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 Wikimusicplaystation (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 23 July 2021. 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 17

06:01:56, 17 July 2021 review of submission by Resandasandul


Resandasandul (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Wh my Article Is Decline[reply]

Resandasandul It was deleted as a blatant advertisment/promotional effort, after being declined as you don't seem to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:52:38, 17 July 2021 review of submission by 2409:4064:2097:FF73:0:0:F23:58A4


2409:4064:2097:FF73:0:0:F23:58A4 (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Sir, This is my private company where i post job so i want to upload my company in Wikipedia. My aim is helping Indian people who looking for a job. Please Approve it🙏🙏 Thank you

Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your company. If independent editors completely unaffilated with your company take note of it in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to give it significant coverage, and it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, they will write an article about it- but it will not be your company's control. I wish you well in helping Indians to get jobs, but you'll have to publicize your company elsewhere. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:35, 17 July 2021 review of submission by Ab.abhimanyu


Ab.abhimanyu (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moot as it has been deleted as blatant and irreparable advertising/promotion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:23, 17 July 2021 review of draft by Zelchenko


I submitted an AfC on the late subject's article. Columnist Jose Guevara was an influential fixture in Philippine politics, daily sharing the breakfast table and cocktail bar with presidents and legislators. Over a period of several decades (one source says 80 years), he apparently wrote a biweekly opinion column (think Mike Royko) for the two largest and most influential dailies in Manila. The evidence for this should be out there, but it's hard to find for several very common reasons (he flourished in print periodicals, and prior to the web's rise; he was a journalist, which means he himself was not written about much; Philippine journalography and online resources are not as developed as Western; probably some valid sources are in Tagalog).

However, in this month's "runt cull" of the AfC backlog, the piece has been marked for deletion based apparently on a reading of only the first section of the notability guidelines. I believe the reviewer in his rush for personal wiki merit badges has neither subjected the article to a proper review, nor viewed the submission in light of this longtime contributor's opinion, nor volunteered to pick up and try to prod the article slightly above the line (as appears to be one responsibility of editors). Nope, just slap and grab, as we used to say in the editorial offices and type shops. Efforts to reason with the reviewer are met with defensiveness and defiance. I take it personally because I invested my own volunteer time on this and my objection to his action should be considered seriously; I don't deserve such assembly-line treatment and, frankly, neither do the subject or the Philippine people.

The truth is that the subject Jose Guevara would probably easily qualify for notablity under a more nuanced reading of the notability guidelines. I don't have time myself to nurse the article to sufficient health to overcome the reviewer's objections. Zelchenko (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zelchenko (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zelchenko. I don't see where the draft has been marked for deletion. The reviewer declined it, in the belief that if published to main space as it was, it would more likely than not have been deleted. Articles for creation is an optional process so long as you don't have a conflict of interest and aren't editing under some unusual sanctions. So you have several choices. If you believe the reviewer is mistaken, that the page would survive in article space, then you are always welcome to move it there. Many more editors will see it in article space, and perhaps improve it. If you don't wish to risk AfD, you may continue to improve the draft and resubmit it when you are more confident. Other editors are unlikely to stumble across the draft on their own, but you could try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines or Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism for help improving it. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two sentences is barely an article at all, it would help your case if you added more content to show that he passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was not marked for deletion, only declined. What happened to stub articles? Given some time, some more supporting material can be found. But as it is, due to the various points I mentioned, there is less information in this area for Philippine material than, say, for Western. This threatens a prejudice against non-Euroamerican content, entities, and personalities. Zelchenko (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stub articles are still required to pass the criteria at WP:GNG. Sources do not need to be online, print is absolutely fine. Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:33:24, 17 July 2021 review of submission by NdbyQwK43y


I cannot understand the problem with this entity (there are other entities that are less significant available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Huntley_Watt.

NdbyQwK43y (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NdbyQwK43y I think you need to read the comment by the rejecting reviewer. Continued rapid fire resubmissions are akin to WP:OTHERPARENT, plus being rather impolite
With the other article you mention, no precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NdbyQwK43y: That article was never drafted. (It was created directly in mainspace one month before drafting was made mandatory.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:17:25, 17 July 2021 review of draft by Btspurplegalaxy


Although she doesn't meet the music notability criteria, I believe she at least meets WP:Entertainer. Do I just need to mention that on her talk page for the next reviewer?

Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Btspurplegalaxy I have logged your thoughts on the draft as a comment, one you will likely have seen already. I make no comment on your suggestion. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

03:34:53, 18 July 2021 review of submission by 137.119.18.197

I want people to know about my passionate, amazing father who, forever, will go down as one of the best designers for importing needs. He could fall under the category for Business Figures. He would love to spread his light. He also was on Wife Swap which was really a kicker. I appreciate the time you take. It means a lot. Thank you! 137.119.18.197 (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Take this somewhere else. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:04:40, 18 July 2021 review of draft by Abdulqadeer1


Abdulqadeer1 (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. We have very little tolerance for autobiographies; we're not a social media site. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:36:03, 18 July 2021 review of draft by Okadiputera


Hello, my draft submitted for review was recently rejected, and was tagged "not adequately supported by reliable sources". I was wondering if I could get a further explanation on the decision? I have asked this because the sources I have referred to included articles from National Newspapers, a journal article from a University Database, as well as articles from the local government and the Indonesian Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology. Only one of the sources are considered primary (website of the hotel) and that was used to cite basic information. I just would like to request further clarification, as it is in my honest belief that apart from one source, all the others are verifiable and independent of the organisation/hotel in question.

Thank you.

Okadiputera (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okadiputera I can't examine the sources as they are in Indonesian, but the most common reason for such a decline is that the sources are announcements of routine business activities, which do not establish notability. You may wish to ask the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 331dot, I will try that.

