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 Taros1990 (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 11 October 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 — Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


October 5

05:15:57, 5 October 2021 review of submission by EdwinKibs

Requesting help in editing this article because I have tried writing as an independent person but it seems there are elements of advertising which I have failed to tress out. Thank you

EdwinKibs (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EdwinKibs your draft was rejected. It means it won't be considered again for acceptance to be an WP page. GyanKnow contributions? 02:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:33:33, 5 October 2021 review of draft by Varshaji123


I've created this article but I have an NPOV issue, in that Noone in the company was asked to create this article as a personal. I am not getting paid but wanted to run it by some other editors before I move it to the main space


Varshaji123 (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varshaji123 Please read the advice left by reviewers. If you are employed by this festival, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. If you have an unpaid association with this festival, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:15:45, 5 October 2021 review of submission by Eshamgd


Eshamgd (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:24, 5 October 2021 review of submission by Laveatein

Hello, I wrote an article but it got declined several times for different reasons, which exclude each other. Can you help me with it, please? I would like to know what kind of edits are necessary for the draft to be accepted. If such is possible, of course. Thank you in advance! --Laveatein (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laveatein The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. 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 the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Sources like the company website, interviews with staff, announcments of routine business activities, press releases, and brief mentions do not establish notability.
If you have an association with this company, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:40:58, 5 October 2021 review of submission by 122.168.167.34


122.168.167.34 (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was clear advertising. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an account, remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:43, 5 October 2021 review of submission by Veproctor

Could you please explain what you consider to be relevant references? As similar articles to mine, concerning very similar medical societies, have been published with fewer references. E.G. British_Thoracic_Society or British_Society_of_Gastroenterology. Can I reference the website itself? Veproctor (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those articles were never drafted by virtue of predating the drafting process' existence. Both also happen to have maintenance tags on them indicating they have issues. Our standards and enforcement thereof have only been toughening over the years. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:23, 5 October 2021 review of draft by Kashubro


Hi there, I'm checking in on the progress of a page I (and a few others, it seems) have edited. It's the Kevin Nicholson Businessman page. Could you let me know why the page isn't public/out of draft mode? Thank you!

Kashubro (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashubro, you didn't submit the draft for a review after your last set of changes, probably that's why it is still in the draftspace. Regardless, as a politician, he has yet to meet the notability guidelines for politicians. As a businessman, his activities thus far are not standing out as notable as well. I noted that he receives a Bronze Star Medal. However, as a non-US person, I won't comment on the notability of him being awarded. – robertsky (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:37:39, 5 October 2021 review of draft by Dixiebella


The page I have developed has been moved to DRAFT: MAINE COAST HERITAGE TRUST. Is this page, as a draft, still under review for possible addition to Wikipedia? Dixiebella (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reviewed and declined. Laws are not acceptable sources, and nor is anything the subject controls. Your offline sources are missing required bibliographical information (page numbers for the periodicals, page numbers and ISBNs/OCLC#s for the books). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:50, 5 October 2021 review of draft by Howdyfreshhhhh


Which one of my references are not considered reliable sources?

Howdyfreshhhhh (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been paying attention to literally anything said to you on this page? Any further requests will be reverted off unless and until you actually read the feedback you've gotten and take it on-board. We are not obligated to repeat ourselves ad nauseam to someone who refuses to listen. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:52, 5 October 2021 review of submission by NicoleMASD

Hello! I have added several citations to aid in the establishment of notability. Can you please take a look and let me know your thoughts?

