpin neurological disability, and on recovery through neurorehabilitation. However, I also recognise that reviewers may disagree so am happy to defer to Timtrent here. All the best, Tom (LT) (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:10:19, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Jonh takuma


Jonh takuma (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I need advise from you.

Jonh takuma Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonh takuma I gave you a details answer above. Please do not keep asking the same question. We are volunteers and answer as soon as we can Fiddle Faddle 11:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:49, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Hercules Anton


I am rather confused. This article was not been accepted within hours of posting it. How much more significant coverage from reliable and independent media one should have (both print and online)? At least 10 sources about the article/subject were mentioned in the references, and more in the body. Please help. Hercules Anton (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that you have read Help:Your first article first. This draft has simply been pushed back to you for more work. The Daily Gleaner is obviously a reliable source, but we need things dome somewhat differently. All you have provided is a list or references. We need citations as follows
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
In other words the facts that you assert need to be cited directly, rather than leaving that for others to do. It's not only sensible, it's courteous to readers.
Not good form to upload to Wikimedia Commons a picture for the draft of questionable licencing. That is being handled there.
Obviously you are important to yourself. But read Wikipedia:Autobiography and realise that we do not really care about what you wish to say about yourself. Wikipedia is a great leveller. Approaching volunteers with "what more do you want!?" is unlikely to further your cause
If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:GNG does that. Fiddle Faddle 13:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has declared that they are not Antaeus. Struck comment about that. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:42, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Rawalrajendranath


Rawalrajendranath (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rawalrajendranath Welcome to the Helpdesk, unfortunately you do not ask any question regarding your draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:01, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Rawalrajendranath


Rawalrajendranath (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:39, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Grebbsy


Grebbsy (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grebbsy Welcome to the Helpdesk - your sources are simply not so-called reliable ones - which are needed to proof notability for your subject. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners - find a grave for example is not a reliable source because it is freely editable. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little experience in creating new pages. Can someone explain what is wrong with the sources quoted? Thanks

17:51:12, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Maxmarsh2021


hello. I am unsure of the feedback initially received. I have re-edited the article, and would appreciate feedback at this point to know if the article is improved or needs further editing. thank you.

Maxmarsh2021 (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:54, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Lfcfan2007


Lfcfan2007 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


19:34:32, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Pattygeorge


Hello. Im a stroke survivor who has been trying to make a positive impact by writing or editing articles by researchers in this field. I experienced another relatively minor stroke and its taken me a while to make this new reply to you.

In the interim, I noticed a different Wikipedia article about a less prominent stroke researcher named Darcy Reisman. It appears that my currently-rejected article has much more information than the one about her, and is being held to a higher standard than the article about her. Her article is much shorter, and Im being asked to supply information that does not appear in the article about her.

Please know that Id be happy to revise mine as you have requested, but it would be preferable to apply the shorter format that appears to be acceptable to you. Can you help me format my article in a way that would be more desirable to you?


Pattygeorge (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:37:32, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Formfactor

Hello,

The article that I summitted was rejected for the following reason: "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 music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I just wanted to understand if there was a threshold or measure I could compare to. That would help me see if there is anything I can add to correct it.

Thanks!

Formfactor (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Formfactor please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:18:34, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Meehowski


Meehowski (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Hi. The Gisto Draft which I created has been declined due to not quite meeting the WP:NM, WP:GNG criteria.... I would love to move this page to the appropriate holding location where I can edit it for future usage when there comes a time that actual notable sources become available. Is this possible and what are your recommendations. Thank you.[reply]

@Meehowski I=t hangs around here for 6 months if unedited in that period. then gets deleted Wikipedia:G13. But see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 which brings it back. Or, in fewer words, it's in it Fiddle Faddle 22:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:38:56, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Aiseeyah


The review just said the article wasn't "sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", I didn't submit this article but I was planning on working on it and am relatively new to creating articles from scratch so I was wondering, number 1: will this draft be deleted? Number 2: if not, what do you propose should be added to make ensure it meets standards of notability? More citations to specifically third-party news articles?

Aiseeyah (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aiseeyah This draft will not proceed further. It is rejected. You are at liberty to start a fresh draft if you can improve it. Please read Help:Your first article Fiddle Faddle 09:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:39:04, 11 April 2021 review of submission by HumanHistory1

We have an article on the 2019 Dallas courthouse shooting in which the only person killed was the perpetrator and there were no injures, in the shooting at Kent Moore Cabinets, one person was killed and six were injured including a police officer. I am a little confused as to how this recent shooting in Bryan does not meet the notability requirement by the shooting in which no one died or was injured does meet it. HumanHistory1 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanHistory1 your draft requires expansion with text and references. We do not weigh drafts by numbers of victims, but in coverage in reliable media. As the comments say, a little time needs to pass. Wikipedia is not an organ to be first with the news. It is a distillation of what is said by others in reliable sources Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

Request on 00:17:34, 12 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Dayralorena


Hello staff, I wanted to know why is this been rejected? I have worked with this person below and has published content. What additional information is needed?