10:17:21, 18 July 2021 review of submission by 100.2.238.109

I do not get how any of the following articles are copyright violations (List of Virgin Galactic launches, List of Delta 4 launches, and List of Atlas LV3B launches) 100.2.238.109 (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AntanO: The above should not have been declined as copyright violations. They copied text from other Wikipedia articles, and attributed the copying on the destination talk page. At worst, the attribution was insufficient - normally the copying is attributed in an edit summary and on the source talk page as well. When an attribution is insufficient, it can be repaired by following WP:RIA.
Other websites have also copied Wikipedia without attribution, and that may have made these lists look like copyright violations, but Wikipedia had the text first. If it had been a copyright violation, it would not be enough to decline the draft as a copyvio. The offending text would also have to be removed from the article and article history. Detailed instructions are here. The revdel script simplifies the procedure. If you want to use it, add the following to User:AntanO/common.js:
importScript('User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js' ); // Backlink: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js - Revision deletion request under 'Move'
--Worldbruce (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you say it was copied from Wiki? --AntanO 14:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AntanO: Yes. The text has been in Delta IV since 25 August 2019. It was copied to www.simplerockets.com eleven months ago (August 2020). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:54, 18 July 2021 review of submission by 137.119.18.197

I want show the world his amazingness 137.119.18.197 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been rejected three times, please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it to MfD. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:21, 18 July 2021 review of submission by Letterwriter2021

Hello, thank you for some of the things you pointed out to me, but when it comes to references, they are usually in Serbian and in writing. Let's say 3 out of 5 references are from articles that do not exist on the Internet but are printed. Please consider that, thank you anyway. Letterwriter2021 (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Letterwriter2021 Sources do not need to be in English, and do not need to be online(but do need to be properly cited with publication information). That isn't really the issue; this person you are writing about does not meet the definition of a notable person, and no amount of editing can confer notability on someone. I'd suggest that if you were specifically paid to write this draft, that you return the money. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you have offended me. I'm a volunteer on WP just like you. This is my first article and I picked someone who has had major impacts on environmental law and currently impacting 1st amendment policy related to social media platforms. For you to say that Alison Morrow "does not meet the definition of a notable person", is coming from a position of ignorance. She has had more influence on American society than over half of the journalists on WP that have articles. Tim Pool has had less impact, less reference, and less notoriety, but somebody wrote an article on him.
What is the objective measurement required to pass your myopic definition of "notable"? Please give me an example of another journalist in her age group that is more notable. Stocatta (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stocatta: you are responding to a reply made to a different editor. This section is about another draft (see the heading) and the section about the draft you created is further down on this page. --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can you know if he is a notable person, in addition to all those awards and all things. Please do not answer questions 331dot.

Awards are a dime a dozen, and we only recognise those that have at least regional-level recognition. Two of your sources are stated to be "in written form" but are lacking critical bibliographical information (outlet, outlet edition, page(s) the news article is on and publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited and ISBN/WorldCat# for the book). https://mladiberana.me/vasilije-joksimovic-mislim-da-se-svaki-ulozeni-trud-isplati/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject) as an interview, https://www.vijesti.me/ is completely useless as a website homepage (you need to be citing specific articles), and the same applies to http://radioberane.me/ (you need to be citing a specific programme airing). Considering only one of your sources even comes close to usable and the rest appear to be lazily done, it's no wonder 331dot believes the subject is not notable; with the sources as presented I agree with their take. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are referring to my article. I don't have any of the references you are citing. My article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alison_Morrow
She has two Emmy awards. What isn't significant about an Emmy? She has the Sigma Delta Chi award which is a coveted national award for journalists. I provided the actual links to each of the governing bodies for these awards.
Every link I provided is a third party link to a vaild source. Did you read someone else's article when opining on my article? Stocatta (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stocatta: Indeed, this discussion is not about the draft you created. The section you started is further down on this page. --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:23, 18 July 2021 review of submission by Indiansocialwork

While I respect the decision by the reviewer, I would appreciate he/she can take a clear look at the article. While earlier review said the sources are not properly sources but this reviewer seems like reviewing without considering earlier comments. Most importantly, the subject in this article is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, which is the highest award given to the individuals recognized by the Royal Society as made a considerable contribution to social development. this one point is more than enough to support this article while there are many other reasons that can be considered. I hope the reviewer takes a nonbiased look! Indiansocialwork (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indiansocialwork Please do not accuse others of bias unless you have direct evidence- which is more than a mere draft rejected. Even if a topic meets the criteria, if the reliable sources are not there, then they are not there. The only change you made in between the last two reviews was removing a few links. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:18:08, 18 July 2021 review of submission by Stocatta


I've written a draft article on Alison Morrow and the article was declined for lack of notoriety. I've found many biographical articles on WP that are far less notable than Morrow. For example, Cecilia Balli has not won any awards in her professional life and has not made any notable contribution to journalism in recent memory; yet, she has a page. Morrow has 2 Emmy awards and won the Sigma Delta Chi award which is specifically positioned to recognize notable journalistic efforts. Morrow appears to be right in the middle of the growing drama between massive social media companies, the 1st amendment, and section 230. One of these three pillars is going to fail because content creators are being censored without objective justification. And the last six months has demonstrated that the "truth" is being conjured and framed by powerful entities in order to control the public square. There are several journalists at the center of this action including Tim Pool, Glenn Greenwald, and Alison Morrow, among others. Morrow is notably absent on Wikipedia. I was simply trying to get the data collection on her work started by highlighting her most remarkable achievements and then let the public contribute as desired. I thought this was the whole point of Wikipedia.

I have no pride of ownership on this and can accept any critical commentary on my writing style. I've provided 11 references in my article. She is a current and popular personality on many platforms. And she is a veteran of traditional television news after 12 years with virtually every major network.

Morrow has a larger platform than some of her past employers. She seems worthy of a WP article on that basis alone. What do I have to do to convince the reviewers that she is worthy of note and why do I have to do so in the first place? Anyone with three awards in their field probably deserves a pass on a single reviewer's myopic perspective.

Insight on what I'm missing is welcome and appreciated.

