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 Mercy k (talk | contribs) at 07:15, 22 September 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


September 16

00:21:30, 16 September 2021 review of submission by TheChunky

The draft was created by a new user, Ttttt321 and when it was declined first time. He/she asked me to contribute and improve that draft here. For his help, I mentioned an expert user who usually contributes to WP:ISLAM related articles. He also declined again and left for improvements. Later, I improved the draft and added reliable sources on the topic and submitted it for review. But this is really disappointing for that new user who is the main author of the draft article, which I believe is likely notable but got rejected and maybe even against the WP:BITE.  ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 00:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheChunky, from what it appeared to me (again), I've reverted the AfC rejection, and would like to re-review it sometime later in the day. Thanks for all the improvements. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:20:36, 16 September 2021 review of submission by Wcsneel


Could you please share any template that can display accurate map? Template:Location_map is only display country right? how about smaller area? What are the suggestion

Wcsneel (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcsneel: no, {{location map}} also supports smaller areas. You can select which area you want by specifiying the |1= param. I am going to insert a few examples below.
Location of HSA
Location of HSA
HSA
HSA (Malaysia)
Location of HSA
Location of HSA
HSA
HSA (Peninsular Malaysia)
Location of HSA
Location of HSA
HSA
HSA (Selangor)
Location of HSA
Location of HSA
HSA
HSA (Shah Alam)
You can also use a combined view to use less vertical space in the actual article(this requires JavaScript to be enabled in the browser of the user):
Location of HSA
Location of HSA
HSA
HSA (Malaysia)
Location of HSA
Location of HSA
HSA
HSA (Peninsular Malaysia)
Location of HSA
Location of HSA
HSA
HSA (Selangor)
Location of HSA
Location of HSA
HSA
HSA (Shah Alam)
Hope this helps. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:06:06, 16 September 2021 review of submission by Benjaminwrightwales


I don't understand why this page keeps getting rejected. I am trying to build individual pages for each Ginger Wildheart album and then create a seperate discography page.

I would also argue that Ginger's other albums have individual pages - and with far less references / citations. And the last album page I created, Albion, was accepted.

There are lots of references for G*A*S*S*, and given its innovative model where a single was released every month for a year, I want to argue the case that it should be worthy of inclusion.

Please can you reconsider this and I would also be grateful for some feedback.

Kind regards, Ben

Benjaminwrightwales (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaminwrightwales The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears to not meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. At least one of the sources that you offer is an interview with the singer, which is not an independent source.
Please see other stuff exists. That other inappropriate articles exist does not mean that yours can too. 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. If you want to help us out, you can identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:30, 16 September 2021 review of submission by 105.178.104.204


105.178.104.204 (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"my experiences have helped me to self-actualize in to advising entrepreneurs and management to achieve their targets." clearly has no place whatsoever in an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:53, 16 September 2021 review of submission by CollinsPhil


CollinsPhil (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about a South African musician whose name is Turna. I created this article for Turna's followers and fan's who are seeking more information about this musician, Therefore I please and beg for Wikipedia's team to take this article to the live space so that people can learn more about the artist. As time goes by I will keep expanding this article as I continue to do researches and keep this article updated. It is an honour to be welcomed with love and respect here on Wikipedia, as a creator of this article I plea for this article to be taken to live space, Thank you CollinsPhil (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC) .[reply]

Begging and Pleading are not required, you simply need to suggest how they pass the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:28, 16 September 2021 review of submission by CollinsPhil


CollinsPhil (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See reply above. Theroadislong (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:41:34, 16 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Abhilashsnair


I Made all edits suggested, cite title, added more links , please verify


Request on 18:15:00, 16 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Anitnepres


Hello, I am attempting to create Wikipedia pages on behalf of established Latinx artists in Minnesota. Originally, I had disclosed that I had no relation to the subjects, as I was informed by another Wikipedia editor that editors of color on Wikipedia are often Doxxed. I apologize for my attempt to dodge this question. I assure you that it was done out of a desire to protect myself and my community.

I am reaching out now in hopes of clearing up this confusion, and finding a solution to moving forward with these drafts. Would it be possible for me to speak with someone as to how to move forward with these articles? To be clear, neither I or the artist wrote these articles. The articles were written by neutral third parties, and I have been paid to upload them to Wikipedia.

Please let me know what next steps could be.

