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 Niteshshah24 (talk | contribs) at 04:14, 19 November 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


November 12

02:01:07, 12 November 2021 review of draft by Sassamiss


Sassamiss (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sassamiss I'm afraid we need to upgrade to Telepathy 2.0.37b in order to determine your question. I thought this reply at you for a while, but, since you didn't seem to receive it, I thought I'd better reply here. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:12:25, 12 November 2021 review of submission by Kakyoin95


Dear,

I am writing regarding the Dewesoft article. The article was rejected even after big reconstruction and inclusion of important sources - Ph.D.'s. I really don't understand why. I am following the guidelines and trying my best to make this an academic article. I was making sure to exclude every material that might seem promotional - this excludes all self-published sources (which are allowed to use but I specifically didn't just to make sure), I excluded the part about the awards company got (since it might be misleading to the readers), I am not including any products (just to make sure), I was researching deeply into the history of the company and its founders and try to include as many details as possible to make a suitable article, selecting only information that I believe it is suitable for an academic article.

I understand that this article has a bad history since it was rejected many times. But for the last times it was resubmitted for a review I did take into consideration all the guidelines and comments I was getting. I specifically focused on similar, already published articles on the same theme as this, for example, Wikipedia article for National Instruments. NI is a data acquisition company and most of the sources in the Wiki article are self-published! Most of the article consists of the History of the company and it even includes the part about the products! This is why I really can't understand how can one article on the same theme and similar content be published and other rejected.

I understand you might be worried that this is promotional content but it really isn't. I am a young (just graduated) researcher who is currently spending much time learning about data acquisition in general. Normally I wouldn't care much if the article was published or not, but this one is bugging me for quite a time. I published about Dewesoft because I was researching the DAQ companies and I haven't found Dewesoft on Wikipedia. I believe that if someone is searching for this kind of information it is always good to have at least basic info in Wikipedia, so then you can continue your research otherwhere. For this, I decided to create it. It was meant for fun and to maybe facilitate the search for someone like me. I understand I was not putting my best to make an article for Wikipedia standards but I was really stubborn and try to follow all the given advice and really make something valuable. If it wasn't for my stubbornness I wouldn't insist on publishing it... But it really annoys me because I don't understand. I even asked for the opinion of my University professor - if he thinks that the article is being promotional. He did comment that this kind of article is not well supported with news references but after I mentioned to him that it is an article made for Wikipedia, he agreed that the resources are good and should be accepted as reliable.

So... I am really frustrated about this... I am trying my best and I am trying for some quite time... Again, I understand that this article was problematic. But it was problematic in the past. I strongly believe that for someone who puts this much time into improving, this should be rewarded.

I did get some valuable information from the last rejections - and I did consider them to improve myself. But for this last rejection, it just says it is 'contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia'. It doesn't make sense... It really does not... I strongly believe that this article was not rejected because it contains 'bad' content, but because it was problematic in the past.

Please I would love to hear your opinion and constructive advice on how to improve the article. I don't believe it is the right thing for me to just give up... Not after so much time and effort, I put into it. I hope you can understand.

Best regards!


Kakyoin95 (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kakyoin95 Self-published sources are not prohibited(see WP:PRIMARY), but cannot be used to establish notability. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not in what it says about itself.
Please read Other Stuff Exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. Furthermore, this submission process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, nor is everyone required to use it(though it is a good idea to). We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help out, you can identify other similar articles you have seen for possible action. If you wish to use other articles as a model, make sure that they are classified as good articles; those are the best ones to use.
As an encyclopedia, not every topic merits an article on Wikipedia just for existing. We aren't interested in "basic info". A company merits a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Independent reliable sources does not include press releases, annoucements of routine business activities, brief mentions, staff interviews, or other primary sources. I cannot read Slovene but it appears to me that most of the sources you offered fall into those categories or similar. This is why it was rejected, after other chances at resubmission failed to remedy the situation. It was not rejected solely because it was previously declined. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much for your reply and advice! It makes much more sense now. I will look deeply into the criteria for notable companies and try to find better articles for a model to help me out.