Stocatta (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stocatta Please read 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. Article standards have also changed over time, so that what was once acceptable may not be any longer(and vice versa). This is why each article or draft is judged on their own merits. Sources can also be different for different people in the same line of work; not every member of a field merits an article.
This draft just reads as a resume; it does not summarize significant coverage of Morrow in independent reliable sources. You have cited the specific points discussed in the draft, and on the surface she may meet the definition of a notable person(not "notoriety") but independent sources need to have given her significant, in depth coverage of her, not just call out what she has done in her life. Please see Your First Article. The good news here is that the draft was only declined, not rejected, meaning the reviewer felt it is at least possible that the article can be improved. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the quick response. And I appreciate your time toward this project. I donate to WP every year and I'm trying to increase the amount of time I contribute to adding to existing articles. I recognize the power of this platform and how disruptive it has become.
That said, this is my first article, and I just don't understand how much more notable somebody has to be to get consideration. I've provided the sources from all three awards, a half dozen articles highlighting her work, and the rest are third-party sources referencing her or her work. Frankly, she is famous but any definition. Her work is referenced by larger platforms on a regular basis. I started with Tim Pool's bio article as a starting point for Morrow's. His article is lengthy and I figured it would be wiser to keep it pithy for starters.
Can you point me to another journalist's bio article that isn't ultra-famous, like Tom Brokaw, so I can determine what I'm missing? I know she qualifies, so anything missing here is my lack of experience writing these articles.
I have added some references to her environmental work to bring it line with some no-name journalists that have bio articles on WP. Maybe you could check it out and see if I"m on the correct track?
Thank you for your help. Stocatta (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stocatta As I said above, I don't really dispute that the person may be notable- but there needs to be sources with significant coverage of her, not just citing her work and accomplishments. People don't merit articles, even if they are notable, if no one gives them significant coverage. The new information you added is a start, but you need sources that show particular actions or policy changes were attributed to her journalism(I haven't examined the sources so maybe they do). 331dot (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

02:50:23, 19 July 2021 review of submission by ClearPill11


ClearPill11 (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Good afternoon. I'm not sure where to go with this but I'm wondering about the page I created -- Citizen Free Press. Someone is constantly editing it and taking out sources I put into the originally approved page. They are also making biased claims against the website without any evidence of their claims.

What can I do? Thanks

ClearPill11 You might want the more general Help Desk, but it's okay to be here. I have blocked the IP editor from that article for edit warring. Keep in mind that this is not a judgement about the merits of their claims specifically, but the fact that they were edit warring to keep unsourced claims in the article. Content disputes should be discussed to reach a WP:CONSENSUS. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:25, 19 July 2021 review of submission by Anne Louise Thompson


Hello and thank you to Dan Arndt for his editing of my first solo article re artist Mary E Livingston. Will this article go online OR, as a Start article, is it deemed incomplete?

Secondly, I attended a Wiki edits workshop at the Womens Art Register, Richmond, Melbourne, Australia at which I posted an article. Since then, I've made more than 10 edits which Wikipedia acknowledged. Does this mean I can publish future new articles without asking for review? Best wishes Anne Anne Louise Thompson (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Louise Thompson: Mary Elizabeth Livingston is online in the fact that it can be found by everyone with Wikipedia's internal search. As far as I can tell, it should also be indexed by Google rather soon (but they sometimes take a while). Regarding your second question, yes, you can theoretically do so. Wether you should is a different question, and its a question I cannot answer for you. If you feel that you have enough experience with creating Articles that a new article you cresat in mainpsace isn't immedately subject to one of Wikipedia's deletion proccesses, you can certainly skip the review and either create the article directly in mainspace (not recommmended expect for very very experienced editors) or create a draft as before and then move it to mainspace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:33:10, 19 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by AwesomeAubergine

This is my very first time submitting. I am trying to understand why 2 paragraphs - Background & History were completely deleted as well as part of the Intro. There is a Reference which was invoked. My draft is titled Girmit Global Museum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Girmit_Global_Museum) Appreciate help as would not like the page deleted - how long do I have before you debate rejected pages? Thank you.


AwesomeAubergine (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AwesomeAubergine: we can't host copyright violations, more about that on your talkpage in a second. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:33, 19 July 2021 review of submission by 129.12.34.45


129.12.34.45 (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC) My first attempt at writing an article was rejected for the reasons given below.[reply]

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

However, I referenced four published books and two articles in national newspapers, among other sources. In most of these books, there is a lot more than a passing metnion of the subject.

So my question is - how many additional sources do I need to add for the article to be accepted?

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in before posting. You have cited the specific points in the draft, but Wikipedia articles must do more than merely tell about a person and their accomplishments; they must 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, or in this case, the more specific definition of a notable entertainer. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:56:01, 19 July 2021 review of submission by Prashank321


Prashank321 (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kindly please review the Draft:KGK Group page. I've added the citation and company references information can you please help me in making this content neutral as per the encyclopedia point of view to get published.

Prashank321 If you are associated with this company, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not associated with this company i searched this article and reserached its links for more information.

13:38:25, 19 July 2021 review of submission by 2600:1700:291:99C0:9CEF:422:14BF:53FF

Article was rejected but unsure why as I've provided relevant 3rd party sources and I based the submission off other similar posted wiki articles in the same industry. Please advise. 2600:1700:291:99C0:9CEF:422:14BF:53FF (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided are all press release-type articles, which does not establish notability. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Press releases, staff interviews, and announcements of routine business activities are not independent sources. Please read Your first article.
Please review other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. 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. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and action has not been taken yet. If you would like to pitch in and help us manage the 6 million plus articles there are, please identify these other inappropriate articles for possible action, we can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:26, 19 July 2021 review of submission by 2001:8A0:F9D4:C800:FD3A:6C6E:4276:A683


2001:8A0:F9D4:C800:FD3A:6C6E:4276:A683 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:48, 19 July 2021 review of draft by Crista2205


I am submitting an entry about a lawyer who I work for, Maria Herrera Mellado. It says that the person is not recognized enough, I dont understand why. We (the team) also got an email from an editor saying he/she would post it in enciclopedia form. I don't know if this person is verified.