NicoleMASD (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

04:10:33, 6 October 2021 review of submission by NruasPaoYPP Then, copy and paste this code in the big input box below that:


08:21:31, 6 October 2021 review of submission by Exsap

I do not understand why my submission is not noteworthy for Wikipedia,

When I was going through the Belgium Armed Forces - Land Component Structure of the Belgian Armed Forces it has in Red Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (DOVO - SEDEE)

I researched the topic and found a wealth of information and provided the citations for my submission including from The Defense (Belgium Armed Forces) website, BBC news , and the DOVO - SEDEE webpage,

I met I believe all the requirements as per my other Published Wikipedia submission "JAGERS TE PAARD Battalion (ISTAR) which was also in Red the Land Component Structure of the Belgian Armed Forces

I believe my submission is noteworthy for Wikipedia, and is my own work and has been properly cited

For your Consideration

Kind Regards,

Exsap Exsap (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is not properly cited in that this draft does not summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage. You offer four sources, some of which merely cite the specific points made. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:50, 6 October 2021 review of submission by 2409:4053:383:C8F2:3DEC:F0C8:55AD:8F1D


Hi Wikipedia Admins, I have added ISNI identification to FAMEPUBLISH page, is is eligible now? kindly let me know.

Any editor can review drafts, not just admins. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:29, 6 October 2021 review of submission by 2600:1006:B0DF:22CC:806F:89CA:B416:E209


2600:1006:B0DF:22CC:806F:89CA:B416:E209 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:12:53, 6 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Piratenation101


The subject of my page, Ginny Favede, is the president of a well-known university in West Virginia, US. She should easily satisfy the notability credentials, but there could be an issue with some of my sources. I tried to include a well-rounded mix of various local newspapers (secondary), a press release from the university (primary), and even an election result table from NYT.

Would really appreciate some help determining what seems to be the issue. Thanks so much in advance.

Piratenation101 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piratenation101 The sources are just announcements about what this president does, they are not in depth coverage of her personally and why she is notable. Some of them contain quotes from her, which does not establish notability as that is a primary source. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:24:32, 6 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Srikanth Goparaju



Srikanth Goparaju (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently created an article for inclusion in Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia should be more encouraging of new article submissions by first time users. I feel I have been unfairly treated by Wikipedia and its editors. I am looking for another review.

It takes months for an article to be reviewed but within a couple of days my account was deleted. Wikipedia moved with agility and speed in an area that was not really needed. I also do not have access to the drafts!

As I am management professional, I hope my post to be reviewed by competent professionals.


The following is what I have tried to write on contesting the decision, but I guess this was not processed by the system.

_____________________________________

Deletion of the account has been an excessive step. All that I did was to create a log in and an article describing my books. I noticed that when I searched for my name, I did not get the details of my books on Wikipedia. So, I realized that it would be difficult for folks to learn about my books.

Authors should be able to write about their works and publications. I don't know if anyone frowns at this at all. Restricting companies from promoting products may not be acceptable in some societies or cultures. But writers and authors should not be subject to these restrictions to an unnecessary extent. Please review the policies of Wikipedia in this regard.

Thanks and I hope for a flexible and understanding approach from Wikipedia to my situation,

Srikanth Goparaju

Srikanth Goparaju Your account has not been deleted, that is not technically or legally possible. Your draft was deleted. Please review the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged for people to write autobiographical articles, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. We are not interested in what you want to say about yourself- you can do that on social media or a personal website. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your career, your fans, or enhancing search results for you. A Wikipedia article is also not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one.
To succeed in writing about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself, and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people have great difficulty doing that. If you are just here to promote yourself, you are going to be disappointed. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:26, 6 October 2021 review of submission by AhmadWzd

sir i put this article only to draft for review and i wanted to add more to this article and references and i wan not finished with this article but you still declined it.

