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 202.51.76.34 (talk) at 02:54, 16 July 2021 (→‎02:53:04, 16 July 2021 review of submission by 202.51.76.34). 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


July 10

03:34:09, 10 July 2021 review of submission by 117.212.19.89

Is article right because many people are searching for that company information about that I write article of the company in detail there are many people daily searching for that company detail I take interview founder and we'll all the detail in that 117.212.19.89 (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:58:15, 10 July 2021 review of draft by Justiyaya


Hi, my Draft:Empower Work have been rejected due to GNG reasons, but I think I have enough sources to meet GNG.

Sources:

https://qz.com/work/1419478/empower-work-lets-anxious-employees-text-counselors-for-free/ Quartz

https://www.fastcompany.com/40499797/can-these-apps-help-you-when-your-hr-department-fails Fast Company

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/10/hr-has-lost-the-trust-of-employees-here-is-who-has-it-now/ Tech Crunch

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/careers-finance/sns-volunteering-can-help-gain-skills-and-land-job-20200225-jh27f7zxtrewlm5j3sr67xq2nu-story.html Chicago Tribune

Analysis,

Quartz: Mentioned founder's name 8 times mentioned organization name 6 times, basically the whole article is about it

Fast Company: Founder's name 2 times, organization name 3 times Whole article is basically about it, provides a criticism section (I should include that in the article)

Tech Crunch: 6 mentions for organization name, 8 mentions for founder name, section written about it (not the whole article) about 1/4-1/3

Chicago Tribune (newly added): 3 mentions for founder's name and another 3 for organization name. Article is basically interviews with NGOs and people who volunteered there, about half of the article covers the organization.

I have sent what is basically the exact message to my first reviewer, they basically told me to resubmit, my second reviewer seems to be ignoring their talk page.

Do you think my draft meets GNG, and if you do think so, what other improvements can I make, and what should I do next?

Justiyaya 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:13:48, 10 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:8080:1E03:BC1F:C20:DE7A:3F3C:4994

??? 2603:8080:1E03:BC1F:C20:DE7A:3F3C:4994 (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(comment by non reviewer) Hi anon, the draft was denied due to the subject not being notable enough. A subject needs to have at least two reliable sources independent of the subject providing significant coverage in order to be notable enough, your sources are all basically the subject being credited as a producer, and I don't think that counts as significant coverage. Furthermore, there are many sections that are not supported by any citations, which seems like a violation of our biographies of living persons policy, which states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source".
(To anyone that answers this page): I would like to apologize for answering questions here without your permission, but I'm quite confident that my answer is correct, and you seem to have quite a long backlog, so I'm going to answer some for you. If you don't like the answers I'm giving, please leave a message on my talk page asking me to stop, thanks! Justiyaya 05:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is going to complain about your answers so long as they're accurate and you're genuinely attempting to help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:05:03, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Helpo786


Helpo786 (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Helpo786/sandbox/Azaman Anwer Justiyaya 05:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpo786: I assume this is about User:Helpo786/sandbox/Azaman Anwer. If so, User:Helpo786/sandbox/Azaman Anwer is in no way ready for mainspace, as it does not contain any content about this subject. If you merely want to request that an article about Azman Anwer be created, please use WP:Requested articles for that, even if it is highely backlogged. Here at AfC we unfortunally can only deal with drafts that are at least a valid Stub. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:06:28, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Thisissujanrai


Thisissujanrai (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thisissujanrai, not all subjects can have an article on Wikipedia, your article doesn't meet WP:GNG, which basically says that an article must have at least two reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage to the subject. Justiyaya 06:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:02, 10 July 2021 review of submission by 175.145.98.33


175.145.98.33 (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


07:45:02, 10 July 2021 review of draft by 175.145.98.33

Request on 08:48:01, 10 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by YNovakovic


Dear Wikipedia,

My article draft Afripedia keeps getting rejected on the grounds that I should merge it with an already existing article with a similar name: Afripedia Project. I keep explaining that it is not the same topics, but nothing seems to help.

This is my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afripedia

And this is the page of the suggested merge:

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

Please advise.

Kind regards,

User YNovakovic


YNovakovic (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:11, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Magiic Damez

It says it was rejected but I did not violate anything. Please publish this lost information. Magiic Damez (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magiic Damez. In the references section you wrote "≤Journals found in an abandoned town≥". That is insufficient bibliographic information to make the content verifiable. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for more information about how to correctly identify where you got your information. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:05, 10 July 2021 review of submission by 1.38.197.113


1.38.197.113 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was rejected but I did not violate anything. Please publish this lost information. 1.38.197.113 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actress. As such, the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:15:47, 10 July 2021 review of draft by 103.132.240.240


103.132.240.240 (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nilesh jetpariya please anyone help me with this wikipedia page . i don't know anything about wikipedia rules— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.132.240.240 (talk)
Please do not constantly create new sections; please edit this existing section. You may wish to learn more about Wikipedia before attempting to create a new article- creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and doing it withoug any knowledge usually leads to frustration and other bad feelings. Please read Your First Article for starters. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:32, 10 July 2021 review of submission by ClaireBearybear


I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Simple it’s not, I am afraid you will find, for a mind-maker-upper to make up his mind. But you’ll miss the best things if you keep your eyes shut. The more that you read, The more things you will know. The more that you learn, The more places you’ll go.

Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.

ClaireBearybear (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know you think you're clever of wit
But your article's naught but a pile of s(Redacted)
The reviewer took a look, and sent it away
"Another Seigenthaler? Not this day!" —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum to the note above
I've given the draft a much-needed shove
It's either garbage or a mocking praise
I rather doubt it shall last two more days. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:45, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Ourbag

Additional citations has been added for the director in question. I have also added a reference from an OTT platform where the movie '12 seconds' is added to establish presence. This is in adherence to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia Requesting you to kindly approve the document as there has been a research on the movie director's work.

I have added the watch page as permanent so as to add citations for the director as and when there is a press release or his work is highlighted. Also, all the citations added herewith are from leading regional dailies having more than 15 million circulation in print and digital.

Kindly consider the same for approval as my first job, it will motivate me to contribute better articles.