I kinda knew that solely press release is not enough to support the notability of a company, that's why I really tried to focus more on the English Ph.D. I put into it and just support the facts with other news articles. But I guess this is not enough to establish notability? I could support the facts with some self-published sources but I don't believe it will do any good with the article... I also believe you are right that it can be problematic for Slovenian sources to be cited so I will try to focus more on finding English ones.

I know that my statement about the article not being published because it was deleted so many times might seem aggressive, but I was really disappointed with the rejection because I did not know what I did wrong. The rejections only state that the article is not suitable for Wikipedia and then you have so many pages to read on your own and then you just have to figure it out and predict what is wrong with your article... And even if you do it still gets rejected... it is just so frustrating.

So I apologize if I'm complaining much, I am just sad to see all the effort go to vain. However, I am grateful for your communication and the piece of advice you gave me... I will try to do better next time.

Best regards!

Kakyoin95 (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kakyoin95 Might I suggest you abandon the rejected draft. Instead, write a tight, brief, well referenced item. Start from scratch by reading this essay, one of many that discusses creation of articles. Write it short, sharp and factual. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:23:23, 12 November 2021 review of draft by Rdxmen000


Rdxmen000 (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rdxmen000 You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:07, 12 November 2021 review of draft by Leoz1999


My draft[1] was declined because the subject was not deemed notable enough. His version of the 14 characteristics of fascism is one of the most common definitions given for fascism, even showing up before Umberto Eco in Google's search results. He has also been mentioned before in Wikipedia talk and it was suggested that a page for him be made. [2]

He is also the subject of many recent article discussing definitions of fascism including the sources linked in the draft and the following article.[3]

Please read through the cited sources before deciding whether or not he is notable enough for a Wikipedia page.


Leoz1999 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not consider mentions in other articles to be any sort of justification for an article. Medium is not an acceptable source. Your sources overall aren't much help, as the first is written by him and the third doesn't mention him at all; the second source is good but cannot in and of itself carry the article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laurence_W._Britt
  2. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fascism/Archive_2
  3. ^ https://danielmalmer.medium.com/the-long-complicated-history-of-the-14-defining-characteristics-of-fascism-e366412932f

19:41:11, 12 November 2021 review of draft by Emmachernandez


I am requesting help to see why my article for Jake Allyn has not been approved. There was a dispute of notability but the editor agreed "No Mans Land" was notable enough. To add another source, Jake has been a lead in TV series "The Quad" and many other projects. His brother, Conor Allyn, just had his article approved on wikipedia and as they work together at their own production studio I would say Jake qualifies the same if not more since he is involved in even more projects as an actor. I attempted to take out some of the biased jargon and would love to know how I can further improve his article for approval! Thank you so much for your help in advance! Emmachernandez (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Emmachernandez (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmachernandez Please see WP:NACTOR
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
The photograph in the draft is being considered but Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation. Commons has very precise rules. You may not just upload a picture you have been sent by someone. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:40:17, 12 November 2021 review of draft by Pennyframstad


Pennyframstad (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would to request deleting this article as I will be creating an article titled "Professor Louie & the Crowmatix" as the majority of citations are for his band. Thank you Pennyframstad (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)pennyframstad[reply]

@Pennyframstad You may place {{db-user}} at the head of the item you wish to be deleted since you are its sole substantive author. However, unless the band is called "Professor Louie & the Crowmatix" may I counsel you against that course of action. Instead write about the one or the other. Articles that span two subjects almost always fail because they are neither one thing nor the other FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FaddleTalk to me thank you so much for clarifying this, I really appreciate it. Now I know to be very specific on only one subject in the article. Pennyframstad (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)pennyframstad[reply]

@Pennyframstad Happy to be of some small help. The second thing I can do to help you is to say "Write tight, dull-but-worthy, correctly referenced prose."
In Wikipedia terms, less prose is truly more use than overblown verbiage. We need facts, but made to run as fair prose.
The existing draft can be a good basis, or you can simply overwrite it or even abandon it and start afresh. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FaddleTalk to me thank you Pennyframstad (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)pennyframstad[reply]

22:44:48, 12 November 2021 review of submission by ThePoliticalDebate


ThePoliticalDebate (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePoliticalDebate please see WP:NPOLITICIAN FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The article is better written and mkre relevant now that the subject is an elected leader.