AhmadWzd (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadWzd, you shouldn't have put it up for review before you are done adding to the draft. What's done is done. Just do what you want to do first and resubmit the draft. If it has improved sufficiently from the rejection, subsequent reviewer may discount the rejection. Pinging David.moreno72, for he is the one who rejected the draft. – robertsky (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:22, 6 October 2021 review of submission by Shrlyn005


Hi Please if anyone can guide me on this.thanks Shrlyn005 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrlyn005, the draft is rejected and shouldn't have been considered further, but here I am... At the moment, there's not enough independent and reliable references to support what you have written about him, and also to pass the notability guidelines for actors.
For the references, do not use iMDb as they are considered as self-published sources. Some of your sources are tangential what you have written, i.e completed his education in X university... but the source is only that he was a criminal lawyer.
For notability as an actor, the guidelines recommend multiple significant roles in notable films/tv shows. In here, only one is evident, which is for Merely Sai. It is unclear as to how significant his role is going to be in the upcoming film, so let's not evaluate on that. Another way to meet the guidelines is to have notable contributions in the field of entertainment. Usually editors would write in notable awards/accolades from notable award ceremonies for this criteria if the subject has won them.
It is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I recommend that you keep improving on this draft until the notable standards for actors have been met, and that the facts about him as a person are generally backed with independent and reliable references. – robertsky (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robertsky i highly appreciate your reply , I have much more clarity as a new user. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrlyn005 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:43:28, 6 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Eddy202


My client Wikipedia just got deleted few minute ago please can you alright  were to make correction please kindly help out. Thanks

Eddy202 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy202, Your client? Undeclared paid editing is frowned upon on Wikipedia, and you are not Eddy, which means a username change is in order as well as impersonation is frowned upon as well (see: WP:REALNAME). I cannot access the deleted article (not an admin), but based on the deletion reason, it seems that your article looks rather promotional/advertorial, and would require significant rewrite. So, just start a fresh with a new draft, but before that, declare your Conflict of Interest, and change your username. – robertsky (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


October 7

00:00:46, 7 October 2021 review of submission by Lucie281

{{SAFESUBST:Void|} I recently changed my username and the the bottom of the page says "Warning: The user who submitted this draft may have been renamed. Please verify this and adjust the submission template if necessary before reviewing." I am not sure if I am supposed to do something about this. Lucie281 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. A rename doesn't change a draft's submission status. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming a user doesn't change a draft's submission status, but I've adjusted the submission template to reflect your new name in case there's some secondary knock-on effect, such as accept/decline notices being undeliverable or some such. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:37:24, 7 October 2021 review of submission by Gyan.Know

I am an Afc reviewer. I created this draft. Should I myself review and accept this? If not, can any other reviewer do it on my behalf? Your help would be much appreciated. GyanKnow contributions? 02:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:41:25, 7 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by MarcogazSG


Dear Madam/Sir,

I hope this message finds you well and great. I am contacting you to consult about the creation of a Wikipedia page dedicated to MARCOGAZ, the technical association of the European gas industry. MARCOGAZ has repetitively tried to create a Wikipedia page but it was rejected two times. The reason in the first time was higlighted to be the advertisement-like style of the content. In the second time, the feedback noted that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Could you please elaborate on this second point? MARCOGAZ is a technical association of the gas industry, dating back to 1968. It is very active in the European gas industry for the last five decades, so the associaiton aspires to have a Wikipedia page. Could you please help aligning the text with the requirements of Wikipedia so that MARCOGAZ can have a page. Thank you so much.

Kind regards,

MARCOGAZ Secteriat General

MarcogazSG (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all dear Mr./Miss. MarcogazSG, you need to clarify are you someone working for the "MACROGAZ". Without this clarification, there is no moving forward. GyanKnow contributions? 13:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second of all, there is nothing you, or anyone else at MARCOGAZ, can do directly to address the notability issue barring providing sources, online or off, English or otherwise, that discuss the organisation at length, have competent editorial oversight, and are neither routine business coverage or written/commissioned by MARCOGAZ or its staff/contractors. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:28, 7 October 2021 review of submission by BizImpro


Hello,

my recent article submission has been rejected and I am not sure what was the reason. I try to follow all the rules of posting on Wikipedia, but this is my first article and I have no experience yet. Could you please point which part of the article should be changed?