Ourbag (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ourbag The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:37:47, 10 July 2021 review of submission by ReMü77

Draft:Paul van Son }} Hi, has my article Draft:Paul van Son somehow arrived here in this queue? So that it will be discussed and I will be able to take part in the discussion? Because I haven't discovered it yet... never been here before ;-) Thanks in advance! ReMü77 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, still have to find my way in this area--ReMü77 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a queue, and in fact there isn't a formal review queue. Reviewers are volunteers, like everyone else on Wikipedia, and will get to a draft when they can. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has been "flagged" I already added several good sources. I will see what else there is...--ReMü77 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:07, 10 July 2021 review of submission by 175.145.98.33


175.145.98.33 (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:01, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Sahiba21


Sahiba21 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Hasmeet Kaur
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We're not a social network, and we have no tolerance for unsourced autobiographies. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:06:39, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Kimran999


Kimran999 (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. The two sources I was able to assess are both useless for notability - one is presumably an interview with the subject, the other a gossip article written under a role byline. Even if the two remaining sources were impeccable it likely would not be enough to justify an article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:20:39, 10 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by A.kingstar


Greetings, regarding to my article which was decline today, I would like to know if Wikipedia can assist me on how to write the article to Wikipedia standard. I will appreciate in hearing from you. A.kingstar (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.kingstar (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


18:24:31, 10 July 2021 review of submission by A.kingstar

Am by name Azuogu Kingsley John I wrote an article regarding myself on how I started my school and to my present state but unfortunately it was decline due to Wikipedia standard of article and I write to Wiki on how to assist me to get through the standard of your article.

A.kingstar (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Azuogu Kingsley John
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We do not accept resumes or biographies of living people without any sort of reliable sources cited. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

05:59:19, 11 July 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:5C0A:4A9A:F579:C2A6:B145:4483

This is my first attempt at creating wikipedia article. I am unable to understand why the draft is getting rejected inspite of a notable personality, reputed links and following all wikipedia guidelines. Please help. 2405:201:5C0A:4A9A:F579:C2A6:B145:4483 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the rejection was given by the reviewer; the person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. 331dot (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:02:13, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Helpo786


Helpo786 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helpo786 You don't ask a question. Please edit this existing section to ask your question, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear This is the name of a person who is real, Azaman Anwer it works for modeling and acting from Malaysia. Helpo786 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helpo786 That this person is real is not at issue. The person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. As such, the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a person, it depends on significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read Your First Article.
If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section, do not create additional sections. This is easier to do with the full desktop version of Wikipedia in a browser on your device than in the app or mobile version, which do not have full functionality. 331dot (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:08:39, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Wikistarred 8604


Wikistarred 8604 (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the previous version of this page looked more like an advertisement, so I rewrote it to make it look more encyclopedic. I have taken care of the neutral and informative-only guidelines. I request you to reconsider this page for submission. If submission is still rejected, kindly send me some advice regarding what further changes might be required. Thanks. Wikistarred 8604

Wikistarred 8604 (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistarred 8604 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further and that no amount of editing can change that. For a person to merit an article, they must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources like books or news reports. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The person concerned has received independent coverage in several news reports. If I do add news reports, would that help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikistarred 8604 (talk • contribs)

Wikistarred 8604 The reviewer rejected the draft because it seems unlikely that the person would meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you have significant news reports, that are not just a brief mention and are not an interview with this person, sources that have chosen on their own to provide this person with significant coverage, you will need to first bring that up with the reviewer. Most "YouTubers" rarely merit articles, even those with many subscribers, as large numbers of subscribers are not part of the notability criteria. A person can have tens of millions of subscribers and not merit an article, and a person can have 5 subscribers and merit one. It depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:31:44, 11 July 2021 review of submission by ImranGhaziOfficial


ImranGhaziOfficial (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImranGhaziOfficial Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:08, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Ptvikassharmaabvp


Ptvikassharmaabvp (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ptvikassharmaabvp You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to state about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:30, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Roohul88

[1] Roohul88 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept articles or drafts written solely to advertise or promote the subject of the article, and this draft has no acceptable sources regardless. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ LLC, Autovivo. Autovivo LLC [www.autovivo.it www.autovivo.it]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

09:03:19, 11 July 2021 review of draft by FlowerMoon593


FlowerMoon593 (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently editing the draft:Holy Coves, before I submit I was wondering if it was possible for someone to look it over please? Im worried resubmitting it if it doesnt meet the requirments will get it deleted! :/ Many thanks in advance!

Hi FlowerMoon593. The way to ask for someone to "look it over" is to submit it for review. Other people are waiting 4 months between reviews because there's a huge backlog (in part because people keep submitting hopeless drafts). This help desk is to answer specific questions about the process, it is not a shortcut through the review-improve-resubmit cycle. If you repeatedly resubmit with little or no improvement, then yes, the draft is likely to be deleted. You should be fine, though, if you make an earnest attempt to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, thoroughly address problems that reviewers have raised, and make major improvements to the draft.
Have you read WP:NBAND backwards, forwards, upside down and sideways? To be successful, it's vital that you understand whether Holy Coves is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a stand alone article) or not, be able to explain in a sentence how they are notable (usually the first or second sentence of the draft, see MOS:LEAD), and have at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage that prove it. Quality of references is much more important than quantity. Contact Music, Liverpool Echo, North Wales Live, and Louder Than War are probably your best. The others may hurt the draft more than they help. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for sources Wikipedians have found useful when writing about music. Also act on the advice you've been given about too many red links, and more generally reduce the overlinking in the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Worldbruce Thankyou for your message and advice :) My eyes are literally going square from all the reading I have been doing on helping my draft! Haha! :O Sorry if it appears as though I am looking for a shortcut to review, that was not my intention and I apologise, I was worried if I submitted it again it might be deleted. I had removed red links, but I will go back and remove more. Thankyou again :) FlowerMoon593 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:15:25, 11 July 2021 review of submission by 175.145.98.33


175.145.98.33 (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has become disruptive. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Badgering people here with incessant sections is just going to result in those sections being summarily reverted off. And if you move your draft to main space in spite of the rejection, I will waste no time taking it to Articles for Deletion. Start listening to the advice you've been receiving. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:17:42, 11 July 2021 review of submission by 102.89.3.47


He is a notable person in Nigeria and has contributed towards youth development and education 102.89.3.47 (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:09:11, 11 July 2021 review of draft by Rizky Novalini


Greetings. I wrote and submitted an article last month and it got declined. The reviewer gave me an explanation of the problems surrounding that article and the reason why it got declined. I went to fix it and resubmitted the article on June 24 but until now I haven't received any word from any reviewer? Is there something wrong with the article? I also explained to the reviewer who declined my draft. I made an apology, fixed what I did wrong, and explained how what I wrote is there on the sources I used. However, the references are mostly in Bahasa Indonesia so I understand if there be misunderstandings.

Sorry for rambling on, is there anything else in the article that I have to fix in order to get reviewed?

Thank you.