The article as presently writ is woefully undersourced. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

09:16:26, 13 November 2021 review of draft by TrickShotFinn


I'm at bit of loss how to proceed with this, since I'm not that familiar with Arsene Lupin. Also, from what I understand, 813 is supposed to be pretty significant work in Lupin canon.

And once again, I cannot handle this alone and it is unjust to expect me to.TrickShotFinn (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrickShotFinn (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrickShotFinn It's unjust to expect you to do the work to write about a topic for which you chose to write about? I'm wondering why you attempted to write about a subject that you know little about and need others to help you with. Typically, editors write about subjects that they know something about and can support what they write with sources. You don't need to submit a totally finished, complete draft, but to pass this process you must summarize at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this novel, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable novel.
As you have found, you attempted to create this in mainspace yourself, but it was not kept there; it was not just deleted because there is a chance it can be brought up to standards, but it can't just be left there. If you need help, my suggestion would be to find a relevant WikiProject, perhaps the Books project, which may have other editors willing to help you(but they won't necessarily just do it for you). 331dot (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I must've misinterpreted what "collaborative online encyclopedia" meant - if I get this sort of sardonic treatment over asking for help. I could have taken this on some other day, but not now. I'll cool down and ask WP Books later.TrickShotFinn (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrickShotFinn not really sardonic. The editors here are generalists who specialise in helping with technical aspects of creation of articles. You have mace an excellent choice to aim for specialists.
Sometimes one is lucky, here, and finds an editor with an interest I the topic, and oohysicla hope arrives, but, mostly, the editors here are likely to be unable to offer editing help tat is not a technical issue. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have left what I hope you will find to be a helpful comment on the draft itself FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TrickShotFinn I apologize for giving offense, that was not my intention whatsoever. As I said, you are not expected to publish a completely finished, perfect article in one try. But you are expected to provide a bare minimum start for something that you create in the main, public space of the encyclopedia. In this case, you did so, and it was noticed by another editor who saw that it did not meet those minimum standards and they decided to move it into the Draft area for further work. You might have, through pure luck that it was not noticed in the New Pages feed, had it stick in the main space for a bit- but that's not the best way to seek collaboration as you would then rely on the pure luck that another editor interested in the topic would come along and add to it. Creating Drafts and then telling other people about them- either at the relevant WikiProject, or on the general Help Desk(this desk is primaily for asking about submitted drafts) is the best way to start something that you think has a chance at being improved but you don't have the means(like sources) to do. If you submit a draft or directly create an article, it is expected to meet certain minimum standards. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I caused an alarm. The "It's unjust to expect you to do the work to write about a topic for which you chose to write about?" and other such from 331dot went down the wrong pipe and it's not been a best week for me. I maybe not that familiar with Arsene Lupin, but I do know 813 gets brought up in the conversation a lot (i.e fansites, tvtropes etc). I was further enticed into doing it when I noticed that the other language wikis had entries for 813 - and yes, I am aware certain languages are much looser with citations than the English one. I was also aware of the risk that it would be sent to draftspace, but I gambled on it, believing it would attract somebody who knew more about it. I'll probably be unable to focus on 813 - as well as Roland Habersetzer, another entry that has suffered same fate. I have the real life things to wrestle with. That and before the draftspace double strike, I was meant to focus on improving the Wing Chun page here on Wikipedia, so I'm just burnt out with little energy for this stuff at the moment. Again, sorry for the trouble. TrickShotFinn (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:52:08, 13 November 2021 review of submission by Yasercs89


YASER ARAFATH (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yasercs89 I'm afraid we need to upgrade to Telepathy 2.0.37b in order to determine your question. I thought this reply at you for a while, but, since you didn't seem to receive it, I thought I'd better reply here FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasercs89: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your sources are unusable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:12, 13 November 2021 review of submission by Fnoll


Fnoll (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I consulted the notability guidelines for Web portals at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) and believed I had met all requirements there as well as having addressed all the comments on my draft and so I submitted the article again for review.