BizImpro (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • BizImpro From what I can see, the content on the article is written like an advertisement.
  • One more thing, it seems you have a COI (in simple terms, personal/professional relations) with the said topic of the article. If it is so, you really need to clarify this.
    See also: WP:COI
    GyanKnow contributions? 13:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:24, 7 October 2021 review of draft by Pro75008


Hello. I do not understand why the creation of my article is refused. I do not use any promotional tone and I have references. Moreover, there is exactly the same page in the FRENCH version and it exists. Thank you for telling me what is wrong precisely if this page is not suitable, otherwise thank you for validating it.

Pro75008 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pro75008 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pro75008 First of all its not "refused" for forever. Its only declined and you can credible changed and put it for review again.
@Pro75008: Refer to the top table here.
Of the sources I can assess, three of them are flat-out unusable, and one is written at the company's dictate. Disregarding the article text, this is absolutely fatal for a draft. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:48, 7 October 2021 review of submission by Oyindebrah


I would like to know how to make the page better

Oyindebrah (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oyindebrah You were given good advice by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oyindebrah: Refer to the top table here.
None of your sources are usable for showing notability, and a massive chunk of them are just flat-out unusable on Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:10:09, 7 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by TomahF


I have been working on a proposed new Wiki page for several months now, hoping that it can serve as a repository of significant mechanical engineering innovation in the United States. It is a lengthy list, as one might imagine, given the numerous inventions that have occurred over the years. I have been working on the list for at least a decade and my hope is that by publishing it on Wikipedia, others will be able to add additional items.

During the course of creating this page, I have responded to at least a half dozen reviews. I have found the process to be helpful. In responding to the issues, the proposed page has improved. I have also weeded out many issues and believe the process has provided me with a better understanding of how to create acceptable content.

With my latest submission, I was hopeful that it was ready for publication. However, the response that "this submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia," has left me flummoxed. There are some existing Wiki pages that provide the type of content that I am proposing, for other disciplines. For example, there is a Timeline of Electrical and Electronic Engineering available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_electrical_and_electronic_engineering. There is also a timeline of my general historic inventions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions. And several other such existing timelines that I could reference.

Could you review this matter? I'm hoping that you will find the proposed page acceptable, or at least provide me with suggestions on how it can be improved.

Sincerely, Thomas Fehring, P.E., ASME Fellow and member of ASME's History and Heritage Committee

Ps. The proposed webpage is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Timeline_of_mechanical_engineering_innovation#Nineteenth_Century


TomahF (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft submitted by you has been rejected meaning it won't be considered further. GyanKnow contributions? 02:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

00:29:43, 8 October 2021 review of submission by Lnmi Alumni Y2k

It's a wikipedia for a technical institute "LNMI, Patna" which has full time under graduate and post graduate courses since many decades and there are people looking for the information of this Institute all over the world. This wikipedia page is going to become similar to MIT or Manipal or so - over a period of time. Lnmi Alumni Y2k (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lnmi Alumni Y2k: Given the article was deleted as a blatant ad for the school, this obviously isn't the way to go about it. We take offence to people trying to use Wikipedia as an ad platform and routinely block users whose only purpose on Wikipedia is marketing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:23:30, 8 October 2021 review of submission by Mangilal Patel


Mangilal Patel (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangilal Patel: No sources, no article, no debate. We are not social media. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:36:48, 8 October 2021 review of draft by Neoui bada


Sorry, but I feel like I'm running in circles. The first time I edited this article, it was clearly not neutral and lacked sources (and it was published). So I added a bunch of sources, took out the adjectives and expanded it. Suddenly, the article got deleted and I'm trying to edit it according to the various editors that reject it: take out Vulkan.com sources, try not to make it sound like a press release,... But I feel like different people keep moving the posts even though I think the article is better than it was. So I'm kind of lost here, because I feel that the reasons are subjective (each time a different one), maybe because the maritimte sector is not well known? I don't know. Anyway, I'd need help about how to get a clear opinion on what the issue is (or are, if there are several). Thank you in advance. Neoui bada (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neoui bada (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neoui bada I just took a look at your draft and it completely seems as if it is an advertisement for the company. I can't find any way this draft of yours can ever be approved in its present form. GyanKnow contributions? 10:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:15, 8 October 2021 review of submission by Adaś