Rizky Novalini (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rizky Novalini As noted on your submission, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,825 pending submissions waiting for review." The backlog has been reduced from 5 months, but you will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:37:59, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Hamidkhan779


Hamidkhan779 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidkhan779 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:52, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Rishitshivesh


Hey, What should I do to have enough to make a Wikipedia page. I also wanna use it to feature it on Google. Please help! Rishitshivesh (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this draft (which, based on your username, is presumably you) does not appear to meet the notability criteria for an article. --Kinu t/c 15:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:58, 11 July 2021 review of draft by 2001:56A:73E9:1800:9955:8413:F766:C9DE


2001:56A:73E9:1800:9955:8413:F766:C9DE (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft contains no content. What is your question? --Kinu t/c 17:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:03, 11 July 2021 review of draft by Rybkovich

The draft was rejected by @AntanO: based on copyright grounds. Following our procedure I asked several brief and specific questions "what's the copyrighted content? What I quoted? Do you have a rule on how many words I can quote?" There was no response. Instead my name was included in an answer to another editor regarding a different article and an unrelated issue:

"76% contents are from here. Read WP:COPYVIO and WP:C-P @Justsurfin12 and Rybkovich:"

Assuming the issue is regarding the cited paragraphs:

Two quotes are brief, conveying a cult leader's specific and emotional description of the key events in his teachings. The other quote is from a cult member's description and purpose of group activity which to some would be considered controversial. This quote was made of an end of one sentence followed another sentence.

Thank you.

(talk) 16:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:43:34, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Aapki Kahani Aapki Zubani


Aapki Kahani Aapki Zubani (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:05:48, 11 July 2021 review of draft by 154.118.44.226


154.118.44.226 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please can someone help me resolve the issues given about a page I want to add to Wikipedia, this is the page link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crystabel_Goddy thank you

Both of your sources are written in the first-person. Independence from the subject is one of the things we look for to see if a source is acceptable. In addition, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC) (Edited 21:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

21:31:45, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Dr Fluffy Quackers


Hi! I just resubmitted my article stub after reading my violation policy WP:NARTIST. I believe I addressed everything necessary and eager for your feedback! Thanks so much

Dr Fluffy Quackers (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So when the time comes and I find new articles that support the subject - do I just do a completely new start to the subject? Like a brand new article? Cause It would still say there is already a draft about the subject. Dr Fluffy Quackers (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I am curious - based on the new comment and source I listed - do you feel that is sufficient? The WP:NARTIST said the subject was notable if their art was showcased in a large, well known entity and this subject is in the WTC.

Dr Fluffy Quackers If you have new information that the reviewer did not consider, you need to approach them with that information. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

02:52:02, 12 July 2021 review of submission by WinnieHunter


Mistakenly credited all entires in the filmography section to unreliable source IMDb. Deleted all of that and added more credible references and citations to the actual content rather than credits. Thanks.

WinnieHunter (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WinnieHunter. If he's really best known for his [2] television appearances in Orange is the New Black [10 lines?] ..., and the best evidence of being well known for that is his name and character name on a list of the 200+ actors who appeared in the one season of the series, then you're wasting your time, he is not notable (not suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article). The rejection of the draft is intended to convey that it's hopeless, that no amount of editing will make the topic acceptable. Consequently, volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:22:50, 12 July 2021 review of submission by GoldenRise


GoldenRise (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Not only is it utterly unsourced, but it's written to promote her and her music. This is not acceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:06, 12 July 2021 review of submission by ChiCaproni


Hello! I'm incredibly confused by this. There are countless other organizations who have Wikipedia pages. I have done the same for this organization (that I discovered recently and have no form of sponsor from). It's an encyclopedia article defining the organization for those who don't know. I am not sure what else I could have done to make it more impartial. Comparing it to numerous other organization pages and Wikipedia instructions, my independent secondary sources are abundant and content focuses on structure and skeletal features to simply define the organization and some other associated terms/projects that people may go searching for-- like an encyclopedia entry. This decision doesn't make sense when I look at what I see published on Wikipedia and outlined in the instructions for creating a page. I have followed all guidelines. There is no place in the article where I promote the organization at all. I would appreciate publication or further detailed explanation. Thank you. ChiCaproni (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, and I wager all those other articles weren't written to promote the organisation, puff it up as the hottest thing since sliced bread, and go off on tangents about how GRAET and AWESUM and WAKKAWAKKA they are. We do not accept blatant spam, advertising, or articles written in such a way as to promote their subject with what is the text equivalent of a Gish gallop. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChiCaproni: (And just to be clear - it is still promotional, both in word usage and what is covered. If you have a connexion to the subject, I would recommend disclosing it.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:00:49, 12 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Sayyar-Mon



Talieh-Sayyar (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:24:51, 12 July 2021 review of draft by Lenny328


The article I wrote was declined. I'm asking for help to better rewrite it into the better Wikipedia format. Since most of my sources were originally in Cantonese, maybe may translation of the references into my article was not formal enough. Thank you.



Lenny328 (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:37:18, 12 July 2021 review of submission by Dp3stage


Dp3stage (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team,

I have recently started contributing to Wikipedia. But my article is been removed/deleted. But I think it's an appropriate draft & not some kinda paid promotion. Please help me retrieve it.

Foliyoo offers a comprehensive assortment of services to its clients. The company has all kinds of vehicles possible with him for any kind of supply chain support. A few of them are listed below. And for more information, You may visit https://www.foliyoo.com . Perhaps you would have had more luck by starting off sources independent of the subject. MOS:PEACOCK might also be worth a read. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:06:25, 12 July 2021 review of draft by Shalni gupta


My draft is not live where is my mistake. please help me out Shalni gupta (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a how to guide, but an encyclopedia. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:15:27, 12 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bankrupt305


Hi, I crafted a Wikipedia page for Zack Weiner with a number of secondary sources from prominent publications. Can I get further guidance as to how he can be considered notable?

Bankrupt305 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bankrupt305: Please refer to the top table here.
If I may be candid, some of the sources proffered help prove that Overtime is notable, while doing nothing to help the notability of Weiner. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:21, 12 July 2021 review of submission by 63.240.242.213


63.240.242.213 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


hoge is now featured on latest article by moneycontrol.com which is a trusted cryptocurrency news source

17:52:55, 12 July 2021 review of draft by 2600:1700:2160:4A70:0:0:0:55E

What do you consider reliable sources if not Amazon, Walmart, Library of Congress, local news papers. I don't know what else to furnish you.