Dayralorena (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dayralorena There are no staff here. All are volunteers. The deletion log suggests that this was an advert Fiddle Faddle 08:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:19:14, 12 April 2021 review of submission by Rawalrajendranath


Rawalrajendranath (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rawalrajendranath: Normally, when you go to a Help Desk, you have a specific question or problem you want to have adresed. So may we start with your question please? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:59:27, 12 April 2021 review of submission by Sezlon Technologies

Hi there, please refer the reason here -> 1: it's not a paid service, this is for the people in country like India where the Ambulance reaches in 1-2 hours and sometimes does not reach at all. The app is for the people who can request in case of emergency to the nearest person so that the person can help to get them to the hospital or coordinate the Ambulance. 2: It provides the way to notify the number of people about Missing Person/Absconded Criminal to get the help from the public to identify or potentially save the human trafficking 3: It provides the NGO module from where a use can share the leftover food to the people who care in need of that There are many more reasons, I would request you to visit https://www.helpyfinder.com/ once (site is not https yet and that's the reason I have not added in draft far now, team is working on that. This is just an initial draft submission and I'll be submitting more detail. Hope this is okay. Thanks Sezlon Technologies (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User was blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:56:47, 12 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Poetsnow


Need help to put reliable references that will be accepted by wikipedia.

Poetsnow (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poetsnow Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a poet, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. Brief mentions or the announcement of the publication of her works do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:17:06, 12 April 2021 review of draft by Naish21


My submission was rejected and I don't undersand why. I've based my entry in this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter_Point_Administration_Number adding as much information as I could find. The most important thing in this case that can't be easily find (and I think is a good contribution to wikipedia) is the python code about the checksum calculation. Naish21 (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Naish21 in the first instance, have a conversation with @Kashmorwiki who declined (not rejected) it Fiddle Faddle 09:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:30, 12 April 2021 review of submission by TAH0916

I resubmitted a Wikipedia page I created. How do I tell when it is approved or if it is declined again?

TAH0916 (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse#My original page was declined. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:10, 12 April 2021 review of submission by Astronomerabi215


Astronomerabi215 (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Astronomerabi215 - Without a question there will be no answer. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:54:06, 12 April 2021 review of draft by 2409:4050:E8C:6B12:0:0:BC49:FF01


2409:4050:E8C:6B12:0:0:BC49:FF01 (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have Telepathy and you do not have a question Fiddle Faddle 11:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim an article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever absolutely MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such sources can be found, removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living/recently-departed people and is not negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:01:08, 12 April 2021 review of submission by Abdulla2021

I just tried to Improve Wikipedia articles Using a sandbox but by mistake I moved my sandbox article in to help talk for more editing (but the article deleted I got the wrong process in editing. please you help is highly appreciated Abdulla (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdulla2021: Hello and Welcome to the English Wikipedia. I am afraid that Draft:Sudan_Bookshop is all but ready for mainspace. The most eminent problem is that there are no sources given for the information given. Wikipedia prefers reliable, independent sources, in fact, that is what most of the future article should be based upon. The style of writing also needs fixing, amongst other things, Wikipedia almost always uses the third person. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:39, 12 April 2021 review of draft by Dawnpalmyra


Hello. My entry was declined and I am having a difficult time improving it. Here is the link and note I received. Any help is greatly appreciated and I thank you for your time. I have updated the sources but perhaps I need to do more? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Postindustrial_(media) Comment: Sources are all self-published or too close related to the Subject, please see Wikipedia:Notability (media) CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2021 Dawnpalmyra (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:17, 12 April 2021 review of draft by Pablo Yabboe


I had a picture flagged for a copyright violation. I have been working with the source (MIT) but I guess I need to better understand how to communicate/document their permission to use their materials/photos.

The picture has been deleted and also, I cannot find the original message from the editor.

Thank you.

Pablo Yabboe (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pablo Yabboe: the picture was located here on our sister project Wikimedia Commons. If there is a permission to use that content under a license allowed there, please have the copyright holder send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. More information can also be found on your user talk page on Wikimedia Commons, including the original deletion notice. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:13, 12 April 2021 review of submission by AWESOMEDUDE0614


I am requesting a re-review of the page for Devin Purcell. I was informed that he was not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page but I as well as many others disagree. Devin Purcell has received international recognition for his music and charitable efforts, and is a verified artist on Spotify. I, and many others will maintain this page and add content frequently or as needed. Thank you for reconsidering and I am eager to hear back from your team.

AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a verified artist on Spotify, confers zero notability, your draft has no independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AWESOMEDUDE0614: Adding on to what Theroadislong said, Wikipedia has set notability guidelines, which Devin Purcell is very far from passing. Has he been covered by news? No. Has he won an award? No. So, he is not notable. Noah 💬 17:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:46:08, 12 April 2021 review of submission by Simon Christophers

Hi I request assistance with my article (Draft:David_Taborn)

In summary it has been rejected by KylieTastic and moved to drafts by Jalen Folf - so thanks to you both for your time so far.

KylieTastic rejected on non notability. So as such I have read again the Stand-alone lists guideline and also the Notability (people) from the WP:BIO redirects and now seek further advice on improving the Basic criteria so I meet the notability benchmark.

many thanks, Simon Christophers

Simon Christophers (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim an article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever absolutely MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such sources can be found, removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living/recently-departed people and is not negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:21, 12 April 2021 review of draft by Naijaaguila


Hello, how do I submit Draft:Ilolo Izu to be up for review. Thank you

Naijaaguila (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naijaaguila. It has been in the pool to be reviewed for about a month, as evidenced by the large yellowish "Review waiting, please be patient" box at the bottom of the draft. There is a severe backlog of submissions. At the present rate, it may take another 4-5 months for a reviewer to evaluate it. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:11, 12 April 2021 review of submission by Atul Sharma Producer


Atul Sharma Producer (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is indeffed Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


18:01:43, 12 April 2021 review of submission by Galmora


Galmora (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:35:19, 12 April 2021 review of draft by Getdizzi


I am new to WikiPedia and I am trying to get my first article published. I have made all the requested changes and I can not seem to understand why the article is not passing the submission requirement. Can somebody please help me understand what it is that I need to do in order to complete this task?


Getdizzi (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim an article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever absolutely MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such sources can be found, removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living/recently-departed people and is not negotiable.
In addition, the article has a praising/hagiographical tone throughout. We do not accept articles written to promote, praise, denigrate, slander, etc. a subject, and so the article needs to be rewritten to dispassionately summarise what the sources say. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:40:20, 12 April 2021 review of draft by YousafHassnain


Which references and source you need publish by other pages? If biography of a person is written in the books and not to be noted in other internet websites in that case what can we do by providing source and reference and also guide me on this platform I have multiple questions but for now I want guidness just on this issue that I can full fill my work. Thank you very much dear brother. YousafHassnain (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YousafHassnain: you write in User:YousafHassnain/sandbox/Ghayas_Ahmad_Khan#References that your references are the two Facebook pages and "various books". Would you please share the information which books with us? Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

02:27:20, 13 April 2021 review of submission by Beingsujan


Beingsujan (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and tagged for speedy deletion and will not be considered further. What is your connexion with the school? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:21:18, 13 April 2021 review of draft by Usama7124


Usama7124 (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:19:48, 13 April 2021 review of submission by Sharonlausl

09:19:48, 13 April 2021 review of submission by Sharonlausl

revision is made, please kindly take a look and leave your comment Sharonlausl (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharonlausl It is still contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an advert. You are at liberty to start a radically different draft showing notability and that it passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), but this one has been rejected and will not proceed. Fiddle Faddle 09:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:22, 13 April 2021 review of submission by Arvik8660


Arvik8660 (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been deleted as promotional. If you disagree with that decision, contact the deleting administrator (Athaenara); if the response is not satisfactory, you may appeal to deletion review. We, however, cannot assist with deleted articles. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:53, 13 April 2021 review of submission by 27.0.50.218

vaishnavvi shukla is a child celebrity She is working in film industry since 2009 she has done popular tv show udaan for more than 2 years as young Ragini, she is cine artist association member since 2014 please re -review 27.0.50.218 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, has been rejected, will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


April 14

00:37:45, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Rickeraser


Rickeraser (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Berrely, I hope you are doing well.

I would like of you help, because we put all References, with diffent sources, but unfortunately was not accept. The page of the label on wikipedia was a reference to Sculptor but not linked with the Sculptor band.

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

Sculptor is a relevant band with more than 60k on youtube, with a big label.

Can you help me with it?

All the best.