Hello, I would like to ask for a re-review of this page. It was rejected on grounds of not being sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have reviewed the requirements for notability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)) and believe this topic meets all requirements. Please see details/evidence below:

The following links on the topic meet the criteria of being stand-alone and receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also, they show “verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product”:

- https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40504764 - https://financialpost.com/entrepreneur/growth-strategies/soti-builds-on-its-early-lead-in-mobile-enterprise-market - https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/soti-launches-soti-aerospace-in-collaboration-with-ryerson-university/438339 - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/case-patents-attorneys-fees-e-d-tex-2 o https://outline.com/LvGzeS - https://www.law360.com/articles/1385360 o https://outline.com/gTW5aK

Another reason for notability is the topic's significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. I believe this article regarding drone research conducted by the company shows evidence of this: https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/soti-launches-soti-aerospace-in-collaboration-with-ryerson-university/438339

Also, the notability requirements for organizations note significant, independent, and reliable product reviews. Here are two examples:

- https://www.techradar.com/reviews/soti-mobicontrol-mdm - https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/soti-mobicontrol

Thank you for re-considering this submission :)

Adaś (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adás I have an one line answer for your this long 'Review of submission', which is: Your draft was rejected and it won't be considered again for a review. GyanKnow contributions? 12:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:25:50, 8 October 2021 review of submission by Open sasame

The article Draft: Minami Aizawa had been processed by speedy deletion. It has been modified to pass from the process and preparing to submit for Articles for creation. Please assist for further editing and adjustments.

Open sasame (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has only two references, YouTube is not a reliable source. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:35, 8 October 2021 review of submission by Achdouz


Achdouz (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


hi i have sombit a artircle for me as an artiste and u have not accepted why?

Your draft Draft:H12compteofficiel@gmail.com is in French, (this is the English Wikipedia) and gives no indication of being notable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:28:33, 8 October 2021 review of draft by AssistsMo


I'm still in the learning phase and getting to know Wikipedia contribution. I'm trying to build the best article and leverage all help available. Would be helpful just to have someone look at the page (some editors already have taken a look and helped me out). I noticed when I try to add a URL reference, there is a blacklist error flagged. Not sure what that is about; that's an example of something someone can look into. In building the page, I based the edit on pages like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LendingTree. Anyway, just posting here to get visibility to the project and any help/education on the topic. AssistsMo (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title was deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Way.com previously and salted, sources would have to be vastly improved and any conflict of interest properly disclosed. Theroadislong (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:31:32, 8 October 2021 review of submission by SyedMuhammedAli786


SyedMuhammedAli786 (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


How Can I improve this page so its request is accepted

You can't. It was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a case where I'd question if the reject was sound, given the rejector was blocked two days later as a sock. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SyedMuhammedAli786: That said, please refer to the top table here. I will deliberately be skipping over every citation to the subject's own website (connexion to subject).
So based upon the sources, I don't see much hope for this draft unless the Tellychakar sources are utterly unimpeachable, but from past experience I don't see that being the case. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the decline and block by the sock and added back the submit template. Theroadislong (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:47, 8 October 2021 review of submission by Veritasestpotentia


Please look at

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Helen_Petersen

Is Buzz Feed more notable than Inc? Or because she had a Twitter war? She too wrote one book and wrote a dozen or so articles. Not any more notable.


Veritasestpotentia (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other poor quality articles exist for that argument, Anne Helen Petersen is not a good example to base a draft on. Theroadislong (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:18:14, 8 October 2021 review of draft by Godsentme1


Can you move my draft to the namespace please thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Godsentme1/sandbox Godsentme1 (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. It is now located at Draft:AJDaGuru. Curbon7 (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:31:55, 8 October 2021 review of draft by Devyart

After I  submitted  my draft, a message said it could take 7 weeks to get an answer as there were 1500 or so submissions before mine. My rejection came in less than  twelve hours. Bkissin (talk)  said it 'reads like an essay' and  is not  encyclopedic sounding  or neutral enough. Could he  give me some examples. Could I perhaps get someone else's opinion?