2600:1700:2160:4A70:0:0:0:55E (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP contains frequently discussed sources, anything with a green background is acceptable, sources with a yellow background might, but might also not, be acceptable, and anything else is not acceptable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:39, 12 July 2021 review of draft by WikiCpa

The previous reviewer had mentioned that he could not "access" the resources. Following that I had provided scanned pages from the reference books. Now the next reviewer states the sources are not reliable even though the sources are "independent" and "official" sources. The only source that is missing is that of World War 2 which is more to provide background - the notability is relating to the actions in the war of 1965 and operations in Kargil that changed the direction of the military conflict and political outcomes. I have requested an additional book written by General Harbhaksh Singh to see if there are any further references, however, anyone familiar with Indian Military History of the time will be able to endorse the sources and reliability. I would request that someone be assigned who can "access" the sources referenced in the article rather than to condemn the article because they are unable to access the sources. Thank you. PS: I have made substantial edits based on the reviewer comments. Following your response I will attempt to make any other suggested changes and then submit the article again. WikiCpa (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCpa (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiCpa. When you resubmit the draft, it will be reviewed. I don't interpret the first reviewer's comment quite the same as you do. Don't worry too much about who will review it. Reviewers have enormous access to sources, and considerable experience evaluating drafts even when some sources are difficult to access.
A common difficulty with drafts written by family members is that they usually want to present the complete story of their relative, everything they know. But Wikipedia doesn't permit editors to use their personal knowledge of the subject. Instead every statement must be supported by reliable sources, and the bulk of the content should come from independent, secondary sources.
One solution is to slash any content for which you cannot cite a reliable source. That may leave a very incomplete biography, but that's okay with Wikipedia. If you aren't willing to do that, then you may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you want to write. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:59:33, 12 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:7000:2143:8500:C9A2:9540:670:12BB


I am requesting a re-review. As he meets GNG.

Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C9A2:9540:670:12BB (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 2603:7000:2143:8500:C9A2:9540:670:12BB (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:56, 12 July 2021 review of submission by SidraRanaAdv

My article is not accepted even i used authentic resources and refrences links Help me SidraRanaAdv (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kaleem Ahmad Khursheed
@SidraRanaAdv: Please refer to the top table here.
The only sources even approaching usability are all connected in some way to the election, and that's a very bad sign for the article's viability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:27:53, 12 July 2021 review of draft by Abookishbee


Abookishbee (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept recipes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abookishbee, please see Gonimbrasia belina where this topic is already covered. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

05:28:07, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Rybkovich


The draft was rejected on copyright grounds.

If it's regarding the 3 cited quote paragraphs: Two of the quotes are brief, conveying a cult leader's specific and emotional description of the key events in his teachings. The other quote is from a cult member's description and purpose of group activity which to some would be considered controversial. This quote was made of an end of one sentence followed another sentence. If the cited paragraphs are not the issue, it would be great to know what is so that it can be fixed.

Thank you.

Rybkovich (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those quote blocks are not de minimis as policy requires. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:03:12, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Shalni gupta


Can you please give me some advise

@Shalni gupta: This isn't an encyclopaedia article; it reads more like an op-ed. We don't accept opinion pieces. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:38, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Aegersz


My original draft was rejected and I have no idea about how to create an entry as I can't find any external references to my website despite the large member base.

for the draft, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dopetalk

Aegersz (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you cannot get it accepted because it simply isn't notable - hard to accept perhaps especially when it's your site and you're having to also manage the conflict of interest. You have mentioned elsewhere your site is similar to Bluelight (web forum). If you google "bluelight forum", the first three search results are a perfect example of why that site is notable - they are articles, two of which are scientific publications citing the work of Bluelight, that are reputable and separate from Bluelight. Almost all the search results show you that Bluelight is a widely-know, often referred to Internet resource. That's what notability is, and that's the sort of thing you need to provide to show that your web forum is worthy of a Wikipedia article. If you can't do it, then give up and focus on contributing to the encyclopaedia in other ways. Sorry to brutal. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:26, 13 July 2021 re-review of submission by DAvidMaila


Hi! could you please help re-review my submission. The initial editor asked that I add more external links, which I have updated. please let me know if the current version works.

10:28:40, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Arvind4seo


Arvind4seo (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my information as per guidelines suggested by Wikipedia, I do not think I have violated any rules of Wikipedia. It is requested please publish my articles. I will provide additional information in future once it lives.

Thanks

12:32:21, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Lathadoocti


Lathadoocti (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC) I have added this article https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/356431/ for notability[reply]

Lathadoocti (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:41, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Dukey42


Cheers!

First of all, sorry for my phrasing, English isn't my native language.

I tried to make sure that when I've re-added this article a few months ago, I was providing sources that fulfill the following criteria for notability 'Has 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.'

Can you help me out why the sources does not count like that? I know there are blogs there as well (mostly to cite interviews) but there are ones with proper board of editors, eg. AMN Reviews, Africanpaper.

Not to tell on others, but one of my guidance for publications was the pinnacle of this niche genre, this artist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrium_Carceri

For contrast, Atrium Carceri's sources are their label's website, their own website, their own bandcamp page, one interview and one short review. BlackWeald's citation's are miles better than this, in my opinion. So, I don't really understand how that page is fine, while this one isn't.

Cheers, Gyula Dukey42 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:17:58, 13 July 2021 review of draft by 19musicman94


Hello! Help is needed getting this artist's Wikpedia page corrected and approved. Changes have been made but the reasoning seems to be the same when reliable sources have been added and/or removed. The latest interview of artist Zane Smith was published in a significant newspaper. Does that count towards notability? All three requirements are met for GNG (General Notability Guideline):

1. Independent 2. Reliable 3. Significant Coverage

Here is the article >> https://www.ajc.com/life/music-blog/mic-check-zane-smith-is-on-an-unconventional-path-to-rap-success/6QXN34A5ZFHNBO2XJ5WR5UCSAY/

The artist has had social media posts and more mentioning his name, songs, and accomplishments. Does that not count? Even as an additional reference to confirm he is a successful musician. (Those social media post links were removed but were used as sources in previous draft versions).


19musicman94 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:50:36, 13 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Megaride


Hello. Please, can you help me?

K.e.coffman rejected the Maveryx Framework article because "Does not meet WP:NORG"

I submitted the article after a very long talk with other colleagues of yours. They gave me tons of suggestions to complete the draft according to the WP:NORG, the COI, etc... At this point, I don't understand what I'm missing or doing wrong.

I asked for some help from K.e.coffman, he kindly told me to look for a second opinion writing here.