Thanks, Anitepres


Was "disclosed", above, a typo for "dissimulated"? Whichever, thank you for your new candour. I've only seen one of these drafts, Draft:Luis Fitch. For all I know, it may indeed have been written by a neutral third party; but if it was, then the party needed more familiarity with Wikipedia. The text is fluent but it's just not encyclopedic, and the referencing is utterly inadequate. This makes me wonder what you mean by uploading drafts. (With this edit, I uploaded an article. This took mere seconds. What preceded the upload took hours and hours, as did what followed it.) Trimming promotional excrescences from and rephrasing the texts shouldn't be hard, but if you're also expected to search for and provide references for what the texts say, you're likely to find that the rate you're getting per hour of work will drop drastically. -- Hoary (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

05:05:13, 17 September 2021 review of draft by Hmazuji


i submitted a perfectly good wiki page, and it is being deleted for no good reason Hmazuji (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A draft that's about something already covered in an existing article (in this case, Faroe Islands) will be summarily declined. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And while we're on the topic, we take a very dim view of activism. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your Draft:Faroe Islands wasn't "perfectly good". It didn't even approach "good". And it wasn't just declined, it was rejected. There's a big red "STOP" sign on it. That means "stop". It doesn't mean "persist", and it certainly doesn't mean "Just do the same thing again, but this time give it the title 'Draft:The real faroe islands'." -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:39:18, 17 September 2021 review of submission by An SG ARMYCarat


This is my first time trying to make a Wikipedia page. I require assistance as I do not understand what I should post on this page. I am currently trying to make this page and am I allowed to make references to a Wikipedia page in the Korean language? Also, how much and what things should I post before the page is deemed as suitable to be published?

An SG ARMYCarat (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An SG ARMYCarat, you can't use a Wikipedia page in any language as a reference. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, which is because its content is user-generated. Please see WP:RS. Your subject must be notable. He's considered notable if the article demonstrates that he satisfies either WP:ARTIST Wikipedia:Notability (music) or, more generally, WP:PERSON. For what the draft should and shouldn't include, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC) corrected Hoary (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I refer to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) instead?

An SG ARMYCarat (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, An SG ARMYCarat, you can check if your subject is likely to meet either WP:Notability (music) or WP:PERSON (or of course both), and, if he does, then you should make sure that the draft shows that he meets either (or of course both) of the two. -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I copy and paste content from a Wikipedia page which is in Korean?

An SG ARMYCarat (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@An SG ARMYCarat: No. We generally can't accept Korean text; if you wish to provide translated text the procedure is at WP:Translation. In all cases you are obligated to link to the source article's history to comply with the attribution requirements of Wikipedia's licences. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:25:35, 17 September 2021 review of draft by 1.22.93.78


1.22.93.78 (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but I think any questions you have can be answered by the comments left by reviewers on your draft. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:10:29, 17 September 2021 review of submission by The Google Ninja


The Google Ninja (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I've removed the press release.

The Google Ninja The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


331dot Is there anyway to overturn it?
The Google Ninja Pings do not work unless you sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~. It's not going to be overturned because of the reasons given by the reviewers. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. A Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. If you are able to do that, your only option is to appeal to the last reviewer.
If you are associated with the business, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:35:57, 17 September 2021 review of draft by Miller870


I'm seeing this error when I try to edit the page: "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them," but I can't find any <ref> tags without content. Why am I getting this error?

Miller870 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:28, 17 September 2021 review of submission by Mohammedmahdiwrya


Mohammedmahdiwrya (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammedmahdiwrya You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media where people tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia summarizes 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. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:30, 17 September 2021 review of draft by Chrissy7531


Chrissy7531 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize this is so hard can someone help please. Chrissy7531 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy7531 Yes, creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks to perform on Wikipedia. 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 the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Social media is not acceptable for establishing notability. Please see Your First Article.
I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. It also helps people immensely to spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in article content. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:11, 17 September 2021 review of submission by Ro Noor Alom1


Ro Noor Alom1 (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:00, 17 September 2021 review of submission by Rakib1990

Rakib1990 Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about yourself or post your resume. Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:39:29, 17 September 2021 review of submission by Marvoronina


Thank you for taking some of your precious minutes to review my article.

I'm writing this because I would love to learn more about the reasons my changes were rejected.

Firstly, as requested, I added a number of secondary sources, which included a magazine, two website articles, more information from three other websites, and two YouTube videos. I was wondering where I went wrong with my use of references. As in, aren't these considered to be secondary sources?