Devyart (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Devyart: This indeed reads like a detailed research essay rather than a general encyclopaedia article that summarises the subject. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


October 9

00:00:42, 9 October 2021 review of submission by Emojiwiki


I want to know why this draft does not match the notability policy, but nobody submitted it on AfD in Chinese Wikipedia. Why? Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki Talk~~ 00:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emojiwiki: Different language editions of Wikipedia are seperate projects with seperate rules and (possibly) different editors. In addition to that, it could be that the article in the chinese Wikipedia is inappropiate there too and simply noone has gotten around to taking it to their equivalent of AFD. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the event might be important for zh wiki, it is less so for others. Because of NOTNEWS, this is quite possibly not notable enough, and the news coverage has basically just been two waves of coverage, instead of a lasting one. Gorden 2211 (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:27:43, 9 October 2021 review of draft by Saeid Rahman (MKT)


Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I am trying to make a Wikipedia article about a renowned industrialist in Bangladesh. He is the former Assistant Project Director of the United Nations. Since it's my first work, I am requesting you to suggest to me how should I write.

Saeid Rahman (MKT) (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User has received help in the IRC channel and has been told in no uncertain terms that none of their sources are usable/acceptable. WP:Notability/WP:Notability (people) has not been satisfied. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear comrade, I am new to Wikipedia. I am an employee of Keya Cosmetics Ltd. I want to create a Wikipedia article on M Miraz Hossain, the Director of the Keya company, former Assistant Project Director of UN. He is also a writer. Kindly help me why the draft is not qualified to be in Wikipedia?

Saeid Rahman (MKT) (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given this information already. If you have any additional comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:11:03, 9 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Козырев-Чубаров


I regard the review of my draft "Causal mechanics" partial and totally unfair. I would agree if my English was criticesed ans asked to be improved. BUt I can't agree that the article is not neutral. It is about scientific project that is controversial indeed but is now a part of the history of science. If somebody find any word or phrase that is not neutral I would be thankful for its delition from the text. The other argument that the Wikipedia article must rely on secondary sources and should not be an original research is very strange. There is not a piece of an original research here. It is an extract from Russian encyclopedical and scientific sources which should help English speaking reader to navigate in the topic. As to the sources used, I used only reliable, mostly academic sources which, as I know, are of higher level of reliability in Wikipedia. If references are not enough I can put a reference after each phrase. --Козырев-Чубаров (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Козырев-Чубаров (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Козырев-Чубаров: "It reads like an essay" is not a neutrality issue, it's a "This is not the platform for this sort of content" issue. Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopaedia and its articles should be written as such. This legitimately reads more like a research essay. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:14:24, 9 October 2021 review of submission by Sadulla Ahmad


Sadulla Ahmad (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadulla Ahmad You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. That's what social media is for. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

00:51:10, 10 October 2021 review of submission by Blackforces1

I am completely understanding of your decision, but I would like to ask why my article was declined. Blackforces1 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, creeks are generally not notable and you haven't shown why it would otherwise be notable in the sources. Gorden 2211 (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:51:33, 10 October 2021 review of submission by Abhi sikka


Abhi sikka (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhi sikka: Draft has been deleted as blatant and irreparable advertizing or promotion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the last deleted version, it most definitely was "blatant and irreparable advertizing or promotion". Wikipedia is no place for self-promotion, Abhi sikka. Please read the autobiography policy. I'd recommend following this tutorial to help you learn more about Wikipedia. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:22:09, 10 October 2021 review of draft by Scottporad


I'm trying to get an article published and it continues to be rejected for reasons that don't make sense to me. The reviewer says that there is not sufficient coverage from reliable sources, yet I have cited 11 references from sources including Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune and Geekwire.