Crista2205 You must read the paid editing policy and make the required formal disclosure. As noted by the reviewer, you have no independent reliable sources in the draft. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about her, showing how she meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone. You must set aside everything you know about your boss and all materials put out by her or her firm, and only summarize what independent reliable sources state. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this editor has requested money from you to post it, I would be wary. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @Crista2205 It's a copyright violation anyway, apart form being a blatant advert and having no references FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:00:45, 19 July 2021 review of draft by Michiken1970


Good afternoon, several months ago I submitted an article about Giorgio Bertellini, a major US-based scholar of Italian film, and was given a rejection notice on July 3rd. The explanation given was that the article was not properly sourced. However, I included over a dozen footnotes that cited all relevant information and provided links to all of his publications. Could someone kindly explain to me what I would need to do to improve the citations/sourcing so that the article can be approved?

Thanks,

Ken Garner

Michiken1970 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michiken1970. The sections about his career, affiliations (a strange section to have in a biography, not sure what it even means), and awards cite no sources whatsoever. The only section where sources are cited is the section that least needs them, his published works. Someone's published work is, in a manner of speaking, self-supporting. The title and copyright page of the work prove he wrote it, what the title is, who published it, and when, all of the bibliographic information listed for the work. So no inline citations are needed there. Also note that ASINs are highly undesirable identifiers compared to ISBNs. ASINs are proprietary and lead to sales pages. Wikipedia should not be used to advertise or market an author's work, or to promote a particular bookseller.
The sources you cite appear to be reviews, which are good sources of information for the biography, but they are normally cited in the main body, where his work should be described in prose, or in a section just before the list of published works where the reception of his views by other academics is discussed. See Johannes Kepler as an example. Finally, the first or second sentence of the lead should tell the reader why he is notable, what criteria of WP:PROF he meets. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

Request on 01:40:02, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by DrJay31


I am not sure why this article was denied, it was all my original work. Lazaris The Top Don was featured as a guest on what was flagged as copyright issues yet I did not take any of the original work. Can you clarify specifically what is deemed as a copyright issue? Thank you!


DrJay31 (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:03:36, 20 July 2021 review of submission by 216.174.70.236


Polished the article. I trust this time around that it is satisfactory?216.174.70.236 (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further; No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:29:07, 20 July 2021 review of submission by Makan.Meenu


Makan.Meenu (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC) ehy was my article declined[reply]

Makan.Meenu It was deleted as a blatant advertisment. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:31, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Jliza.poseidonwaves


Jliza.poseidonwaves (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My question is if I don't have a resource page because this information was written by the artist himself. What do I do?

Jliza.poseidonwaves There is nothing that you can do. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If no independent reliable sources exist about a topic, it does not merit an article on Wikipedia. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:22:55, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Crazyharlem


Where can I get in-depth coverage of the subject? Also I need help with formatting!!!

Crazyharlem (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crazyharlem A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Independent reliable sources are things like news reports(but not press releases) or books about the topic, anything not written by the topic itself. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:26:20, 20 July 2021 review of submission by MarikaAgu

Estonian pavilion appears in artists' profiles who have represented Estonia. In 2022 Estonian pavilion will be exceptionally in Rietveld pavilion, historically to represent Dutch artists. Netherlands offers such opportunity for outstanding previous exhibitions at the Estonian pavilion. MarikaAgu (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MarikaAgu The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that there is not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:30:32, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by RondDeJambe


Ref.attempting a new page Victor Ross (Businessman):Firstly, I wrote the page as Victor Ross (Rosenfeld) as that was his family name, only changed during WW2 when serving in the Pioneer Corps (on miltary advice to avoid reprisals if captured.) I would be keen to know why (Businessman) was substituted by the reviewer? Secondly,I am really puzzled by the rejection as VR has had a full page Obituary published in the Times(UK)recently & is a published author (Hodder & Stoughton.) He also had a series of talks on BBC Home Service during the 1950s (ref. notices in the Radio Times,)initiated a charity organisation which raised large amounts of money on behalf of the Association of Jewish Refugees which provided for educational grants & an annual lecture series (by renowned speakers)at the British Academy (info.on their website,) In his career,he rose to become Chairman of Reader's Digest UK & Europe, becoming a well-known public figure on the international stage. I would therefore welcome your help and advice on getting his page published ! Many thanks.RondDeJambe (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC) RondDeJambe (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RondDeJambe Be unsurprilsed. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style then Help:Your first article That will be a good start. Your referencing scheme fails, too FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:22:46, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SunilJakhar07



SunilJakhar07 (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:29:54, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Mirih1809


Hi, following the commentsI received I have made some changes in the draft, but since then I did not get any more reviews or comments. What would you suggest to do? Thanks, Miri Mirih1809 (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirih1809 You wouldn't necessarily get more comments until you resubmit it for review. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:37:30, 20 July 2021 review of submission by EssyDon100

Kindly assist me with to put my article in the appropriate manner so it can be approved. The topic is indeed notable and I'm working to gather more current information in order to continue editing. In another opinion, how can I make this a stub so others can help in developing it? EssyDon100 (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EssyDon100 This draft has been rejected and will go no further. You may start again with a new one. This essay should help you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:02:12, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Berkim20


I wonder how to get my article published. Is it possible to get "Allo Allo" published on Wikipedia? In what circumstances?

Best regards, Azamat B.

Berkim20 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berkim20 As noted by the reviewer, your draft just tells about the subject. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article.
If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:21, 20 July 2021 review of submission by Prospero1623


Hello. I recently wrote an article called Draft:MPB Group Limited that was rejected for sounding like an advertisement. I have since made some edits. However, I have been informed that my article (which I have not been paid for, nor do I work for MPB) doesn't reach the notability quota. Can someone explain to me why that is?

I have looked at other articles of a similar vein, and they contain similar content. To not breach OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I wish to point out that I'm not questioning the existence of my or anyone else's articles, I'm just curious as to why those passed the set rules and mine did not, despite similar content. Wiki page on OTHERSTUFF says: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."

I understand that writing about the partnerships could be a red flag, but I am unsure why the history and funding is not deemed notable.