If I didn't, I'd be very grateful if you could guide me on what specifically needs to be added to the article in to meet Wikipedia requirements and then let me submit the article for review again.

Fnoll (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fnoll The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have not offered significant coverage of the subject. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

03:04:57, 14 November 2021 review of draft by Ornithoptera


Working on Draft:Falcon Lake Incident, on the mainspace it is a redirect to the list of Canadian UFO sightings but due to the amount of prolonged coverage of the event from independent sources even 57 years following the incident and the amount of material published regarding the event I do believe it warrants a separate page. I am unsure as to if the draft will be published as a result of the current redirect status of the mainspace article. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ornithoptera The existence of a redirect is of no significance. If the draft is accepted getting rid of the redirect is a trivial technicality. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response Roger (Dodger67)! I was considering making a page for Louth (crater) which currently is a redirect, what is the proper way I should go about this? Ornithoptera (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ornithoptera just go ahead and create Draft:Louth (crater), the redirect is of no consequence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Thank you for your advice! Ornithoptera (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:29:53, 14 November 2021 review of submission by 219.90.98.228


IVE MADE CHANGES ACCORDING TO THE GUIDLINES AND WANT THIS COMPLETED ASAP SO THANK YOU MODERATORS. 219.90.98.228 (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not type in all capital letters, that is considered yelling. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in need to complete my project asap and i have made changes accordingly so can you pls check it again 219.90.98.228 (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If this was your project, it was unfair to give you such a project as whomever gave it to you could not guarantee that you would succeed. For additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in full desktop mode in a browser on your device; the mobile and app versions do not have full functionality. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If your project was from a educational facility, your instructors should review the Education program materials to learn how to design fairer assignments. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:17:08, 14 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 49.204.138.228


Friends, recently I stumbled upon an Art Gallery organized by NGMA in Bangalore, India http://ngmaindia.gov.in/ngma_bangaluru.asp which is all about Upendra Maharathi and when I was looking information on Google, I couldn't see Wikipedia. Therefore, I need your help in writing an article on Upendra Maharathi, who is an artist extraordinaire http://www.artsillustrated.in/architecture/who-was-upendra-maharathi/ and here https://indianexpress.com/article/express-sunday-eye/an-artist-extraordinaire-upendra-maharathi-5992225/. He won many awards https://umsas.org.in/achievements/ & here https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/art-and-culture/confessions-of-a-creative-mind/. Do let me know how can we help people know about this man.

Thank you 49.204.138.228 (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

49.204.138.228 (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a draft yourself using the wizard at WP:AFC. Often it is better to have an account, but it is not mandatory. Please read WP:YFA before starting FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:30:33, 14 November 2021 for further review and assistance on AfC submission by NewManila2000


I just want to request for another review of the mentioned draft since I had added an information there after the AFC submission of the article was first rejected. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NewManila2000 (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NewManila2000 You have submitted it for review, and it will be reviewed in due course FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:28, 14 November 2021 review of draft by Godisawoman1


Hi there! My draft got deleted. So, I wanted to know the reason behind rejection, is it about the sources I've attached or the language used in my article, since i'm new to this, and I really want to make a significant contribution to this community. Godisawoman1 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:57, 14 November 2021 review of submission by Msftstar


Msftstar (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of your sources are useless. We don't cite social media or streaming websites, and government documents are primary sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:17, 14 November 2021 review of submission by PeelyMan

19:42:17, 14 November 2021 review of submission by PeelyMan

PeelyMan (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PeelyMan: No sources, no article, no debate. We also do not speculate on how subjects are connected. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was rejected your topic is not notable, you have removed the rejection notice but this will not help. Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:05:20, 14 November 2021 review of submission by 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:BD0C


2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:BD0C (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I wanted to updated that Kale My Name has 61K followers now and that Tabitha Brown announced opening of Los Angeles location end of the month. But it says it’s not notable enough? It’s currently in 300 news articles and it got over million views. Please do not deny veganisam and Kale My Name as something not notable, because this is huge.