The article is Draft:Dolly.com (company).

Could you help me understand why this is being rejected?

Scott (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scottporad The problem is not the sources themselves, but their content. 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 the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Sources such as press releases, announcements of routine business activities(like the raising of capital which several of your sources are), staff interviews, the company website, and other brief mentions do not establish notability. A basic company profile(like the Bloomberg one) also does not establish notability.
If you have a connection to this company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scottporad I think you'd have more luck doing an article on Updater, with a section about its subsidiary Dolly. The notability sourcing requirements for a section aren't as high as for a standalone article. But please heed the COI advice given above. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problems to link a Template page to my article namepage.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Off-topic
 – More on how to do stuff on wikipedia.
Moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse § Problems to link a Template page to my article namepage.
– robertsky (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

{{Hello, I created a Template page named "Template:ChongBlia Yang" under my namepage which is "Ban Phou Pheung Noi". I have problems to link it to my article. I followed instructions as following by typing in my namepage (article page) {{ChongBlia Yang}}, then click to Save + Published changes, and then I get the content of the template including "ALL" lines ===> to my page. To my understanding, it should showing only the "template:ChongBlia Yang" page, not the content. Do you know what I mean? And do you know what I did wrong? Why I don't get the template:ChongBlia Yang showing in my article page, when I wrote "ChongBlia Yang"? Could you help me please? Thank you.NruasPaoYPP (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC) -->}} {{ -->}}[reply]

NruasPaoYPP (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NruasPaoYPP: WP:TEAHOUSE is a more suitable location for this issue. Moving this to there per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. – robertsky (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

16:45:41, 10 October 2021 review of submission by Alysheba


"Not news" is the comment left by "DGG." Not news?

It's rather inconceivable to me that a Recall Election that is literally "in the news" could not be "news." The link pinned to the word "recall" in the first paragraph of the article is literally the "news" story with the headline "Recall Effort Launched Against Shannon." Not one single sentence in the article points to anything other than a "news" article or video evidence of the principal players literally "making news."

Please look at the links. The Recall of Brian Shannon is most definitely news. We are living it every day in Newberg, OR.

I could understand if "DGG" stuck on phrasing he found biased and I would be happy to reword problematic passages. But to dismiss the RBS article on the basis of it being "not news" is absolutely mind-boggling. I have to conclude that he's either A) having a bad morning and didn't even properly read it; or B) has political biases that have caused him to inappropriately dismiss our article.

Neither option reflects well on Wikipedia. So please help me understand how my article is "not news."

Sincerely,

Matt Moriarty "Alysheba"


Alysheba (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alyshebs "NOT NEWS" refers to WP:NOTNEWS, a Wikipedia guideline. There is no enduring notability for this local recall election based on local issues. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alyshebs You're better off adding a sentence or two to Newberg School District#Controversies. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

00:51:12, 11 October 2021 review of submission by Dwwolnik

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Charles_Elson_Lively&oldid=1049290023 Looking to have this page accepted. It was reviewed and denied quickly a few weeks ago, and I have since made many changes. All works have been supported by third-party citations, in addition to the author's own works. Dwwolnik (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwwolnik: Thank you for your contribution. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for 11 days. The current backlog is 7 weeks. Please be patient. There are a million ways you can improve Wikipedia while you wait. See the Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:00:12, 11 October 2021 review of submission by Wikarl23


I added references from reputable newspapers from the Philippines as references. These references focus on the subject and does not merely mention the subject in passing: https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/philippine-daily-inquirer-1109/20161013/282029031745168 https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/23/public-square/divinalaw-lawyers-named-best-in-ph-for-4th-straight-year/1815799/