Pinging berrely, to whom this message was apparently directed. I note that most of the references (e.g. YouTube, the band's website) are not reliable. See WP:MUSICBIO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rickeraser. I rejected your draft as, after being declined 4 times, you still had not added references to show that the article is notable enough for Wikipedia. According to WP:MUSICBIO, you must meet at least 1 of the criteria listed for the article to be notable. As there is no evidence that the band meets any of the criteria, I went off the first criteria, which says that the band must've been:

the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

Looking at the sources, I could not find any fitting these criteria. 6 where self-published, one was from the label's website and others seemed to be from less-known magazines. I hope this helps you understand why I declined the draft. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 13:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:49:49, 14 April 2021 review of submission by AppuSunkad


AppuSunkad (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, minimal effort to address concerns of multiple reviewers. It has now been rejected and will not be considered further. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:35, 14 April 2021 review of draft by 46.140.63.202


I need help understanding what it not working. I have made all the changes being asked, and used sources not from the subject of the page (so external sources) yet it looks more like an ad rather than an actual page of a renouned swiss entrepreneur in Switzerland. Thanks for the help!!

46.140.63.202 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many things militate towards this being an advert. The references fail in so many ways. One is even a dead link.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
The over-prettiness of the article with multiple unnecessary pictures screams advert
Please explain why you have written about this person, and from your logged in account Fiddle Faddle 18:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:51, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Nicole0305

What source is not reliable? Thank you. Nicole0305 (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole0305 IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. The Twitter account of this person does not contribute to notability, as that is based on what others say about them, not what they say about themselves. Announcements also do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:46, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Nlm94


Hello - I have redrafted an article 3 times and finally it was rejected. However, I have improved the article much since the first review and it includes newspaper articles with significant coverage, not just passing mentions, and other verifiable sources not connected to the subject of the article. Also, I have seen other articles on similar subjects (grassroots football clubs of similar stature ion England) published on Wikipedia and I used these as a guide to create this article. However, this one with seemingly more notable/external references, has been rejected.

As mentioned above, sources I have used to verify the article subject and deem it to be notable are: 3 newspaper articles (2 of which are entirely about the subject), 2 online official league handbooks to cross reference club achievements, 1 podcast interview conducted by an external sports journalist with the founder of the football club, 2 database league tables to cross reference information in the article, and a few other website each with a paragraph of writing or so on the article subject, again to cross reference information in the article.

Please can there be a rereview of the submission? What can I do to improve the article further?

Thanks you Nlm94 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nlm94 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nlm94 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on the subject. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Is it possible to "recreate" the article? I believed the article to be well referenced but can collect more. Nlm94 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nlm94 The most well-referenced article can still not meet notability guidelines. The reviewer rejected it because they felt that the club does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization and that the chances of that happening were low. If you truly feel that the situation has changed since the draft was rejected, you will need to appeal to the reviewer directly.
I see that this is the only topic you have edited about. Do you have an association with this club? 331dot (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:00, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Giuseppe Ardolino


Hello, I already submitted this draft and it has been declined. I would like to know in which section I need to improve in order to respect Wikipedia's guidelines and try to publish it. I already followed some feedback but the draft is considered not in line with a neutral approach, and I want to understand the reasons. I am available to make all necessary changes. Really thanks for your availability Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say on your user page that you "have set up to introduce the new page on Sadas company to explain its history, market, and clients" that is NOT what Wikipedia is for. Theroadislong (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:22, 14 April 2021 review of submission by 95.107.240.167


95.107.240.167 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY is the applicable notability guideline here - This subject does not appear to meet the guideline. AviationFreak💬 15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:31, 14 April 2021 review of submission by 104.234.16.3


104.234.16.3 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft has been rejected and thus will not be considered further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:50, 14 April 2021 review of submission by SKPatel7991

Hi Wikipedia Team. I need advice on how to improve our article for the article to be accepted. I have provided reliable sources. What do I need to change or adjust so that I can make the necessary changes for acceptance. Thank you. SKPatel7991 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SKPatel7991 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Who is "our"? Only a single person should be operating your account. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I received a response back from my earlier question. I am replying back to the question for SKPatel7991 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Who is "our"? Only a single person should be operating your account. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I am the only one maintaining the account. Is there anything I can do further to accept my article? Thank you. SKPatel7991 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SKPatel7991 Please edit this existing section to reply, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in the full desktop version, even in a browser on a phone or tablet. You may make a natural reply as if you are addressing me, no need to say you are replying to my comment.
Please clarify your use of the term "our". As I said, your draft was rejected, meaning that it won't be considered further. No amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further clarification. I accidentally used the word "our" since I often use "our" in my own social media content writing. It was just a habit of my own writing.

SKPatel7991 How did you come to edit about this person? 331dot (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This person's a client. I will review the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure with this person to ensure we follow the proper requirements for Wikipedia. Let me know if there's any other information I need to review for the requirements. Thank you.