Secondly, it says that my article reads like an advertisement. However, I tried so hard to use a neutral tone and include factual information about my organization, including the inspiration that lead to its establishment, its notability by other organizations in Hong Kong (which is also through my hosting of workshops), and very briefly the services my organization offers. I would like to know which aspects of my article that lead to it being perceived as an advertisement. Maybe if you nudge me in the right direction, I would be more wary of the mistakes to avoid in my future works on Wikipedia/my next edit of this article.

Lastly, I wish to include information about the history of my company (origins of its establishment, how it started and how is it going, etc) and these pieces of information will be taken from a YouTube video. Will that be acceptable? As in, are YouTube videos not considered to be secondary sources?

Thank you for your time and patience. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Cheers.

Marvoronina (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order:
  1. YouTube as a source is generally dodgy at best, and that's even assuming we're dealing with a video that doesn't amount to contributory infringement. As far as that goes, we only accept YouTube videos as sources if they were produced by an outlet we would normally consider reliable and uploaded to said outlet's own verified channel. Merely being secondary isn't enough: We're also looking for whether they have editorial oversight (The overwhelming majority of YouTube channels don't), whether they have a direct connexion to the subject, and whether they discuss the subject at length as opposed to merely name-dropping them.
  2. The article as writ is over-detailed and filled with buzzwords, both of which tend to make an article look promotional. You should sticking strictly to what the usable sources say about the topic, without editorialising.
  3. No; see above about YouTube.
—A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

03:55:53, 18 September 2021 review of submission by 2603:8000:BF03:983E:7875:3D4E:98C6:13C5

Please delete this article. Thank you, Actually been trying for a while now =) 2603:8000:BF03:983E:7875:3D4E:98C6:13C5 (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:35:04, 18 September 2021 review of draft by 49.204.138.90


49.204.138.90 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three of your sources are apparent press releases, one is a Google search, one is from the organisation itself, and the last is a name-drop that hardly discusses the organisation. You have no usable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

00:55:20, 19 September 2021 review of draft by Blackdeath39-9979533


Good day, I have created and published a Wikipedia page regarding the Mellin-Ross function because it was a function with very little research on, therefore not enough sources out there discussing it and its properties. Hence I took three days of continuous work deriving various results to share with other enthusiasts and researchers. The reason of declining was because there are not enough sources referenced which is the sole purpose of why I created the page in the first place. I do understand that a list of properties and equalities with no valid reference is not the most trustable thing to publish, therefore I would like to enquire if including how the results were derived in the page will be enough for the issue to be resolved.

Blackdeath39-9979533 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't help, if I'm frank. You'd need to demonstrate that this function has seen some academic or other interest, at the very least, as opposed to just demonstrating its existence by making calculations. Compare this to the section on Keeler's/the Futurama theorem on the "The Prisoner of Benda" article at the very least; that section has a fair number of sources demonstrating that there has been some academic interest in it beyond its novelty. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:27, 19 September 2021 review of draft by Medicineowl


Please just remove whatever is not encyclopedic to get the entry published for me; it's actually an emergency.

Medicineowl (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medicineowl, The decline is correct. If you are experiencing an emergency situation contact the appropriate local authorities, we can't help you with that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ive contacted emergency personnel; the Information War extends into this space as well. Would an experienced editor mind helping me publish a more basic and encyclopedic entry about this?

Please read this information. Wikipedia should not have an "alternative" version of Electronic harassment that goes against what mainstream, reliable sources say and presents the theory as reality. Note also that several of the sources in the draft don't support the text in the draft. I am actually a bit surprised that the draft was declined rather than rejected. Wikipedia simply isn't a medium for disseminating that kind of claim. --bonadea contributions talk 15:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:00, 19 September 2021 review of submission by Kobia2020

am requesting assistant because i have submited my page two time and rejected twice. My company website is oxdes.com its a classified website with presence in over 150 countries Kobia2020 (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode, and note I am deliberately skipping over any cites to the subject itself.
This would be a lot more helpful if your sourcing was actually available. The fact that so many of your sources are either dead or have technical issues is not a good one for the draft, full stop. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:21, 19 September 2021 review of submission by Toomuchbroadway

I don't understand why my draft keeps getting rejected. It says the references of the articles are invalid but they are from pretty credible sources and official sites. Could please help in pointing out which specific references are not valid and why? or if all tell me how I can fix this. Thank you Toomuchbroadway (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have one unambiguously usable source, one borderline one, one screwed by tech issues, and the rest are absolutely worthless. Your problem is you focus too much on the outlet; we care just as much about a source's actual content as well. See WP:SIGCOV. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:45:23, 19 September 2021 review of submission by Deepikaaswani


Deepikaaswani (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepikaaswani You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