It could have 61 million followers and it still might not be notable, notability is assessed by the quality of reliable independent sources that have discussed the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:29, 14 November 2021 review of submission by PrinceJoshie


PrinceJoshie (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:47, 14 November 2021 review of draft by EcheveriaJ


Hi, I created an "article" and submitted it but was declined. This article was meant to be more as a neat place to find different sampling techniques - a list. Hence, as it is a list, it doesn't really need citations as it is just a convenient place to group things together. What edits would make this clear? Many thanks --EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EcheveriaJ. Your statement, "as it is a list, it doesn't really need citations", isn't really true. Stand-alone lists are a type of article. Wikipedia's verifiability policy applies to them, and they should be sourced. I've left a more detailed comment on the draft.
You also may find Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce Thank you for your advice, they are really helpful in guiding me as to how I could make it ready for the mainspace. Thanks! --EcheveriaJ (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In looking for sources, would textbooks for high schools be appropriate? Thanks --EcheveriaJ (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EcheveriaJ: Wikipedia:Reliable sources recommends textbooks generally. It mentions "introductory-level university textbooks" and "widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field" specifically. A few textbooks of any kind should be sufficient to get the draft approved, but I think you'll find the topic covered more thoroughly in textbooks aimed at college freshmen and sophomores. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

04:34:12, 15 November 2021 review of draft by Melissa Mwaura


Are there any updates that need to be made prior to the publication? Melissa Mwaura (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Melissa Mwaura: there are major changes which need to happen before this accepted, you need to support everything with what we classify as reliable sources. So far none of the references that discuss the artist in any detail are considered reliable. I also don't see any indication on how they meet our other criteria of WP:NMUSICBIO. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:53:33, 15 November 2021 review of submission by Neelmohapatra


Neelmohapatra (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Maharishi University of Information Technology

Hello 331dot,

I am working on a draft of an article for a private University in Uttar Pradesh (Maharishi University of Information Technology). I have modified the content also summurised again on the base of wiki policies. I would appreciate any more experienced eyes on this.

Neelmohapatra Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about the existence of an organization like a university and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a universtity should 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 organization. The only sources you have offered merely confirm the existence of the university. Please see Your First Article. As I stated in the draft, I fear that you are too close to your university to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires. To succeed, you need to set aside everything you know about the univerity, all materials put out by the university(including press releases and announcements), and all brief mentions of it, and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage. It's usually very hard for people in your position to do that. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:18:34, 15 November 2021 review of submission by VadimBlack89


I am still wondering what is needed to have one's own Wikipedia page for an artist. There are a number of links showing author's work including the reference from the Pahlavi queen.

VadimBlack89 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VadimBlack89 Wikipedia does not have pages, it has articles. This is a subtle but important distinction. You have not offered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this artist. Because of this, the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:19:02, 15 November 2021 review of submission by JulieFr

The draft has been declined because it does "not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" However this draft is very similar to (inspired by, in fact) the Wikipedia page of James Kennedy (social psychologist), a friend and colleague of M. Clerc. They both worked on the same topic (Particle Swarm Optimization, PSO), they both had the same IEEE rewarded paper, and, on this page, I do not see more "published, reliable, secondary sources".

Actually J. Kennedy himself says the contribution of M. Clerc to PSO is greater than his own. Even if you do not ask him directly, you could search on "pso contribution kennedy clerc".

So I do not understand. Please explain. And because I don't understand I don't know what to do.