SKPatel7991 So "our" refers to you and your client. You should have said that initially, but it doesn't matter now. If he is paying you for the specific purpose of creating an article about him, my suggestion would be that you return his money because it isn't going to happen soon. Aside from paid editing you should review conflict of interest. You will need to make the required declarations for any other clients you represent. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:33, 14 April 2021 review of draft by Hamidsaahir


I am requesting clarification on why the article for Attorney James Carter has been rejected. The reason states lack of notoriety however there once was a wiki page that existed for him which was removed because of defamation and slander. Also, there are other pages for people in his profession who have similar experience and notoriety who have pages listed.

Please advise.

Hamidsaahir (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamidsaahir Please confirm that you have read the contents of the big pink box, and noted that it has been declined, pushed back to you for further attention. Please return to this thread with any further questions. You will not need to create another unless this has been archived Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:26, 14 April 2021 review of draft by Em Assist


Hi, wanted to understand why my article was rejected even though I have given the reference site. Please help me to make this article live. How can I make this article live? I have seen many wikipedia pages few pages have one liner info and one reference site and it got accepted but here, I have written the history , given the reference site still it got rejected . Why? If you are saying it looks like adverting then how about other pages that are live on wikipedia with one reference site.

Em Assist (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Em Assist Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you'd care to pitch in and help, you could identify some of these other inappropriate articles you see so we can address them. That other inappropriate articles exist does not mean yours can too.
Your draft does little more than tell that the company exists. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you are associated with this company, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:49, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Khmer stooge


My draft article on Alvaro Morales was rejected because it apparently does not meet inline citation standards. I was advised to include footnotes, but my article contains several and I thought I had cited anything that would require citations. Can someone please offer more detail on what's missing from the article?

Thanks! Khmer stooge (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Khmer stooge it has not been rejected. It has been declined, pushed back to you for further work. @Tom (LT) will, I am sure, go into further detail for you. I'll leave a note on the draft myself to indicate what may be absent, but I have not reviewed it Fiddle Faddle 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


April 15

00:37:50, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Logan Morrissey


Logan Morrissey (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:19:27, 15 April 2021 review of submission by LordGriot


LordGriot (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Helpdesk, How do I remove this notice from my page...

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (April 2021)

Thanks in advance.

@LordGriot: That is saying: there are no blue wikilinks leading to the article from other articles. Follow the blue links in the notice to learn how to fix the problem :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:53:45, 15 April 2021 review of submission by UJJAL SIKDAR or TUHIN SIKDAR


UJJAL SIKDAR or TUHIN SIKDAR (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)04:53:45, 15 April 2021 review of submission by UJJAL SIKDAR or TUHIN SIKDAR[reply]

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

@UJJAL SIKDAR or TUHIN SIKDAR: you didn't ask a question. Wikipedia is not Social Media that hosts your CV. Please refrain from using all capital letters, it is considered shouting and also hard to read. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: FYI, for future information in case you fall on stuff like this again, the above is block evading (see Jimfbleak's talk page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:01, 15 April 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:6:AA3C:7D29:6B4A:65C5:6D6E


If this is not sufficient then how is Sartek still on Wikipedia? Delete that too. Both artists performed together. 2405:201:6:AA3C:7D29:6B4A:65C5:6D6E (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. It may be that the other article merits deletion, but it won't be deleted just because this one was. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:15:06, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Winnergreat


Winnergreat (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Winnergreat You already asked HiltroMilanese for advice and they answered your question on their talk page extensive and exhaustive. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft : Anuj Arora

Why my article is tagged by anyone for deletion i have provided necessary citation whichever is asked

09:23:37, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Manishmewara


Manishmewara (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manishmewara You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy as well. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:36:27, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Kookieskat11


Which specific Citations Should I remove in order to make this article more reliable? I have already removed GOOGLE searches. Also How can I edit this article to make it less "Promotional" Thank you! Kookieskat11 (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kookieskat11 The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability upon this company. If you are associated with the company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable sources in your draft include, Google searches, Instagram, Spotify, Applemusic, Wikidata, Blogs, Soundcloud, Twitter, Pinterest, Genius .com, Horoscope dates and Podcasts.apple.Theroadislong (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:19:03, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Bentheshrimp


Bentheshrimp (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bentheshrimp You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry im a noob! A submission I made today was rejected and I was hoping you could advise if the changes I have made will make it suitable. It's the first time ive submitted a page and appreciate any help you could give.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentheshrimp (talk • contribs)

@Bentheshrimp: No, unfortunally not. The notability guideline can be found at WP:NCORP. Right now you have two sources in your draft, the company's about page (not independent) and a guardian article (IMO a passsing mention + a quote of the company CEO). @CommanderWaterford: FYI. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:30, 15 April 2021 review of draft by Scuddy07


Scuddy07 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Good day![reply]

I created something to add to Wikipedia and it was declined. The reason given was that there was not any reliable references. However, I did include the actual reference from a website. I am confused on why the reference I used was not good.