04:48:08, 20 September 2021 review of submission by Pradeeprwt


Pradeeprwt (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:34, 20 September 2021 review of submission by ThopazProductions


ThopazProductions (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is hideously undersourced. I also very strongly suggest you change your username to one that doesn't imply shared/official use. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:18:12, 20 September 2021 review of submission by Vjayakumarp


Vjayakumarp (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjayakumarp: Sam Sailor is dead on - If those are the best sources you have (both are too sparse), then there's no way we would be able to have an article from either a notability or content standpoint. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:06:49, 20 September 2021 review of submission by Vjayakumarp


Vjayakumarp (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC) As aravinda prakash article must be published i wished to take a review of submission[reply]

@Vjayakumar: What is your connexion to Prakash? Also, none of the sources on this draft are any good either: One's missing a byline, another is from an outlet which doesn't seem to have an editor-in-chief listed, a third is a contextless photo, and the last was discussed and dismissed in the section immediately above. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:47, 20 September 2021 review of draft by Blacktezza



I have publish my first not sure what to do next — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User: Blacktezza| Blacktezza]] ([[User talk: Blacktezza#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ Blacktezza|contribs]])

Note:Original Signature has been lost as somebody else forgot to properly escape a <ref>-Tag, causing the signature not to parse until I fixed the <ref>-Tag Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:20, 20 September 2021 review of draft by CharlesSmith87


Hi there! I'm newer to editing wikipedia pages and want to make sure I am doing the best I can with the most correct information. I saw the ability to create the Brooks Rehabilitation Hospital page as I was going through the Florida Hospital page to provide more context for users. This page could also be submitted as a stub page. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help improve the submission. Thank you CharlesSmith87 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC) CharlesSmith87 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:08:40, 20 September 2021 review of submission by Ameh Abraham


Hello, I need some assistance please. My last edited article on Babafemi Badejo, which has been approved, is not constantly visible on a search. Search results does not bring it out for readers. Please is there something I'm not doing rightly or that I need to do? Ameh Abraham (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ameh Abraham: There is a 30-day or NPP grace period on when a page becomes eligible for indexing, whichever comes first. This is to help discourage attempts to use Wikipedia for SEO purposes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:55:21, 20 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Romanstuff


Hello, This artist is notable and the sources i have provided have not been mere mentions they are articles about him and his work. Can i please get a more detailed description of what exactly needs to be removed in order to get this approved? The article is for Shawn Theodore. Romanstuff (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Romanstuff[reply]

Romanstuff (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Romanstuff: Most of the interviews have substantial ledes that make them usable, if borderline, but https://www.artsy.net/artwork/shawn-theodore-mnemosyne-afrolinquistica-a-portrait-of-poet-laureate-amanda-s-gorman and https://contemporaryand.com/exhibition/prizm-art-fair-2020/ aren't useful sources and should be scrapped. The "He has collaborated on commercial projects..." line also needs to go; it's at best extraneous and at worst an attempt at notability-by-osmosis. Most of the statements in the last paragraph also require attribution. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so MUCH! This is very helpful. I will make those changes and get more sources that are suitable. Romanstuff (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)romanstuff[reply]

17:14:39, 20 September 2021 review of draft by Yomamajoy


I Want To Publish A Wikipedia Page On A YouTuber And Its Not Allowing

Yomamajoy (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Yomamajoy/sandbox/VA-AV Comedy
@Yomamajoy: Your sources are CNN's homepage and the subject's own YouTube channel. Neither are acceptable (The homepage for being a homepage and the YouTube channel for being a random YouTube channel). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:50, 20 September 2021 review of submission by Hildegaaard


Hello, I have completed the suggested changes. Is the article ready for publication? I have been waiting for additional feedback or publication for a little over a month. Thank you!

Hildegaaard (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hildegaaard You have submitted the draft and it is pending, there are hundreds of drafts awaiting review by volunteers, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:14, 20 September 2021 review of submission by 100.2.125.237


100.2.125.237 (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:15:25, 20 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 146.168.115.100


I want to create an article about my artist entity “TuTxTuT”. I want to show and prove the notability of his music.