JulieFr (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JulieFr Wikipedia has articles, not pages. This is a subtle but important distinction. Please see other stuff exists. That other similar articles exist does not automatically mean that yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. I've marked the Kennedy article as problematic(with poor citations). It isn't required (except for new or unregistered users) to use this process, though it's a good idea.
The sources you have offered do not seem to be about Clerc personally, and/or do not offer significant coverage of him; most seem to confirm the specific facts given(such as the existence of his work). There is a line about his hobbies that is completely unsourced and likely inappropriate unless independent sources discuss his hobbies. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JulieFr (& 331dot) I haven't looked at the sources in detail however, it seems like the WP:NACADEMIC notability criteria might be relevant, if it can be shown that the subject is indeed a leader in his particular field. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:29:15, 15 November 2021 review of draft by JJking56


JJking56 (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJking56 You don't ask a question. If you want to submit your draft, click the "Submit your draft for review" button in the box at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:17:57, 15 November 2021 review of submission by Nuttyprofessor2016


Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has received 3 awards since the last submission. There are interviews and other things about him out. Should I submit it for re-review?

Hi Nuttyprofessor2016. No, don't bother. The subject isn't notable. The awards are meaningless, non-notable, business puffery. Interviews are primary sources, and rarely have independent analysis by the interviewer, so they don't help establish notability. This piece of pyrite is unwelcome in the treasury of knowledge that is Wikipedia. Don't waste volunteer time with it. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:02, 15 November 2021 review of submission by Anna karligkioti

Dear editors, I have questions on the comments given on my proposed entry "Historical bioarchaeology" as it was declined. I would be glad if you could help me out on the following. First of all can you elaborate on why my term is considered neologism by the editor? My proposed entry aimed at giving this term publicly since it is the combination of two subfields of research (in my study areas) and it is very often misunderstood. In addition to that I didn't promote any personal work but rather did initial research in order to contribute in Wikipedia in a detailed manner that followed both code of conduct and guidelines. Lastly, I cannot see how my detailed article is not sufficient for being published, while another less detailed and updated one has an entry of its own namely "Medieval bioarchaeology" (which also counts less words). Thank you in advance! Best regards, Anna

Anna karligkioti (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna karligkioti please confirm that you have read and understood the message left by the reviewer who declined (not rejected, which is final) your submission. They have given you a route forward. Ask them why they consider it a neologism, please. Have you done so before posting here? All reviewers must be able to justify reviews and explain them FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me thank you very much for your reply! Yes I have and I am currently try to follow suggestions!

16:39:30, 15 November 2021 review of submission by Shassafrass


Shassafrass (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Trying to figure out why there are approved wikipedia entries for many white male designers and artists with less accomplishments and references while this page is continually refused publication.

See other poor quality articles exist for that argument. Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And there's a distinct possibility that they weren't approved. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As to the sources:
In summary, while you do have good sources, they are few and far between compared to all the crap. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:11, 15 November 2021 review of submission by 94.147.24.90


94.147.24.90 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something; a Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

00:57:28, 16 November 2021 review of submission by Pantsbear official


Pantsbear official (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Pants Bear Official Hello! We created a page about our upcoming brand, however, our submission has been in review for months. Could someone please help me understand how to speed up or improve our article in order to have it published? Thank you.[reply]

Your draft was declined, please see the comments left by reviewers. Once the issues are addressed and you resubmit, there is no way to guarantee a speedy review as reviews are conducted by volunteers. Wikipedia has no interest in the needs of your brand. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:00:11, 16 November 2021 review of draft by WikiVuclip


WikiVuclip (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there,

I work for Viu (MY) and have been assigned to setting up a Wiki page for our Original Show; Ganjil.

How do I contribute in a way that doesn't require me to quote sources? Since all the info about the show is from the company, which I work for, itself.