Megaride (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Megaride, take a look at the advice given at Wikipedia:Notability (software), but note that it is just advice, not a policy page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67, thanks for the advice. I took a look at Wikipedia:Notability (software) again and it looks like the article respects the style guide; moreover, it includes significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subjects and the author...some of the sources are even accademical jobs. I saw some other articles very similar to this one...actually definitely similar. Indeed, I used some of them as guidelines, together with the tips from some collegues of your, to write this article from the scratch. It is totally different from the original one. It was deleted for good reasons.
Can you, or anybody else, tell me what is wrong with this one in particular to help me fix the problems and moving on? Thanks in advance. --Megaride (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:45:54, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Jase peterson

after creating this article and summiting it for the first time they said it was to short and the second time i summited it they said it reads like an essay , i put more than enough reliable resources and the social media sources that I put in there were just to reference to Jawaun's tweet. I wanted to know if there should be a format I should be writing this in to make it more Article like or should I take some information out Jase peterson (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jase peterson: the first thing this draft would need are reliable sources, because we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incodent. You can check on WP:RSP wether a given source is considered reliable. I have only skimmed though the sources in your draft, but most don't look reliable or (in case of source #6) went to a place you certainly didn't mean to link. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:55, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Think804


Think804 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:51, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Rd50322013


Sorry I'm having a hard time getting my question to post. I am trying to create a page but am having difficulties with the sources I've provided. I cited each source correctly and made sure that they all mention the company by name. I was wondering what I need to do to fix these mistakes, whether it's getting rid of some sources or adding more.

Rd50322013 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd50322013: Normally, when you come to a Help desk, you have a particular question or problem. So may we start with your question please? Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:59, 13 July 2021 review of submission by 2blessed21

Can I still edit a declined submission? I'm unsure how to proceed and I need to have the link working please. Please guide me through the tech stuff. 2blessed21 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2blessed21. If you're talking about the draft in your sandbox, yes. You may continue editing User:2blessed21/sandbox, and when you believe you have a complete encyclopedia article, submit it for review. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that may help you find your way around. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance Worldbruce :)

Request on 17:07:37, 13 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by S Tallim


TheBirdsShedTears reviewer of my article has informed he will be away for sometime. He was one of several reviewers, and the last one.

I have a number of issues arising from the review of my article.

Intriguingly, it appears that all reviewer’s of this article are based in South Asia, principally India. This may be because Mahal, the subject matter of the article, has a name indicating Indian origin.

However, Mahal was born outside India and has lived and or worked on five continents (Africa, 19yrs; India, 5 years; South America, 5 years; UK 7 years) and for past 53 years has lived in Canada. He is known for championing of diversity and inclusion in Canada.

Both the provincial government of Ontario and the federal government of Canada has recognized Mahal’s community service, knowledge and experiences to appoint him on government sponsored organizations. At provincial level he was appointed on the board of a long-term care facility and on the council of college of physiotherapists. At the federal level he was appointed by the cabinet to serve on a multicultural advisory committee and on a quasi-judicial tribunal to hear appeals for wrongful dismissal and benefit entitlements. His dedicated work on these organizations was rewarded by award of the Queen Elizabeth Golden Jubilee medal. The medal is “awarded to Canadians who made outstanding and exemplary contributions to their communities or to Canada as a whole.”

Canada has recognized the significant contributions made by Mahal, which a Canadian reviewer will have also recognized.


S Tallim (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S Tallim There is no way to guarantee that a reviewer is of a particular nationality. If reviewers are doing their work correctly, their nationality should not matter. People are also not required to be truthful about their nationality. In looking at the draft, I see no problem with what the reviewers have said, please heed their advice. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia “information on Wikipedia must be verifiable and if no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.”

In the case of Mahal’s appointments by governments, provincial and federal, on boards and councils of four different organizations such information is not available on internet. These appointments are made at cabinet level from shortlisted candidates from those recommended by political leaders of all persuasions who in their opinion will well serve their communities. The chosen candidate will have a letter of appointment and in other cases a letter from the respective minister thanking the person for public service. In some case the person may have been awarded a medal of recognition by the organization. Mahal has in his possession letters of appointment, letters thanking him for services rendered and in some case photographs of his association or awards. How can such information be made verifiable?

Wikipedia on notability states “ determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity”. Mahal was awarded Queen Elizabeth Golden Jubilee medal that the government of Canada awarded to “Canadians who have made outstanding and exemplary contributions to their communities or to Canada as a whole.” This should satisfy the notability criteria. But the reviewer’s think otherwise.

So please indicate what I need to do to satisfy Wikipedia. S TallimS Tallim (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Six different reviewers from at least three different continents have taken the time to review the draft – one of them (who, according to their user page, is Canadian) has reviewed it three times. In your posts here you seem to be unaware of the fact that almost all the declines explained that the main issue is to do with the promotional tone which is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I would have declined the draft for the same reason, had I reviewed it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:43, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Alexander Vison Perdue


Alexander Vison Perdue (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page was deleted as an advertisement. Please let us know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:57, 13 July 2021 review of submission by UJSchoepf

Hello, I tried making a Wikipedia for a physician that I work with. He is an extremely renowned cardiac/vascular research radiologist that is known around the world. I created this account under his email so that he would have access to the page in the future. Someone with contributions as extensive in medicine as Dr. Schoepf deserves a Wikipedia page.


UJSchoepf (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UJSchoepf If you are not Dr. Schoepf, you must change your username immediately. Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do so. You cannot use his name as your username if you are not him. You also many not grant others access to your account; Dr. Schoepf is free to create an account himself(though he should be aware of WP:AUTO)
Please understand that Wikipedia is not a way to honor someone for their accomplishments. A Wikipedia article exists only to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You only offered two directory/biographical listings, which are not independent and do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article. If you just want to tell the world about your colleague, there are other websites with less stringent inclusion requirements, or you may use social media. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:06, 13 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:7000:2143:8500:1841:AF34:6839:55A4

Draft:Itay Shanny was considered only under NSPORTS. But he meets GNG. Please resubmit for review. Thank you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:1841:AF34:6839:55A4 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:30:32, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Falcone181


Hello, I am trying to publish a translation of a wikipage I created in the Italian wikipedia. I published the translation, but it is shown as a draft since June 2nd. How long does it take for the page to be openly accessible and visible?

WikiUser181 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiUser181 You have not formally submitted it for a review; I will add the appropriate information so you can do so. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have two versions of this draft here Draft:Paolo Ruggiero and here User:Falcone181/sandbox neither of which are currently submitted for review. Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:21, 13 July 2021 review of draft by RJalan


I have been to the Teahouse twice today (13/07) in order to leave a message there requesting help from an experienced editor, but on both occasions I lost connection with the internet the moment I clicked 'Publish Changes' by attempting "to connect with a non-existent server", and lost my message. Please, are you able to tell me what I was doing wrong? And/or, could you tell me how to find a volunteer editor. I would be very happy if TSventon was willing to do it, but I don't know if the rules allow me to ask him. I could ask Unitedstatesian, but he reviewed my draft unfavourably and I don't know whether it is right to ask a reviewer to help. RJalan Alan (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC) Alan (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:06, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Jackydonld100

PLease don't reject this,you can help me by editing some details or my boss will kill me.Thanks 

                                                                          --Jacky Donld

Jackydonld100 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jackydonld100 I hope you are speaking figuratively, but if you think your boss will harm you physically, you should contact your local authorities. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person.
Since you are editing for your boss, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to formally declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID for more information; you should also read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:49, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Marley3Liz


I am unsure why my page for Wolf Entertainment is not being accepted. Imagine Entertainment's references are nearly identical to Wolf Entertainment's, yet I am being told this is not enough? Also, I am unsure why the references keep publishing under External Links section, when it is showing as references in the backend?