146.168.115.100 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only way you can prove it is by providing multiple strong third-party sources that discuss the subject at length. If those sources do not exist, then a Wikipedia article is out of the question. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

10:15:04, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Meimaar.93

Hello dear Graeme Bartlett, I would like to create the UArchitects page in the right format. would you please guide me about the errors? so I can correct them? thank you in advance Meimaar.93 (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Meimaar.93: Address the concerns raised at your user talk page before you do ANYTHING else. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:25:33, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Deepikaaswani


Hi there! I'm newer to editing wikipedia pages and want to make sure I am doing the best I can with the most correct information. I saw the ability to create the Kaha Pte page. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help improve the submission. Thank you Deepikaaswani (talk

@Deepikaaswani: This is an investment brochure masquerading as an encylopaedia article. What is your connexion to Kaha? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:46:27, 21 September 2021 review of submission by ByzArtAlb

Hi guys! This is my first attempt to publish information on Wikipedia I am a member of the choir that im writing about I have a reference of the information i am writing too.

What is the main point the has penalized me from accepting the article?

Thank you for your time guys! ByzArtAlb (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ByzArtAlb: The lack of references is absolutely fatal. One reference is never going to be enough to support a Wikipedia article. In addition, because you're part of the group, you have a conflict of interest with regards to it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:47, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Tfalfano

The page contained sources to the company's website regarding the product. Is that not considered a reliable source? They are inventors of the product and have the only publishable information regarding the product. The product is not in any periodicals (to my knowledge). Ty.

Tfalfano (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid what the company says about itself isn't a reliable source. Only what others, unconnected with the company, say about it. Compare Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If no reliable sources have discussed the company, then the company is not (at present) notable according to Wikipedia's definition, so it can't have an article yet. Bishonen | tålk 14:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: , thank you for taking the time to respond to me, and you have you have helped understand why the Company's website is not a reliable source. One of my references was to a court document that established that the company did in fact exist between two certain dates. Also, I will continue to look for third party periodicals that mention the control suite. Would the court document be enough to establish that the company did in fact exist? Thank you.

Tfalfano (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Tfalfano, I think you have to sign on the same line, i. e. not start a new line for your sig, for the ping to work. It's very fussy.) Court documents are frankly not much use; they can establish existence, but, as primary sources, they can't be used to establish notability. It's kind of pointless to establish that the company exists/existed, because existence isn't enough for it to have a Wikipedia article; it must also be notable according to our definition. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is the specific guideline for the notability of companies. I think you'll find it helpful. Bishonen | tålk 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

14:34:55, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Understood12

To an experienced editor:

I need help removing any informal tone or promotionalism of my draft for Kaynemaile. It is a material that was developed by the Lord of the Rings art department (which is interesting in and of itself), and has since been used widely in the architecture and design community. It also has many trusted 3rd party sources and news articles about it published.

I have stripped my submission down to the bare bones, made many rounds of edits to try and respond to its submission failures, but can't seem to get it across the line. do you have any specific advice on copy that still doesn't seem neutral or other recommendations? Any edits are welcome. Thank you. Understood12 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:57, 21 September 2021 review of submission by 108.53.163.35


108.53.163.35 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i have no idea what more information you need. He has an imdb page and google search panel. He clearly has some notoriety.

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. Google panels just collate information and are meaningless in terms of establishing notability(not "notoriety" which can have a negative connotation). A Wikipedia article 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. Please see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:01, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Sethclampett


I don't understand why this article has been rejected for lack of relevance. Per the request of an earlier reviewer, I removed much of the content because it wasn't based on enough third-part sources, and spent time bringing in enough sources from independent newspapers and publications. The company in question has been written about by many publications outside of local media, and they're an important player in research and business in the consumer compliance space (Richard Cordray - former head of the CFPB - has spoken at their conference, and partnered with them on content on multiple occasions).

I've documented 9 sources, and have more that I have removed per your request. In addition, the content of my article is very similar to the content of this company page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremlin_Social

I don't understand how that gets to be published for relevance, but this article is not published. Much of the content in that article is simply documentation of leadership changes.

I am happy to make additional changes, but this rejection feels very arbitrary considering the existing content that is actually published on Wikipedia.

Please advise further as to what specifically makes this content irrelevant.

Sethclampett (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sethclampett: We don't judge an article based on the existence of similar but tangentially-related topics; for all you know that article is in dire need of fixes. This is an investment brochure masquerading as an article; what is your connexion to PerformLine? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:04, 21 September 2021 review of draft by Elshad Iman (Elşad İman)

Please support editing the article and participate in the placement of the article on the main page.

Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elshad Iman (Elşad İman): We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Any biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong, in-depth third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. This also reads more like a resume or cirriculum vitae, which we don't accept under any circumstances. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:50, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Klimgeran


Klimgeran (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klimgeran (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes to the text of the English Wikipedia about NEM. Wikipedia about NEM is available in many languages, previously there was also an English wiki NEM. (Redacted)

@Klimgeran: No sources, no article, no debate. Are you SURE you want to continue editing in a topic area under sanctions? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:45:06, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Andrebi46

Hello, I would like to request a re-review, because the notability of the person is growing (it can be easily verified online, and all the relevant information is written in this article). The page will be helpful for the students, professors, researchers and entire academic community.

Also, my content was copy-pasted on Wikitia. Can I ask why? and what does it mean?

Please tell me if I can do more for this page.

A million thanks for your attention !


Andrebi46 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrebi46: Wikitia is a mirror; ignore it. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Any biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong, in-depth third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. Literally the only sources meeting that description are the Google Scholar links, and while those can help for notability they don't do a whit for the biographical claims. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:42, 21 September 2021 review of draft by ChemCost.An


I tried to submit an article in wikipedia which talks about a new infinity paradox. The wikipedia does not accept it because it need more references. This article is completely new so why wikipedia does not accept it, is completely new. I have put it in my article all the references which it need it. ChemCost.An (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:ChemCost.An/sandbox
@ChemCost.An: If it's completely new then we cannot have it. We are an encyclopaedia; sources are an absolute requirement and we do not engage in synthesis of sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:48:58, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Indiansocialwork

I have now added a third-party website as evidence for the FRSA status and publication link for the subject mentioned in this article. May I please request a re-review, please? Indiansocialwork (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indiansocialwork The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, that demonstrates notability. Please review the advice given by reviewers. If you truly have new information that was not seen by the reviewer that rejected the draft, you will need to appeal to them directly. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:44, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Kim at Partner ESI

Hello, I would like to know why the article was rejected twice for the same reason (reading like an advertisement), when the page for Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. is very similarly written. If there is a specific part in the article that reads like an advertisement, can you please explain which part? I'm not sure what else to change. Thank you. Kim at Partner ESI (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim at Partner ESI Please read other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to pitch in and help us manage the six million plus articles here, please identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.
The draft is advertising because it just tells about your company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they 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.
I see that you declared a conflict of interest, if you are an employee you must make the stricter paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that the best articles to use as a model are those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

06:08:50, 22 September 2021 review of submission by Sophia4100


The Grove Estate article was rejected on the grounds that it was not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, per the criteria in the WP:NORG, Grove Estate has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, including the local newspaper, a national Australian winery publication, and an encyclopaedia of wineries in Australia. These sources meet the four criteria of 1. Contain significant coverage of Grove Estate, 2. Are completely independent of the Grove Estate, 3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source, and 4. Are secondary sources. For example, the Halliday Wine Atlas of Australia is owned by an internationally recognised wine authority. There are also articles from a several newspapers, including the local newspaper 'the Witness' and national newspapers including The Sydney Morning Herald. In addition, there is significant coverage of this winery. Most of the sources contain articles that are exclusively about Grove Estate Wines.

Sophia4100 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia4100 Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It just tells of the existence of the company and what it does; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what the sources(with significant coverage) say about it on their own. The online sources that I can look at includes an interview with company personnel, a promotional piece for the winery, and two announcements, none of which establish notability. If the other sources go in depth and describe the significance of the winery without relying on interviews with its personnel or other primary sources, you may appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft.
If you are associated with this winery, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:49, 22 September 2021 review of draft by PomoPo


Hi, I've used all available published sources for this article. Except for a couple of articles, all of my sources are books published in India. Is that why they have been considered not 'reliable'? I have seen single-line articles, or 'stubs', getting published by Wikipedia. What I have submitted is not a stub, is actually well-researched (I have PhD from a US Ivy League university, so I think I am qualified to judge), and written in good, if not particularly inspired, English. I really don't understand what other sources the reviewer wishes me to cite. I can definitely say that nothing I've written is based on personal experience or heresay, and all my data is backed up by published books and articles. I would be really interested in finding out what the actual problem with the article is.

It's a shame Wikipedia does not have even a mention of such an important woman saint of modern India; this is the only reason I wrote this article.

PomoPo (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:49, 22 September 2021 review of draft by Adhikari Shiva


Adhikari Shiva (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adhikari Shiva You don't ask a question. You submitted a draft and it is pending; but it is likely to be declined quickly, as it is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; a Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Writing about one's self is strongly discouraged(though not forbidden) per the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:15:49, 22 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Mercy k


My article has been declined. I have given all the information is genuine & true. How to proceed futher to get verified or a wikipedia page.

Mercy k (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1045749838"