@Scuddy07: Reliable references are news and books. We also do not consider sports database references reliable. Noah 💬 18:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scuddy07. A minor problem is that you cite the shallow link http://nhltradetracker.com/, whereas the information is deeper on the website, at http://nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_season/1927-28/1 and http://nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_season/1927-28/2. The more serious problem is that there's no indication that nhltradetracker.com is a reliable source. Who is the author? Who is the publisher? What sort of editorial process do they have? Do they cite their sources? Do they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Anyone can create a website. That doesn't mean that what they put on it is accurate. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:39, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Palisades1

Hi Ive had two pages accepted but it took over 6 months to be reviewed and accepted. Im told that Im eligible to get a quicker review by using "create articles yourself" vs " Articles for creation". If that is so how do I submit my new page to "Articles for creation" Thanks very much. Palisades1 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Palisades1 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

I dont have the article ready for submission but Id appreciate some info on how I can get a quicker review. I just dont know how to submit it via "create articles yourself".

Thanks, Palisades1 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades1 Reviews are done by volunteers who do what they can, when they can, in no particular order. There is no way to speed the process up. I would strongly advise you against placing the draft in the encyclopedia yourself unless you are 100% confident that it would survive a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Palisades1. The Articles for creation (Afc) process is an optional one, and you may bypass it. That doesn't mean a quicker review exactly, it means no review by Afc participants. Whether new articles have gone through Afc or not, they are subject to the New pages patrol (NPP) process, which is another type of review. (Although it's also possible to bypass NPP by gaining the autopatrolled right, that isn't something you'll be able to do soon.)
If you have a draft in draft space or user space (such as your sandbox), you can move that page to article space without submitting it to Afc. Starting a page as a draft gives you the freedom to polish it in relative peace, but you can also write directly in article space. See Help:Your first article. At the bottom of "The basics" section, underneath the big blue "Article Wizard" button, is a text box where you can type an article name, then click the "Create page" button to the right. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:49, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Ajay Gupta 0601

Name: Ajay Gupta DOB: 1990 Nationality: Indian Occupation: IT Recruitment Specialist Ajay Gupta 0601 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Gupta 0601 You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume. This is not social media. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:32, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Apersonthing3000

I'm new to this article creation thing and I don't know how to do it, also I'm doing this on my Chromebook and it has blocksi on it so I can't really get good resources. Apersonthing3000 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:06, 15 April 2021 review of draft by Benkof


the artists is award winning, headline shows at 02 arena, BBC and other radio stations in UK and ghana have had him for interviews. you only need to search his name to see he is qualifies for a wiki page Benkof (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benkof If this is the case it will be easy for you to insert independent, reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources to prove your assumptions, currently your draft is full of promotional web links from primary or self-published sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:25, 15 April 2021 review of draft by S Tallim


I revised the draft as recommended. All previously uploaded photos were deleted. I now wish to upload photos for which I have obtained permission per copyright requirements of Wikipedia. Please advise how to go about it.

S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S Tallim (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S Tallim: Permissions for free files go to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, though I am not so sure if they accept forwarded emails. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is likely resolved as the copyright holder resubmitted the permission via the relevant e-mail account. S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

03:25:36, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Sammy.Muhammed

Why has it been rejected? Sammy.Muhammed (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC) This person is well accomplished and known in Nigeria people in his country deserve to know about him Sammy.Muhammed (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy.Muhammed:, we need to see that others have written about the subject in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is about recording what is already notable, not to promote or make notable. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also recommend reading WP:AUTOBIO and WP:YFA to help understand what is required to have an article accepted. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:29:42, 16 April 2021 review of submission by TarunNagar123


TarunNagar123 (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TarunNagar123 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you work for or represent Deb Technosys, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:32, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Sammy.Muhammed

I edited my page to your standers can it be posted now? Sammy.Muhammed (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy.Muhammed it has not been edited to our standards, you still do not have any properly cited information and the subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I would recommend you edit elsewhere on Wikipedia to get a feel for the policies and writing styles here before you attempt to make another article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:17, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Kookieskat11

Hi! I was wondering if there was any way this article might possibly be considered again in future, once it complies with wikipedia rules? I'd appreciate some advice on this, too Thank you in advance! :) Kookieskat11 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kookieskat11: it can certainly considered at some point in future. Until then, there is no point in trying to pursuade this further. If I am allowed to give you a recommendation, when its too soon now, another attempt isn't worth the candle until a few months, perhaps a year or two, maybe more, has passed. At that time, the draft (if its used as a base) probbably will need to be rewritten almost completely, at least from a reference standpoint. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:50:09, 16 April 2021 review of draft by Thefrankie88