Regards, Aqil

@WikiVuclip: That is easy there is no way you can create an article and have it accepted without 3rd party reliable sources. First hand knowledge or primary sources can only be used to verify only the most basic information that is unlikely to be challenged at all. Please also read through WP:COI and understand that Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about your show, if it is a condition of your employment that you create this article I would suggest you find a new job as it is likely not going to happen if no media has written about the subject in detail on their own accord. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiVuclip: You state on your user page that you are a fan of the show; if you are employed by it, you must make a formal declaration, see WP:PAID. This is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:51, 16 November 2021 review of draft by Ppch83


Help me on publish new article Ppch83 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppch83 You are being helped. That is what the review process is for FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:28:57, 16 November 2021 review of submission by Riverbank333

I am humbly asking for a re-review. I am making this article for my teacher as a gift and I understand that in the state it is right now it may not be considered up to wikipedia's level. However I have added some new sites which I was wondering if it would be enough to be accepted. Even if it's still not up to code, I would please ask for it to be accepted for at least a day so I may present it to him. I understand if this is not possible but I was just checking.

Thank you for your time. Riverbank333 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer - he does not meet general notability guidelines. No improvement in content, tone or proper referencing would make him a valid article subkect. David notMD (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:31:11, 16 November 2021 review of submission by Riverbank333

Hewo, please reconsider and accept pwease. Riverbank333 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Your teacher does not meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And please cut out the baby talk. It isn't cute, it's harder to parse than just writing normally. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


November 17

00:24:22, 17 November 2021 review of submission by 110.9.172.153


110.9.172.153 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:03, 17 November 2021 review of draft by 157.41.50.157


There are many reliable sources and secondary sources available in googles and internet. But I can't chose the appropriate links to produce. Please you search and mention here the exact sources which is needed for an article page. Thank you 157.41.50.157 (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

157.41.50.157 (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't up to others to add sources for you. If you would like to see this draft placed in the encyclopedia, you need to do the work. Please read about what reliable sources are as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:24:32, 17 November 2021 review of submission by Talzie


Talzie (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not significantly notable. The sources listed are two facebook pages (which are generally not accepted), the page for the college (which is a primary source) and a website from the government which doesn't even mention the group.Naraht (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:44, 17 November 2021 review of submission by Syedshoaib370


Syedshoaib370 (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syedshoaib370 Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. The vast majority of people on this planet do not merit Wikipedia articles. Please use your preferred social media to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:40:18, 17 November 2021 review of submission by Pragadeesh mr dark


Pragadeesh mr dark (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pragadeesh mr dark Wikipedia is not here for you to self publicise. Get a web site of your own please. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:17, 17 November 2021 review of submission by 216.8.147.122

He is listed as one of the leaders of the First Serbian Uprising in all major encyclopedias in Serbia. Also, Wikidata carries his bio. 216.8.147.122 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:20, 17 November 2021 review of submission by Maggiestorm

Hello! This is my first time creating a Wiki page. This school exists, the reference to the school is in the article - you can see all the copy matches. So I'm not sure what notability is missing at this time.

Maggiestorm (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please do not copy material from elsewhere onto Wikipedia, for two reasons: 1) Doing so is almost always a copyright violation and 2) most texts not specifically written for Wikipedia are unsuitable for Wikipedia. While the first reason can be "healed" in some cases, the second is usually not. With regards to your post above, please be aware that Wikipedia uses a special definition of the term "noteability". Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a second view, the amount of copy/pasted material does not appear to be as big as I initially thought, however, it's still overly promotional. If you're writing a new version, avoid puffery and base your draft on what independent, reliable sources have written about the school. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I’ve left a message at User talk:Maggiestorm. The draft was previously a direct copy of the website, but Maggiestorm rewrote it to avoid copyright violation. As you’ve mentioned, it still reads promotionally, and I can’t find any independent reliable sources. Politanvm talk 21:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

00:28:50, 18 November 2021 review of submission by TaniaWalker

Hi all! I just spent three days working to get this article perfect and it was declined in what felt like three minutes, oof. I'd love some guidance as to how to get it across the line! The reason for rejection was that the sources don't show significant mentions in reliable secondary sources, yet my secondary sources included Apple's WWDC coverage (this app was covered in two seperate talks to an audience of 22 million), along with references from LEGO, the European Space Agency, TechCrunch, Gizmodo, and multiple other platforms and outlets which themselves have Wikipedia pages (eg CGTrader) - which would surely makes them notable sources in Wikipedia's eyes, as they have to be notable by Wikipedia's own definition to receive an entry here.