Wikarl23 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikarl23: The tone of the Philippine Daily Inquirer piece is that of a press release or advertorial instead of an objective news story, so reviewers aren't likely to regard it as independent. The Manila Times piece is about a magazine top-100 list, a type of coverage that WP:NORG explicitly deems trivial, rather than significant. The draft has been rejected, which is meant to convey to you that the topic is a lost cause. No amount of editing will make it acceptable. Therefore volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:42:46, 11 October 2021 review of draft by The Original Filfi


Any help adding names, sources etc greatly appreciated

The Original Filfi (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Original Filfi: I'm not sure this calls for a standalone article. Have you considered instead adding a section to 2020 United States presidential election#Aftermath? It will get more eyeballs there. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:59:31, 11 October 2021 review of submission by Tejas Kolekar


Tejas Kolekar (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tejas Kolekar You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:37, 11 October 2021 review of submission by Bhumisuta2000


Bhumisuta2000 (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumisuta2000 You don't ask a question, but you essentially posted the person's resume, not an encyclopedia article that summarizes independent reliable sources. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:08:35, 11 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Karsan Chanda



Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karsan Chanda You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Karsan Chanda: I can't help with assessing sources because most of the ones that we could use are ones I can't read even with Google Translate. I will however say that the Wikipedia cites are not appropriate; if you want to link to those articles use [[(article)]]. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:00:38, 11 October 2021 review of submission by SPARSH24


SPARSH24 (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPARSH24 You don't ask a question, but your draft was a clear advertisement. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:18, 11 October 2021 review of submission by Newartists361


Hey xx the page that I have created for Sajjad Nahavandi I don't know why is declined. the comment says not clear how they pass WP:NSINGER? but in Criteria for musicians and ensembles mentioned has had single album, song, article, magazine, and more other more which the artist that i choose to make his Wikipedia has most of the criteria. can some help me to create his page. I don't understand why it declined.


Newartists361 (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newartists361 You have no independent reliable sources to summarize, you only have sources documenting the existence of this person's music. You also have not demonstrated that this person meets at least one of the notability criteria written at WP:BAND. Please review your first article. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:02, 11 October 2021 review of draft by 45.49.9.109


Help to create Miss Asia USA beauty pageant.

45.49.9.109 (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft currently reads as an advertisment for the pageant. A Wikipedia article about the pageant should instead summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. If you are affiliated with the pageant, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should also read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. You need to show that there is enough media coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Having a bare list of references tacked on at the end isn't going to be enough. The sources need to be better integrated into the article, with the important information extracted and written out in the article. Here's an example of what you should strive for in terms of inline citations. Miss America I also rewrote the lead section - it was not written very well. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:47, 11 October 2021 review of draft by Jeanne Pritt Sheridan


Hi, I am wondering why my submission was rejected yet when I look at these published articles of her peers, they are a lot less detailed or cited than mine. Not a complaint, just trying to understand so I can get better at this :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Uphold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Brooks_(designer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Lopez

Also, can I add the listing to certain categories while still in draft or is that something done after it is approved and published?

Thanks,

Jeanne

Jeanne Pritt Sheridan (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Pritt Sheridan Please see other stuff exists. 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 to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about, and it is not required for everyone to use this process.(only new users and IP users). If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles went through the drafting process - Uphold and Brooks were both created directly in mainspace in the early-mid '10s before drafting became mandatory, and Lopez predates the drafting process altogether. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jeanne Pritt Sheridan I took a look at your draft and made some minor changes. You don't want to have inline external links (see WP:EL) and the sections need to have sentence case, not title case. Also, too much of the info was bolded, so I changed it to italics. I would focus on reducing the excessive and unnecessary list of episodes sourced using IMDB, and instead find media profiles about Breeganjane. And, instead of having a long list of media features, why not see if you can find information in those pieces to flesh out her bio in the article. You have to demonstrate that the media thinks she's important, in order to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements WP:GNG, and the draft doesn't do that, yet. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:14, 11 October 2021 review of submission by Taros1990


Taros1990 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:41:47, 11 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Taros1990



Taros1990 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1049445579"