There is already a Wikipedia for her in a different language https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Haley Thefrankie88 (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefrankie88: The existence or absence of an article about sth./smbd. cannot be cited as an argument for the existence on the English Wikipedia, because each language is a seperate Project with (somtimes quite) seperate rules. See WP:OSE for more info. Goolge Searches are not reliable sources, because they are highely dynamic (Something which was listed on a Google search rigth now may already be gone in an hour). IMDB is not a reliable source because it is user-generated. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:43:36, 16 April 2021 review of draft by LordPeterII


Greetings,

I have submitted this Draft back in January, and am well aware that it might still take some time to get accepted/denied. However, I am sort of a WikiOgre and only occasionally have time to edit - right now being one of these times. Thus I am asking whether it would be possible to get some feedback on the article's state?

I'm especially interested in feedback since this is a tricky one, my first article about a company. Not an AfC volunteer's favourite category of articles I suppose, but in need for moderation to avoid promotion. Thus I had intentionally chosen AfC over bothering NPP.

Also, this article was requested by one of the company's representatives, but they respected all our rules and did not try to cheat their way to an article (I did all the writing, and I have no CoI). Thus I would find it nice to honour their honesty by showing them that their article has made some progress at least. Cheers! --LordPeterII (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:02:04, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Here I am using this website


I got the information from a reliable source which is Emporis

Here I am using this website (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Here I am using this website You had 3 possibilities to provide more than just one source like it was requested by the reviewers. Your draft was now finally rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


15:40:40, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Andyseanb1


Andyseanb1 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyseanb1 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:15, 16 April 2021 review of draft by JuwelNotts12


I have this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DNA_Family_Secrets and I astill dont understand why it keeps getting rejected. The response from one of the helpers says'no independent sources, so no evidence of notability' but there are a number of links at the bottom of the page from independent sources. Sorry am I missing something? I was just trying to add an article and be helpful.

JuwelNotts12 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JuwelNotts12 I honestly do not understand why you are telling us that your draft is getting rejected - it has been rejected once - 16 days ago - and is currently awaiting a new review. Please be patient, there are more than 5,000 articles currently waiting for being reviewed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CommanderWaterford: Declined, not rejected - Declines are "Work on this some more and try again", rejects are "Stop wasting yours and our time on this." —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Of course it was just a typo/mistake. A rejected draft can also not be in the Review Queue. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:23, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Dangelvoice


Thank you for your advice. I have re-written an article based on Deelee Dube and would like to know if the subject's official website can be added as an external link within the article? I would also be grateful if you could possibly review the article.

Please advise, many thanks.

I have been attempting to submit an article based on Deelee Dube, and unfortunately, it looks as though it has been declined or deleted by Justlettersandnumbers on 16 April 2021. I have also observed copyright notability issues. I would like to rewrite the article and resubmit it to be published. Would it be at all possible to do this?

Please advise, many thanks.

Dangelvoice (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dangelvoice. If you believe you can rewrite the page so that it doesn't infringe copyright, see the "Can you help resolve this issue?" section on the draft, and follow the instructions in the third point of that section. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:26, 16 April 2021 review of submission by SKPatel7991


I added the approval for disclosure for compensation. Please review. Thank you. SKPatel7991 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

SKPatel7991 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Repeatedly submitting a draft for review without making a novel attempt to address the issues that led to it being declined is generally grounds for deletion, and as mentioned none of your sources are acceptable (CNN Money is basically a prose interview and all the rest are either native advertising or sources we would never consider to be third-party reliable sources to begin with). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:06, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Theodorat6


Hi, guys, would you be so kind to help me create this page properly cos, this person Branko Babic is very famous in our country, everyone knows about him, he is organizing all the time charity, donations, etc for our country and there must be the way to create this page on the way how wiki aks for. This is my first time writing this type of article and I'm apologizing for my mistakes. Thank you so much in advance

Theodorat6 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fame is not notability, and unless/until you address the concerns that got it deleted you're not going to have any sort of luck. Also, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim made that could potentially be challenged by anyone for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such source(s) can be found, removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing biographical content on Wikipedia and is not negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:25:05, 16 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Theodorat6


  Hi guys, would you be so kind to help me create this article because this person is extremely famous in Serbia and there is non-person who doesn't know about Branko, also he is organizing all the time charity, donations and doing as much as he can for Serbia and would be a shame to not exist in Wikipedia, also this is my first time writing articles like this one in Wikipedia and would be much appreciated if you can help me about it. Thank you in advice.