If anyone could help me out, that would be wonderful.

Prospero1623 (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prospero1623: As there are quite a lot of references for us to go through could you follow the procedure explained at WP:THREE and provide links to those best sources on the draft's talk page? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: Hi, thank you for your reply. Yes, I believe these three may be classified as reliable:
  • "Brighton-based MPB snaps up $69M to build out its used camera equipment marketplace". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2021-06-24.
  • Loritz, Mary (2019-07-15). "Brighton-based MPB raises €10 million for its second-hand photo and film equipment marketplace". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2021-06-24.
  • Schutte, Shan (2016-03-03). "mpb.com: Disrupting the way people buy and sell used photo equipment". Retrieved 2021-06-24.

I also realise there are articles in there, such as the Express and Argus that do not classify as reliable, and will remove them ASAP. I have also put these sources on the draft's talk page.

Helped I'm helping Prospero out on the draft's talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:54, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Yingying at MPS


Hi, I've been trying to upload a Wikipedia page for Malaysian Pharmacists Society but failed several times. I've tried to follow the same format as per other similar wiki pages e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Australia and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Pharmaceutical_Society but it is still rejected. May I know why were other sites accepted and published even though they have similar issues as mine? Thank you for your help!

Yingying at MPS (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yingying at MPS No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
You need to make a formal declar=artion of your paid editor status. Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure I am about to leave a formal question on your talk page. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:12, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Eincrat


An editor that goes by the name Suart Yaetes made the following comment-"Wikipedia articles are built on independent secondary sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. Sources that don't meet these criteria need to be removed. I took a look at a handful of the wall of references and none of the ones I looked at were independent AND had in-depth coverage of the network." This criticism makes no sense as I am certain I could go to any number of articles and pull out a handful of references and discover that they don't have in-depth coverage as they are only being used to cite a specific fact that is important to the larger article. Moreover, I had a handful of sources that met his qualifications and mentioned which ones they were and asked the editor to further explain what was problematic. I have yet to hear a response but someone who posted after me has been replied to. The editor also appears to be an odd fit for the article as the individual appears to focus on biographies which theta network most definitely is not. As another editor correctly pointed out, it ideally needs an expert familiar with cryptocurrencies which the individual has not shown any knowledge of. What should I do? Should I just ignore the editor and repost it? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.Eincrat (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eincrat (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eincrat An editor that goes by the name of Timtrent finds your alleged question to be patronising.
No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
Every editor here is an odd fit. Wikipedia is a site for various size legs in various sizes holes.
Advice?
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. 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 referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:34, 20 July 2021 review of draft by AKAK2021

I want the article to be reviewed again. I find the reasons given by the reviewer to be irrelevant. He is a significant person according to your guidelines and the sources are intact.

AKAK2021 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AKAK2021. You are mistaken. Annamalai K is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as the subject of a stand alone article). Of the draft's four sources that are independent and reliable, one is about his joining the party, and three are news of his being appointed state president of the Tamil Nadu unit of the party. State president of a party is not a position that satisfies the notability criteria for politicians. Leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable, but leaders at the sub-national level are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:26, 20 July 2021 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:63A0:C801:A43A:3E25:1432:C1F7


Currently our knowledge panel on google is showing incorrect information for Jimmy, the incorrect information is coming from a wikipedia page but the pictures do not match the same person, so we need to create a wiki page for Jimmy so we can use this in our knowledge panel.

2A00:23C7:63A0:C801:A43A:3E25:1432:C1F7 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:39:10, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Uvindu Abisheka


Hi There, 

    I am a Cambridge A/L Student of age 15. I really need to help other get to know generally of all laptops out there on the sale. This is my first article. But it got declined. I wish to get advice o trying to repost this article with required changes or a guide on what content and how should I do article.

Thank You, Best Regards, Uvindu Abisheka.

Uvindu Abisheka (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia’s purpose is not to be a guide for advice on purchases. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:29:08, 20 July 2021 review of submission by ArthurRobertRobert

I disagree; this company is notable enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia.

ArthurRobertRobert (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission was Rejected, meaning it cannot be resubmitted. I rejected your submission because it failed WP:NCORP and your submission lacked secondary coverage. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:06, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Driverofthebluetaxi


Driverofthebluetaxi (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had added some links to references of the infomations in the article, especially the books. My question: Are the catalogues of the Libraries (german national, viaf, lcc, ub munich) objective enough? Where is still the deficit of the article, to remove the gaps. ;-) Please support me, its my first article in english wiki. In german wiki i had already published some. Driverofthebluetaxi (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if de.wp has a policy equivalent to our WP:Biographies of living persons, but that's some of where the issues are. You have uncited biographical claims in the article that need to either get a cite or get lost. As to the links to the catalogues, they don't help for notability. Assuming the German Nat'l Library serves a function equivalent to the Library of Congress, a listing there would be a matter of course and not noteworthy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:11:47, 20 July 2021 review of submission by EvenToedUngulate


The proposed article was rejected for a lack of notability. I've revised the article to be more fullsome, both in describing the foundation and its impacts, and also provided a number of sources that I hope demonstrate its notability, such as through the receipt of awards, partnerships, and expansion of the foundation to other cities. The revised article now has:

  • An increase in the number of secondary sources, such as news articles and press releases
  • Multiple sources with multiple points of view
  • Improving the length and depth of the article so that it is not too short, but not overly long, either

The StopGap Foundation is an important organization in Toronto and has expanded to create a sister organization in Ottawa. The organization has brought forward projects to multiple municipalities, which I hope demonstrates its notability.