Comments show brand is notable and references prove what is drafted is accurate.

What else is needed to push this live?

Marley3Liz (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marley3Liz Please read other stuff exists. You have not provided independent reliable sources with significant coverage; just announcements of routine business activities, which do not establish that the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. It's likely that the company is notable, but you still need sources.
If you work for the company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

02:04:01, 14 July 2021 review of submission by 156.204.60.187


156.204.60.187 (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. The English proficiency shown is also a serious issue. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:35:35, 14 July 2021 review of submission by ItsCojo

I didn't think that the content on the page counted as advertising. My purpose for making the page was to inform players about the server, It was never to advertise. And im sincerely sorry about that, I have deleted what I think is the advertising but if you think there's more tell me and I will get rid off it. ItsCojo (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:47:08, 14 July 2021 review of draft by Kennethmank13


SO I recieved the anwser of why my article was declined on July 14, I added the following information to the main Tex Brown Article, Can The Season Split Be Done Now? Kennethmank13 (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:28:53, 14 July 2021 review of submission by Tirivashe Chikumbirike

It seems as if i am connected to the topic but i am not. I am a big music fan so i am trying to create wikipedia articles for musicians from my country Zimbabwe. This has been my first attempt and i am requesting assistance so that i can polish it and be able to contribute more articles from Zimbabwe Tirivashe Chikumbirike (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:07:41, 14 July 2021 review of submission by Sayyar-Mon


Talieh-Sayyar (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Monenco Iran is an consulting engineer whit a remarkable history. there is an strong references, what is problem? how can I publish this page?

This reads like a marketing brochure. We don't accept content specifically written to advertise or promote the subject. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:25:08, 14 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bankrupt305


I was told that Zack Weiner doesn't have enough notoriety. He is the founder of one of the most important sports media companies in the world. He created a new basketball league that is in daily headlines all over the world. He's one of the most important young media sports executives in the world. If isn't notable enough, despite the multiple articles in major publications, I'm confused. Please advise. Thank you.

Bankrupt305 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bankrupt305: As I said above, most of your sources hardly even discuss Weiner, which in turn makes them not particularly useful as sources about him. The only sources that you have that are usable are the DP and New Yorker sources; the rest are deficient in some way, as I explained in my deep dive on your sources. If anything, the sources you cited help prove Overtime is notable more than Weiner. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:35, 14 July 2021 review of draft by Kartik0976


Kartik0976 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:58, 14 July 2021 review of draft by Kartik0976


Sources on this draft are following all the guidelines, Sources are reliable, secondary, independent and significant coverage also in there. But I am not getting why this draft is declined during review, anyone help please

Kartik0976 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are lacking required bibliographical information (pages and author). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:13, 14 July 2021 review of submission by UJSchoepf


I am not sure what I need to do after submitting the required changes (intext citations). Please let me know what I can do to have the page published.

UJSchoepf (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:UJSchoepf/sandbox
After you have made the changes (making sure EVERY SINGLE CLAIM is sourced) put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page to resubmit it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:43:33, 14 July 2021 review of submission by 76.240.112.154


Please help. Plenty articles online to verify this actor should be on wikipedia

76.240.112.154 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, and the sourcing has not changed or improved from the last thread you made. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:10, 14 July 2021 review of submission by TELCOR7101

I would like a re-review after making edits to the page after the first submission was denied. After reviewing the purpose fo Wikipedia and viewing other businesses articles I made adjustments to ensure the article met Wikipedia guidelines and did not violate any rules. This page is designed to show off TELCOR as a whole and provide insight to products and solutions. There is no selling involved or links to their website so this article is purely informative about TELCOR products and what their goals are for their clients.

I hope to see this get passed through after making changes and I will continue to revise until this article gets posted so any tips on how to fix the article would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! TELCOR7101 (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TELCOR7101: First, change your username to one that represents you and you alone. Second, disclose. Third, this draft is spam and will be treated as such. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:23, 14 July 2021 review of submission by AIsha504

Can you provide information on what would make this page acceptable for posting?

AIsha504 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AIsha504: By the look of it, your sourcing is atrocious. Refer to the top table here.
Does this help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:29:36, 14 July 2021 review of submission by Malikjc3


Hello,

I recently submitted a Wikipedia page "Blasian Beats" to be published and it was almost instantly declined so I was just curious as to why? There are smaller or lesser-known musicians that have Wikipedia pages available so I am curious as to why my submission got declined so quickly. Malikjc3 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malikjc3 Please read other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits; other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and with over six million articles to watch, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to pitch in and help, you are welcome to work to identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. I'll add that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction.
Regarding your draft(which I've linked to above), you have not yet demonstrated that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. The sources you have cited seem to only cite the existence of the person's work and people they are associated with. Please see Your First Article. The good news is that your draft was only declined, not rejected, so reviewers think it is at least possible to show notability. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:44:38, 14 July 2021 review of submission by Mjakarlin


The reason given for declining the submission was that it was not supported by reliable sources. However, I could not tell which part of the article was not properly supported. I need to know this so that I can improve the article. I am including here some detail on the work I did

I Picked Up a Celebrity on the Street is a Korean television series. Wikipedia has innumerable articles describing Korean television series. (I've improved many of them because they were written by non-native English speakers and I have improved the usage and sometimes significantly improved the synopses.) I tried to follow the format of those articles. Most of these have about the same amount of supporting sources - sometimes less.

This particular series is currently available for streaming on viki.com, a major international streamer. I drew information from Viki, from IMDb, and from HanCinema, all of which are reliable sources. There is also a Korean Wikipedia entry for the series, which I did not reference because it's a little on the thin side, but I could do so if that would help. I also used other Wikipedia articles to verify the series existence, including the Wikipedia article for YG Entertainment, a huge Korean entertainment company whose subsidiary produced the show. Finally, I found a couple of articles that refer to the series and the participation of its star Sung Hoon, whose Wikipedia and IMDb pages also confirm his participation (Wikipedia pages for shows never cross-reference to IMDb pages of the performers).

I wrote the synopsis myself from having watched the series - is that a problem? I don't think it can be because there are numerous Korean dramas with Wikipedia entries with synopses and plot descriptions that are far more detailed than can be found elsewhere online and which rarely include significant supporting references.