Theodorat6 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theodorat6 - Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theodorat6 It's great that this person does good work, but Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good works. I would suggest social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:48:04, 16 April 2021 review of submission by OfficialMarkets

I'm just curious as to why my article wasn't accepted? I didn't understand the message that was sent, could you break it down for me as to why it was declined?

OfficialMarkets (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a start this paid for draft is stuffed with ridiculous name dropping promotional puffery. Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, content needs to be written in a neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:03:48, 16 April 2021 review of submission by 2603:8000:C244:2300:8460:8723:3BDE:338F

I'm writing on behalf of my client, CarZing. CarZing’s mission is to make auto financing quick and easy while providing a modern, hassle free way of shopping for cars. The article was submitted back in December 2020, and a few people have made edits recently, but none have yet approved or rejected the draft. Google Search is currently showing outdated company info until this article can help update the SEO, which is causing customers to get confused. My client and I would greatly appreciate if someone could assist in reviewing the article draft. Thank you so much for your help.


2603:8000:C244:2300:8460:8723:3BDE:338F (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results, in aiding SEO efforts, or in aiding potential customers. If you are being paid for the expressed purpose of creating an article, I'd suggest you return the money. Please review WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Say, do you suppose there's a chance the company may be notable, regardless of this submission's blatant WP:PAID agenda? There are reference to sources that at least have the aesthetic of business news outlets, but I'm having a hard time parsing if they're truly secondary sources and not repackaged press releases/blurbs. The fact that some of the links redirect to the Yahoo news main page doesn't help... BlackholeWA (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

08:00:47, 17 April 2021 review of submission by KULDEEP GAUBA1

i am writing an article about myself to be published on wikipedia. Again and again it is getting rejected by wikipedia. why? Kindly help me out with this. KULDEEP GAUBA1 (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KULDEEP GAUBA1: Wikipedia is not social media. Please be aware that a Wikipedia article might not nessesarely be desireable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:04:09, 17 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Afí-afeti


Hello, Help desk team, I'm having an issue with my draft. I have edited to meet WP:NPOV as a sub. According to the last reviewer, the articles meets notability but written as an advert he says. I have edited the article and I would need assistance from the house to look into the article before I resubmit the AFC for review.

Afí-afeti (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:25:33, 17 April 2021 review of draft by Lovetogether


my article is not publish till now due to reliable source . anyone can help me ?


Lovetogether (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:08, 17 April 2021 review of submission by Bh00lctathride

There is no yellow text that indicates whether this page is waiting for review. Please view and publish. Bh00lctathride (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bh00lctathride Your draft lacked the information needed to formally submit it for review; I have added this information so you can do so. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:41:49, 17 April 2021 review of draft by SahBu


I created and published an article on Feb. 9th, 2021, which was declined right after its publication on the same day. I then modified the article according to what the reviewer had requested on March 4th, 2021. Nothing has happened since then and I wanted to inquire into whether there is another problem or why the article is not going online. Thank you very much. Kind regards

SahBu (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SahBu You have not resubmitted it for review yet. You need to click "Resubmit". 331dot (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:05, 17 April 2021 review of draft by Nicolaslemonnier75


Hi there, I have been working on submitting some change on a draft article that was refused months ago (not submitted by me at that time). The link to the draft article is the following : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Pascolo

I submitted the revision (with many changes compared to former submissions), but nothing is happening, and it seems that at least one of the two reviewers that refused the first publication is definitely blocked.

Could you make sure that the article could be reviewed by someone? Of course, I am not deeply experienced in Wikipedia, so I might have some corrections to bring upon request, let me know in that case.

Many thanks in advance, Best, Nicolaslemonnier75 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Nicolas[reply]


Nicolaslemonnier75 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolaslemonnier75 You have submitted the draft and it is pending. As noted in the submission notice, "This may take 5 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,590 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:05, 17 April 2021 review of draft by BadSoden1


Hello, my submissionbgelent from @Gpkp with this reason "this submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources".

The same article in German, with the same sources was accepted by Wikipedia (GER) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_in_der_Parkstrasse_28.

As proofs serve liste: 1 - State Office for Monument Preservation Hesse, 2 - List of cultural monuments in Bad Soden am Taunus.

And book Christiane Schalles, "Chewing Gum and Spa Concerts" and artickl in German Digital Library.

Of course all references are in German!

What else can I do to publish artickl?


BadSoden1 (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BadSoden1The German language and the English Language Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria. Even so I think it is likely, but not certain, to pass our notability criteria. Wikipedia:NBUILDING will tell you for certain. It would be worth discussing this with @Gpkp FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Faddle. It is about a historic building in Germany, which is a listed building. Of course all sources are in German but they are fully linked as proof.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1018370105"