EvenToedUngulate (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EvenToedUngulate The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Press releases are not independent reliable sources, nor are announcements of its activities, brief mentions, or any materials put out by the organization. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about the good work of a charity. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Oh, okay. Is there anything else I can do? I reviewed WP:NOBLE and I don't think it falls under the the 7 listed criteria. I can remove the press releases to be other secondary sources if they aren't acceptable. I was just using that as an example since it was issued by a company, not the organization I made the article about. I don't mind finding some other sources if a press release isn't high enough quality. I made some pretty significant changes to the draft, so is there anything else I can do? EvenToedUngulate (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EvenToedUngulate As the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further at this time. The reviewer rejected it because they believed the chances of addressing the issues raised are low. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Press releases, announcements of routine activities, brief mentions, staff interviews, or other primary sources do not establish notability. If you have appropriate sources to summarize and feel that the reviewere erred, you will need to discuss it with them directly.
If you are associated with this organization, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Okay, I will bring it up with the reviewer. I think the issues you've raised aren't present for this article, but I can see how they might be. I'm not associated with the organization, I was just surprised they didn't have a Wikipedia article, so I decided to make one. EvenToedUngulate (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:41:23, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by MisterTech


Hi, Robert McClenon seems to have made a mistake with their AfC review of this article.

I've left a message on their talk page but they have not responded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Request_on_13:44:01,_16_July_2021_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_MisterTech

How can I resolve this?

MisterTech (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not seeing any mistakes by Robert McClenon. It reads like it was written by a PR firm, and voila, it was! Bkissin (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. They questioned the notability of the subject yet it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including being covered multiple times by the BBC, and also by Wired, Znet, San Francisco Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, TechCrunch, Cnet, The New York Times, Forbes, Engadget, etc
2. They said that "This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company", however it is not. It is written in my own words, for example nowhere does the company describe itself as an "indoor gardening company".
3.They also questioned whether there was a COI, but this was clearly declared when the draft was created https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Click_%26_Grow&oldid=1014871688
MisterTech (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

Request on 07:58:47, 21 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Martin karu


i need your help to publish my article..can you tell me what are the changes wanna i do...?


Martin karu (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking aren’t you? “faced an Advanced Level examination in biological science”, “nominated as the captain of the school football team” none of this even begins to make him notable! Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:20, 21 July 2021 review of submission by Yilmas.HF


I created the article Elcin Barker Ergun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elcin_Barker_Ergun. When the article was accepted it has been reviwed a lot with many changes. I would like to understand the detailed reasons behind each change to better contribute in future to this page. Furthermore even if I had all the permissions and copyright from the photographer, the picture of Elcin has been deleted (I actually could not find the corrispettive copy tag, so I wrote it down as "other tags", however it didn't worked). How can I restore the picture? Thanks a lot for your kind support, please let me have an answer.

Yilmas.HF (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yilmas.HF: See here: Wikimedia Commons: When do I contact the Volunter response Team?. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:50:06, 21 July 2021 review of submission by SidraRanaAdv


SidraRanaAdv 11:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SidraRanaAdv You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something; a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to state about(in this case) an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked this user for one week for disruptive editing, as he has repeatedly submitted the same draft without making any attempt to improve it. I've also rejected the draft. Deb (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:41:01, 21 July 2021 review of submission by Imanav07

{{Lafc|username=Imanav07|ts=12:41:01, 21 July 2021|page=

Imanav07 (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anshu_Bisht is the page i was editting .. i need a reason why it can't be published

@Imanav07: I am afraid I have sent this to draftspace, as Draft:GamerFleet (2). I have done this because I don't see how GamerFleet is noteable in Wikipedia's sence of the word, and because this article lacks reliable sources. YouTube is rarely a reliable source (and in this case it isn't), see WP:RSPYT and WP:SELFPUB Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:31:11, 21 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Writerspace


I am attempting to create a Wikipedia page for author Denise Hunter. Hunter is an author of over 40 books, many of them bestsellers. 3 of her books have been made into movies on the Hallmark channel. My initial article submission for her was not sourced properly, but after this was brought to my attention, I edited the article several times. It is currently sourced with reputable media sources: television stations WANE 15 (Ft. Wayne, IN), WTHR 13 (Indianapolis), WPTA 21 (Ft. Wayne, IN) and CBN; newspaper articles from the Journal Gazette (Ft. Wayne, IN), Sterling Journal-Advocate (Sterling, CO), Pilot News (Plymouth, IN), magazine articles in Smart Living Fort Wayne and reputable websites such as Publishers Weekly. Still my most recent submission was rejected as not showing significant coverage "in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I believe the citations listed below show significant coverage in published, reliable secondary sources. Please advise. Writerspace (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writerspace (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writerspace (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've snipped the references list here as it duplicates what is already on the draft. Refer to the top table here:
Does this help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does and doesn't help. I'm including links to the various media sources in order to provide sources for the facts asserted in the article (awards, bestseller list, Hallmark channel movies, etc.) Coverage on a local, network-affiliated TV channel or local paper doesn't count simply because the person being discussed lives in the area? There's no personal connection between the author and any of these media outlets. The decision on what is notable appears to be fairly arbitrary and subjective here. A bestselling writer of over 40 books with 3 movie adaptations is not significant enough for Wikipedia inclusion??Writerspace (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:26, 21 July 2021 review of draft by Fasterhorses


My questions are about the "Review waiting, please be patient" box information.

1) "Reviewer tools "Warning: This page should probably be moved to the Draft namespace." Question: This appears to be something that the reviewer would do? Or do I?

2) Tagging is for "User:Fasterhorses/sandbox" Should I wait till the title is changed or how do I proceed?

fasterhorses (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fasterhorses, You could move it to draftspace, if you don't, the first reviewer will do it. You can add project tags at any time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:18:24, 21 July 2021 review of draft by CloudCapital


Hi, would be grateful if I could get some clarification on why my draft article Draft:Antler was considered to not have been written from a neutral point of view, and what are some of the edits that I should make in order to increase my chances of getting it approved. Many thanks!