Totally happy to make any/all changes needed, but I would love it if someone can take a look for me and help me figure out where I've gone wrong - this is only my third article, and I could really benefit from your experience.

Thank you.

TaniaWalker (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TaniaWalker The issue is not the sources themselves, but their content. As noted by the reviewer, the sources you provided are mostly inappropriate, for a variety of reasons. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and what it does- a Wikipedia article summarizes independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. Some sources do not mention Qlone at all, and others only briefly or only cite specific pieces of information. These are not significant, in depth coverage that goes beyond merely telling us of the existence of this app and what it does. Please review Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:30:58, 18 November 2021 review of submission by Postreaders


Hello, kindly please advise me why the page is not eligible to be included in Wikipedia and what can be done or added to the page for inclusion.

Thank You so much. Postreaders (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postreaders Your draft is almost completely unsourced, and the only source you do provide is a blog, which is not a reliable source. Nothing can be done about this, as the draft was rejected, this means it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on someone. Please review Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:28:19, 18 November 2021 review of submission by Line Redline

Hi! I just received feedback on the Susan Phoenix article. I can definitely understand why it has been declined. However, I am wondering how I should write it. How do you describe someone´s life story without appearing to ´full of yourself´. I want to describe what she has gone trough, what she has achieved, I want to describe her route to writing several best-selling books. However, how do I do that without being brag. I am not asking for a re-review, I just want to receive some advice of how it should be done properly.

Thanks in advance

Line Redline (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article about a person must summarise what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Theroadislong (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:53:53, 18 November 2021 review of draft by Adelaidesean


Trying to build this page using external sources. Please help/advise.

Adelaidesean (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this essay of some help. It is one of canyon article creation FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:38, 18 November 2021 review of submission by TheSachuHopes


TheSachuHopes (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, it will not be considered further, the topic already exists on Wikipedia here Malayalam calendar. Theroadislong (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:36, 18 November 2021 review of submission by Daisy23194

Hi Editors, I submitted a draft article and was informed this morning that the article did not have enough reliable sources. There are over 20 sources of news and scientific publications, so I'm wondering what other types of publications I should include in the references and also any advice on what specific additional text in the draft article should be referenced? Thanks so much for your guidance! Daisy23194 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daisy23194 There are banners in the xdrfat highlighting the shortfall. Under no circumstances, please, confuse quantity with quality. One excellent reference for a fact is all that is required.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Since the subject is an academic, be cautious about using his own works as a reference. They can be, but the set is restricted. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Bridgit draft

Please check Draft:Bridgit (company). It has been nomimated for the speedy deletion after a massive rewrite that follows comments from two experienced Wikipedia editors. The draft has not been submitted for the second review and I am still working on it. This article is a properly stated WP:COI contribution. The company itself has a WP:SIGCOV at the leading Canadian news sources such as The Globe and Mail, which is the most popular national newspaper. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It started as WP:ADMASQ and WP:BOMBARD. At 19 references for five paragraphs others must judge whether it is still BOMBARD. I still see ADMASQ and concur with the CSD as an advert.
The poster and creating editor is a correctly declared paid editor. I view paid editors as people who must know our standards correctly and who should be capable of writing drafts that are acceptable immediately. I really don't see the need to offer them advice or more than general assistance. YMMV. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

04:14:46, 19 November 2021 review of draft by Niteshshah24


Niteshshah24 (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir/mam, 

 I have created an article on laxminiya youth club which was declined by wikipedia. Laxminiya youth club is real and i have submitted real source of data. It is situated in Morang district of Nepal. Kindly help us to put this club in wikipedia.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1056005428"