Finally, could it be the cast list that's the problem? The list of the principal actors and the director are all given in the three main sources I cite (viki, IMDb and HanCinema). Some of the other information comes from MyDramaList. For some reason, a Wikipedia bot would not allow me to cite to MyDramaList, but I didn't understand the explanation. Please take a look at MyDramaList. It is full of detailed information about numerous Asian movies and shows. Could you let me know why it is not an accepted reliable source? If I removed some of the cast listing, especially the special appearances, would that make a difference?

To sum up - this article seems to me to be of a piece with numerous similar articles and it would be really helpful to understand in what way it was not reliably sourced.

Mjakarlin (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Mjakarlin (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjakarlin: The synopsis does not need to be sourced (the implication being that the show itself can be used to verify it), but the sources you have aren't terribly useful. The Korea Herald article is a non-sequitur (i.e. it doesn't even name-drop the series, merely giving a plot synopsis) and Viki is connected to the subject (the page notes it's exclusive to that service). Soompi is the only source that comes close to usability, and even then we can't use it because the article is so short. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:40:21, 14 July 2021 review of submission by 76.240.112.154


please assist plenty articles on this actor to verify

76.240.112.154 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any further threads you make on this topic will be reverted off. You're not listening to anyone, and we are under no obligation to reply to what amounts to the same thread being created ad nauseam by someone who clearly has no desire to accept criticism. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

02:06:12, 15 July 2021 review of submission by Rcarlberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_DMP_Records_releases

Recently, I compiled a list of releases on the defunct DMP Records label. Information for this table came from a variety of sources: some incomplete online listings, some E-Bay and Amazon auctions, my own collection... This table is being rejected now [by Locomotive207] for a "lack of references." But here's the thing: there is no way to provide a single all-encompassing reference, or even several partial references that are reliable for the information in the table. It relies on a changing used CD marketplace, which is a bunch of online listings that can't be linked because they're temporary. All of the information in it can be easily verified -- and has been, by me -- but I cannot point to a single, reliable, permanent reference.

I realize Wikipedia shies away from "original research," but for something like a discography, Wikipedia performs a valuable service by acting as a repository for transitory information. I think the normal customs (they're not even "rules") about references have to be set aside for discographies... especially for labels that are out-of-business. Rcarlberg (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rcarlberg (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:10:27, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Kartik0976


This draft is about a book and it follows WP:NOTBOOK Guidelines and got significant coverage in two or more registered and popular newspapers, but last submission was rejected and reviewer commented: Needs book reviews by critics in major papers. I am not geeting if national news papers are not major papers then where I should look for. And the book is already got significant coverage in all those newspapers but why still book review is needed?

Kartik0976 (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:33:41, 15 July 2021 review of submission by Omkit84

I create an article for an Indonesian businessman. I wrote a profile about the person based on Bahasa Indonesia Wikipedia (https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandi_Sulistiyanto). I translated with some minor editing. I also cited various realistic sources. Unfortunately, I was rejected. What should I do next? I'm asking for some help to make the page approved.

Omkit84 (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:10:48, 15 July 2021 review of submission by Pomegranate Rose

Hello, After waiting for a total of about nine months, I've recently had this AfC declined for a second time. The most recent reason given was 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources'. I assumed this referred to some of the citations regarding reviews of the novels that CM has written (since these are what establishes his notability). A number of these sources are not online -- being newspapers or journals that no longer exist and/or are only archived in microform. So I looked into this (the problem of 'recentism' being discussed in various Wikipedia fora) and found that providing an ISSN or OCLC within the citations -- (together with full quotations from the source) would suffice in such situations. (I have photocopies of the relevant newspaper reviews -- provided to me by CM -- so I know they are correct). So I've made these adjustments, and I'd like to get some feedback from more experienced WP editors before I consider whether to press the 'Resubmit' button or abandon the whole process. I should also mention that given that the WP notability requirement for this subject (CM) seems to be adequately met by his written works, then it is appropriate to also mention his music, especially given that this is what he has concentrated on for the last decade or so.

I'll be grateful for any support anyone might offer. Pomegranate Rose (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:06:36, 15 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:6081:8303:6BB8:C141:867E:99C3:C471


2603:6081:8303:6BB8:C141:867E:99C3:C471 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:06:36, 15 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:6081:8303:6BB8:C141:867E:99C3:C471

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:16:53, 15 July 2021 review of draft by SteveCree2


I'm very new to this. I created the page "The Death of Henry Jemmott". It was taken offline by an editor and I've tried to understand why and can't. I can't improve as it looks fine to me according to the general notability guideline and referencing rules mentioned in the edit. I'm not saying it IS fine, but as I can't see why it isn't I've put it back for review. I'm puzzled, I must admit, about why something I've created can be put into a 3 or 4 month delay pattern without a proper explanation. As to what a proper explanation might be? The same detail has been flagged on each of my references, but the explanation on the hypertext link seems like gobbledygook. Could someone take a look (I presume it's accessible here) and give me a pointer? Thanks so much. Steve13

SteveCree2 (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason whatsoever 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 content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. There's enough unsourced content here that this page could very feasibly be deleted as an attack page especially with respect to individuals who are mentioned but have no involvement in the matter. I also agree with the reviewer that this reads more like a news story than an encyclopaedia article, with the three The Times sources being borderline due to how perfunctory they are. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:52:58, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Kmk9923


Hi, thank you for reviewing the submission. The following reason was given for denying the submission: "Writer in your own words than copying original text with minor changes. Read copyright guidelines." Might I ask which part of the submission this comment is referring to, in order to rectify the issue? Thank you. Kmk9923 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a copyright checker tool this doesn't seem entirely accurate. @TheBirdsShedTears: can you please provide a URL to the page that's being plagiarised from? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Copyvio showing 25% violation, but unfortunately i mistakenly misunderstood the matter. They are actually names of organizations or agencies. I undid my edit. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:27, 15 July 2021 review of submission by Zeenatameet