CloudCapital (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of the concept of promotion by over-detail? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:23:15, 21 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Inrup


I am not advertising the company . It is just encyclopedic information


Inrup (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inrup I removed the coding that suppressed the display of your message. The text you wrote was a blatant advertisement. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Please read Your first article, and if you have independent sources with significant coverage to summarize please use Articles for creation to create and submit a draft.
If you are associated with this company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:24:12, 21 July 2021 review of submission by Abhishekgoswami21


Abhishekgoswami21 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC) it was not a promotional page more article indeed to be added with time[reply]

India khelo football is a Non Profit Organization totally committed toward development of football or soccer eco system in India. this platform provide best possible opportunity for young budding talent to showcase there talent at India and international stage. Try using fewer buzzwords. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:23, 21 July 2021 review of draft by LCEnriquez


hello! I recently tried to publish an article to Wiki but was rejected because of the sources I used. I gathered various sources on the company prior to creating the Wiki page and used ones that I thought were reputable and meet Wiki's criteria. I was wondering if there is anyone who can help me determine which sources are acceptable for Wiki in order to create a new article page. The following articles were articles that were initially used: “Why Ella’s Bubbles is Becoming a Household Name.” Beverly Hills Times Magazine, 2012. Sarbacker, Macy. “5 Best Walk-in Bathtubs.” Earthtechling, 2021. Linehan, John and Michelle Shugars. “Ella’s Bubbles Announces Corporate Rebranding and Website Relaunch.” Cision, 2015. Ella’s Bubbles, LLC. Better Business Bureau Blair, Jennifer. “The Best Whirlpool Bathtub.” Chicago Tribune, 2019 Smith, Nicole. “Ella’s Bubbles Walk-in Tubs Review.” Top10Reviews, 2019 Lindberg M Ed., Sara.“Best Walk-In Tubs in 2021 | Costs, Ratings, and Reviews.” health.com (Health Magazine) “16 Reasons to install an Ella’s Bubbles WIB.” Surface Bella, 2020. LCEnriquez (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:14, 21 July 2021 review of draft by Viktoriya Sa


Please let me know where and how I need to improve this article. Viktoriya Sa (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Viktoriya Sa (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 an strong, independent and in-depth 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 are literally no cites for any of his biographical details; all there are is citations to the papers he's written. Just because WP:NACADEMIC is met does not mean we can accept a biography that is otherwise utterly unsourced. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Viktoriya Sa: Re-pinging as I botched the first ping. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


July 22

01:05:40, 22 July 2021 review of draft by Rybkovich


Hi, Draft:One World Family Commune got rejected on copyright grounds, I believe it was due to quoted info being too long. Can you run another check and let me know if there are still problems. Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Rybkovich (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning Copyright Violations are a serious problem. You will likely need to reword the draft entirely if you want to ensure that your submission isn’t declined on copyvio grounds again. Please read WP:COPYVIO in its entirety. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I'm a copyright attorney so I am familiar with copyright issues. If the issue with content within other articles - it 99% likely that I am the creator of that content. Copyright is an authorship issue. An author cannot violate her own work. Yes, our policy is different from copyright law, let me know which articles so I can make sufficient changes. It is much easier to reject articles than spending months to create them. In my work everything is cited, I'm the author of published articles in two different languages, I write motions and petitions in court. Some frustrations are silly while others are justified. You know this personally both in your life and here on wikipedia. Work is work whether you get paid for it or not and its especially frustrating when its work that one is passionate about. If our bot tells you the specific copyright issue what the problem of copy and pasting it so it can be addressed ASAP. I am an administrator on wikicommons, specifically regarding rejection or acceptance of uploads, with copyright being the primary issue. I have previously posted my request politely - two times here - NO RESPONSE - 7/11/2021 and 7/13/2021. Two times on the administrator's that rejected my submission talk page, AntanO - 7/11/2021 and 7/14/2021 - NO RESPONSE. The response to today's posting is that there's a copyright issue. Hence the frustration. Rybkovich (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a copyright lawyer, you should be aware of Berne granting all-rights-reserved copyright to a work by default, without need of registration. All-rights-reserved copyright is mutually exclusive with CC-By-SA, which is why even if you wrote it yourself, we cannot accept it unless it was initially released under that copyright licence or a functionally identical one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rybkovich, I have just checked the draft, as of now there is no copyright problem. I have not checked previous versions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Roger, I really appreciate it. Rybkovich (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:41:31, 22 July 2021 review of submission by ItsJustdancefan

What next steps should I take? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsJustdancefan, following this, this & this what would follow is an indefinite block on your account for not being here to build an encyclopedia, what did I tell you about forum shopping ? Celestina007 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021-22 Premira Devision (Women)

I created a page called Draft:2021–22 Primera División (women) on Wikipedia on 21 July 2021 at about 11 o'clock AEST but today I got a notification that the article has been declined and I want to know what the reason(s) is/are however I understand that did not leave any preference in that article. Please let me know. Zaki Frahmand (talk) 22 July 2021 12:25 PM AEST.

Hello. It appears that your submission to Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the help desk. Thank you. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:30:27, 22 July 2021 review of submission by Chatterjee95


Chatterjee95 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done should be merged to Tiger Shroff unless significantly expanded, as it is lacking reliable, secondary sources still. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:41:36, 22 July 2021 review of submission by SYYA96

Due to the pandemic, there has been major coverage on Zühlke Group, especially the successful development of the NHS Test and Trace application. They are now known as the NHS Covid-19 developer. Hence, it will be best if there is a English page available on Zühlke and their project. SYYA96 (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected meaning it won’t be considered further. Eternal Shadow Talk 03:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:22:13, 22 July 2021 review of draft by Coon923


I do not understand exactly what else to do, if what I am doing will not work with Wikipedia, then please delete draft; I do not want to waste anymore of my time if this page is not publishable, nor do I want to waste Wikipedia support team time.

Thank You, Coon923(Almighty Coon)

Coon923 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it probably won't work with Wikipedia to write about your own work. Very rarely are unofficial video game mods notable. That being said, the biggest issue with the article is a lack of reliable sources. We don't normally consider Youtube a reliable source (because they are often self-published, and the information is unverifiable), and the GooglePlay store just shows that it exists, it doesn't really add any significant coverage to the article. Has there been coverage of your work on notable videogame sites (Kotaku, Polygon, IGN, etc.)?
I don't want you to be discouraged. Seems like you made a really interesting mod! That's more that I can do. Even if this article doesn't make it, I still invite you to continue to provide your expertise on video game related topics here. We could always use more volunteers! If you'd like us to delete the draft, then go ahead and put {{db-g7}} at the top of the page, and someone will delete it for you. Bkissin (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:09:25, 22 July 2021 review of draft by 45ispres


I got notification back concerning my article on the Jacksonville Sheriff Mike Williams^. The person who declined a submission said that there were no reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I used references such as the Florida Sheriff's Association and the sheriff page on the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office website. I do not know exactly what this person wants me to do concerning the article 45ispres (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

45ispres Those are primary sources, not secondary sources. You should add articles in the news about him, as they will likely lead to an accept of your submission. It seems the subject is notable enough to have a chance at acceptance. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:12:00, 22 July 2021 review of draft by 182.74.22.30


We needed help to understand in depth all the reasons why our request has been declined on 21st July,2021 and also is publishing on sandbox right?


182.74.22.30 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that your submission to Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the help desk. Thank you. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it appears you may have a conflict of interest or paid to create that page. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:15:06, 22 July 2021 review of submission by BMMWikiedit

please suggest how to improve the article which totally qualifies as Bible Medicine is a unique kind of ministry that emphasises the Bible as a medicine to people. BMMWikiedit (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC) BMMWikiedit (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your submission was deleted as a blatant advertisement. Please read WP:G11 and WP:PROMO. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:53:27, 22 July 2021 review of submission by RAJESH CHAUHAN 47


RAJESH CHAUHAN 47 (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You didn’t ask a question, but your submission was deleted as a blatant advertisement. Please read WP:PROMO. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:13, 22 July 2021 review of submission by Dewi339458

I just don't understand, I understand the first few rejections and really have been trying to change things. Even tried deleting parts that can't be supported. I am asking for help, help me fix it because I really am trying my best. Please. Help me and allow me to prove myself. Dewi339458 (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dewi339458 No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. It appears that the person does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. This is why the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. I would suggest that you spend time editing existing articles first, to learn more about notability. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes i understand, but he isn't a musician. He's an upcoming rising actor that starred in a movie that was released in his country and malaysia making him an international actor and popular tv shows. The articles i put as sources shows articles of his career existing as he is notable in Indonesia and malaysia for now. Dewi339458 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done As mentioned before, No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. The subject fails WP:NACTOR. Also, do you have a conflict of interest with your submission? Eternal Shadow Talk 15:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:40, 22 July 2021 review of submission by Purushothaman2939


Purushothaman2939 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was deleted as a blatant advertisement. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:37, 22 July 2021 review of submission by Daphinevadhera


Hi Admin, Richa Tilokani is an upcoming author. After writing successfully for different publications, she has released her first book - The Teachings of Bhagavad Gita - Timeless wisdom for the Modern Age. The book brings out the essence of the Gita in a simplified manner which makes the common man understand easier. Hope she will also pen a few more in the coming years. This Wikipedia page will help readers to know her better. Please suggest to me how to go about it. Thanks

Daphinevadhera (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Your draft was rejected, meaning it cannot be resubmitted, as it is not notable. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:28, 22 July 2021 review of submission by Nishantkumar930


Nishantkumar930 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You didn’t ask a question, but your submission was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:50, 22 July 2021 review of draft by Soft.hearted09


Soft.hearted09 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Soft.hearted09: 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 20:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:18:32, 22 July 2021 review of submission by Misser420


Hello, I have written an article about a Japanese mobile game called Tagatame no Alchemist. Apparently, it got rejected, and labeled with "not adequately supported by reliable sources". I do not understand why there is not enough reliable sources? I took most of them from the Japanese version of the wiki, and added some extra based on the information I added. Because it is translated, I had to find other sources, even if they are in Japanese. The game is a Japanese game, so I do not understand what information requires more sources? (I do not see what sources are lacking) Even if there are english sources, they are not reliable because the page I created is based on the Japanese version of the page, so I have copied the Japanese page's sources and not sure which more do I need. Also, which sources are unreliable? I have checked the sources, and they are not other wikis, or sources like reddit/twitter. They are mostly news publications or official company websites, or other game guide websites, and the wiki does not list any game guide websites as unreliable. English sources are much more unreliable than Japanese ones since the information I posted specifies Japanese individuals, making it hard to find information. From what I am aware, I am not sure which ones are unreliable, but the sources I have used are:

onlinefanatic.com (game reviews website) eiga.com (Japanese movies review site) movies.yahoo.co.jp (Yahoo.co.jp is Japan's equivalent of google, one of the biggest search engine used by people in Japan other than Google) satelite.co.jp (A movie producer's official website) 4gamer.net (Japanese game outlet for reviews and entertainment news) alchemistcode.com (official US based website for the game) al.fg-games.co.jp (The japanese website for the game) sensortower.com (mobile games application database) anilist.co (anime database) natalie.mu (Japanese pop culture news, according to website description) spice.eplus.jp (entertainment news in Japan) myanimelist.net (anime database and review site) crunchyroll.com (paid anime streaming website) tracxn.com (corporate tracking and database website providing IT services) famitsu.com (game reviews website) tistory.com (one of the several korean blog website)

I have checked the criteria, and do not understand what exactly is the requirement for notability, if review websites/gaming entertainment news or corporate websites/official websites of games are not notable enough.

Misser420 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


July 23

02:04:07, 23 July 2021 review of submission by NHPolitics603


NHPolitics603 (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burns was elected countywide in the largest county in NH and he served on a national position on Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. He is also a major candidate for congress.

05:46:21, 23 July 2021 review of draft by 45ispres


He gets significant coverage on news stations and other places. I want to know how the sheriff of the 13th largest city in America in one of the biggest departments does not "qualify" for man article especially because he has been a very controversial sheriff. Do I need more secondary sources to make this able to become an article? I am confused as there is so much mixed messaging

45ispres (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:48, 23 July 2021 review of draft by Wikimusicplaystation


Wikimusicplaystation (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi....I just want to ask why my articles is being denied. can you help me with this?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1035020873"