I had written an article about a very accomplished singer who has contributed in his own unique ways to the music industry and to music as an art by itself. The article got rejected saying that there are not many articles to support it. an upcoming singer will not have many articles. I have seen random pages on wikipedia for random people but an artist has no space. There is no valid reason for the article to get rejected. If there are edits required those can be done, however I don't see a reason for the edits too! The article was well formatted as per wikipedia requirement, all information was stated clearly I don't see any logical reason for it to get rejected except for the fact that I know the artist personally but no one can write a detailed article about an unknown person. Easiest would have been to lie that I do not know the person and get the article published. This is highly disappointing. I need a valid reason for the rejection of the article!! Zeenatameet (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeenatameet Your draft was only declined, not rejected. This means that there is at least a chance it can be improved to meet standards.(rejected would mean nothing further can be done). A Wikipedia article about a musician or singer must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable singer. "Up and coming" singers rarely merit articles; a singer must have already arrived to merit an article. If this person does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, they would not merit an article at this time. Not every singer merits an article, it depends on the sources.
People write articles on Wikipedia about people they don't know all the time. This is because, again, Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources. People typically write about subjects they take note of in such sources, not topics that they personally know. Please review conflict of interest. If you just want to tell the world about this singer, there are other websites with less stringent requirements, or social media is available.
Please also review other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. Article standards also change over time, so that what was once acceptable is no longer. If you would like to pitch in and help us curate the over 6 million articles that we have, you are welcome to help identify other inappropriate articles for possible action. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:21, 15 July 2021 review of submission by SteveCree2


My page creation as titled above has been rejected. It is my first attempt at a page creation. The grounds for rejection are notability and One Event. However, I looked carefully at the relevant rules before I posted and I am still unclear about why my article has been rejected. I am not complaining (!) but am trying to understand better.

The page describes a case which may be the largest in Belizean modern history. It has potentially enormous ramifications. It involves the death by shooting of a senior police officer at the hand of the mother of the grandchildren of the region's only billionaire. The question of culpability could feasibly be beyond the ability of the Belize justice system to manage. The entire police service are likely part-culpable for permitting an officer who was known to be drunk to remain armed. The power of the billionaire in what is a very small country is such that a fair trial may not be possible. The case has had enormous coverage not simply because of the nature of the death but because of the implications the event may have for the entire country's integrity as a sovereign entity.

I do not understand why this page is therefore considered insufficiently notable. It seems to me to conform to the notability rules by some margin. I would very much appreciate a steer. Thanks. SteveCree2 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveCree2: Please confirm: Have you seen the response by @Jéské Couriano: two three sections above this one? Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:10, 15 July 2021 review of submission by Excellenc1

This draft was declined due to lack of reliable sources, after which I talked to the reviewer (the talk page section here). After some discussion (where I told the reviewer that the citations in my article are independent and self-published), I was being told to rather confirm at the AfC Help Desk regarding it. So is my article worthy of being approved? Excellenc1📞 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite misleading. I said "You may ask for assistance at WP:AFCHD regarding this draft." I never said "to confirm about "sources". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears I am very sorry for misunderstanding that statement of yours. Excellenc1📞 15:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:46, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Rd50322013


Hi, I'm trying to get a page published but I'm having a hard time with the sources. I've made sure all of them are cited correctly and that they're all reliable but something still seems to be wrong. I was wondering what I need to do to fix the mistakes I made and if there's anything I need to change about my citations to get the page up and running. Thanks!Rd50322013 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rd50322013 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The history section has three sourced sentences, all of the rest needs to be sourced or removed and we can't use promotional puffery like "early success was developing a highly skilled and adaptable team" at all. Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:41:24, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Usesoap17


Hello. I am requesting assistance because the user who reviewed this page stated that it doesn't meet the notability criteria for academics. Yet, when I look over the page on notability for academics, it states that an academic need meet only ONE of the 8 points of criteria. Kyle A. Thomas (me) is the editor-in-chief of an international academic journal: ROMARD. ROMARD has been in existence for decades and serves as a major source of research and scholarship on medieval and early modern theatre/drama. I'm not sure why the reviewer would claim that the individual this wikipedia page is about would not qualify for notability based on that criteria alone. Any further guidance on reaching the notability threshold would be helpful.

Furthermore, several of the sources are reliable and independent of the author. I will attempt to fix the ones that are not, but it would be helpful to know which sources do not meet the Wikipedia standards. When looking over pages of other academics--most notably, Carol Symes, who has an affiliation with Kyle A. Thomas--the references/sources are significantly weaker that those that I attached to this page. So, again, I am asking for further clarification.

Thank you for your help!!

Usesoap17 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources that aren't connected to you are too sparse for use as sources. We also strongly discourage writing about oneself due to the inherent conflict of interest involved. Refer to the top table here.
Does this help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:48, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Kartik0976


I am not geeting why specifically book review is needed, This draft is declined more than 2 times because book review is not in the source. WP:NOTBOOK says two or significant coverage in any published work. Then why book review?

Kartik0976 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because as far as books go book reviews are going to be that significant coverage for better or worse. Sales figures verge on routine coverage. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:28, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Baghdas3


I need to know what's the issue to create wikipedia.

Baghdas3 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdas3 You are not creating a "Wikipedia", but a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is the name of this entire website, which is composed of many articles. You were given the reason for the decline by the reviewer. Do you have questions about it? 331dot (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

PLEASE COMMUNICATE WHY MY ARTICLE IS DECLINED. ALSO SUGGEST THE CHANGES TO BE ADOPTED! == 18:47:52, 15 July 2021 review of submission by DR BALWANT MESHRAM ==


DR BALWANT MESHRAM (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The decline reason is in the large pink box namely "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." Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Advocate Dharmpal Natthuji Meshram
@DR BALWANT MESHRAM: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason whatsoever 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 content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. Please do not use all-caps (it's read as screaming/yelling). Your sources need to be cited in-line. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:09:44, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Mukherjee27


Mukherjee27 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was made on our submission: "Many bits of this draft are unsourced. Also, it somewhat reads like a resume. 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 22:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)"

Is it possible to get more specific comments about which bits are unsourced. Also, we would appreciate any thoughts or suggestions about the "reads like a resume" comment.

Thanks, Mukherjee27 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukherjee27: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason whatsoever 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 content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. You go into a bit too much detail in some sections, mainly about his work (which reads as a prose resume/promotional) and you have one source for the last two paragraphs - not acceptable in a normal article and anathematic in a biography. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

00:38:15, 16 July 2021 review of draft by Iamdoctah


Hello, I wrote an article on an orthopedic surgeon who was elected a National Academy of Medicine fellow out of three fellows last year. This is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Julieanne_P._Sees. Can you please explain how this is an advertisement? She is an AOA chair, one of three NAM fellows, and very famous in the osteopathic world. Please let me know how to write one properly. Iamdoctah (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:53:04, 16 July 2021 review of submission by 202.51.76.34

Please let this article be discussed under Wikiproject Nepal to prove the notability. This would bring a clear image for your convenience. It won't be biased as well. This article is notable than hundreds of article published related to Nepal. You may not be familiar with Nepal related affairs. Some similar articles like Pradip Paudel, etc are available on wiki are also similar to as of Sharma and they are also not MP of any assembly and are just popular youth leader, similar age group as of Sharma. Lakhs of people follow Mr. Sharma at various platforms. Please note this and make an unbiased decision. 202.51.76.34 (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1033826058"