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 Joeblow8567 (talk | contribs) at 02:22, 22 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 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.

Niteshshah24 Wikipedia is not a place for clubs to tell the world about themselves. The sources you have offered seem to just be routine coverage and do not establish that this club meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please see Your First Article. If you are associated with this club, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:43:02, 19 November 2021 review of submission by Cyanlemur82


Cyanlemur82 (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyanlemur82: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. All of your sources are useless for notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:24:34, 19 November 2021 review of submission by Kunal soshte


Kunal soshte (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://instagram.com/kunal_soshte?utm_medium=copy_link

You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


November 20

10:26:42, 20 November 2021 review of draft by Switchboard05


My article on the Fricot Nugget has bene submitted for over a month now, is there any way to draw attention to this? I tried to submit a couple of revisions of an article on an author, prior to submitting ny Fricot Nugget page and they were both reviewed and rejected within a couple of days. Can someone please help me? Switchboard05 (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Switchboard05 (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Switchboard05 Drafts are reviewed in an arbitrary order. By positing here you might have drawn attention to it, or folk ,might choose to ignore this because you have drawn attention to it. Such is Wikipedia. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted, with some minor copy editing. Theroadislong (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:52, 20 November 2021 review of draft by ArbyBB


Hi. I'm a newbie. My article has been reviewed and revised by 50 editors in the last day or two, after my submission. I imagine there is another level of review, or do you see that has happened when you look at the names or titles or types of reviews and revisions conducted by my reviewers and reviewers.

The bottom line is I'm wondering when and how the review process is conducted. When does it end? Who ends ir? I gather that it's over when the yellow review comments page disappears. Or us it? Please reply or link me to the appropriate FAQ page

Thanks

ArbyBB (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If declined and resubmitted, it goes back into the backlog of drafts ("Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,476 pending submissions waiting for review.") Most often, a different reviewer will take it on. Many editors may attempt to improve the draft, but those are not Reviewers. The decision rests with the Reviewer who takes it on.

17:04:03, 20 November 2021 review of submission by A cute wikipedian


A cute wikipedian (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

dafuq

17:05:20, 20 November 2021 review of draft by Adamopoulos


Hello, I am writing to request an RFC for my proposed changes to the political forecasting page in which I migrate the current page to a more appropriate title ("Election forecasting") and supplement the page "political forecasting" with a page that I have written that discusses positive political theory applications to predicting political events. I feel this is a much more appropriate scope for the page's title and I have done a thorough literature review into this topic and I am happy to answer any questions. I am requesting an RFC because I have not had any responses in the talk page in the current political forecasting page.

Here is the link to my proposed page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Political_forecasting

Adamopoulos (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamopoulos This page is for asking for help with drafts; for information on creating a formal request for comment, please see WP:RFC. Once you mark your proposed changes to the existing article as a RFC, other editors will be more likely to weigh in. If still no one does, you can be bold and implement the changes. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, thank you. Adamopoulos (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

04:41:03, 21 November 2021 review of submission by Vacciniumrecord

My article got rejected, and I would like to know what changes I can make to get it approved. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Vacciniumrecord (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vacciniumrecord: Please see WP:BIO1E. Also, it appears the sources are largely interviews which cannot be used to establish notability because they are not independent. You may also find this essay about YouTubers and notability helpful. The number of views and/or subscribers is meaningless. S0091 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:52:24, 21 November 2021 review of submission by Yeomanplot

Because this creator has become more relevant since the submission was denied and there are other articles of YouTubers/political commentators less relevant than him. Yeomanplot (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the presence, absence, or condition of other articles to argue for yours. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:39:35, 21 November 2021 review of draft by Joeblow8567


Joeblow8567 (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with references thanks you all are on the page if you hit edit need someone better at scripting than I.

Hi @Joeblow8567:, no offense but the draft is a mess and needs to be rewritten. I left you some additional information on your talk page about how to create an article but you may also find this guide for adding citations helpful. However, before you spend the time please read the notability criteria for authors. If he does not meet the criteria, then no amount editing will help. S0091 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:48:53, 21 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Rtmf



Rtmf (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An "article" that is nothing more than a YouTube video and a single, vague, unsourced sentence is useless. See WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 14:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:37:49, 21 November 2021 review of submission by A cute wikipedian

Please request re-reviewA cute wikipedian (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:06:13, 21 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Avi Sindhu


Hello there, we are first-timers, and we wrote about the Inner Space Network. Soon after we submitted the page to be reviewed, it got regected. We wrote everything to the best of our ability. We are not exactly sure why our submission was rejected and if you could give advice on how to improve it, we would be very grateful. Thank you. Avi Sindhu (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Sindhu (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hey! The article I wrote was declined. Can someone tell me why?Avi Sindhu (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Sindhu It was rejected, not just declined, which means it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Each account is for the exclusive use of a single individual. If you represent the subject, please review conflict of interest. For replies, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:43:08, 21 November 2021 review of draft by مالڪ سولنڪي


مالڪ سولنڪي (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:07, 21 November 2021 review of draft by مالڪ سولنڪي


مالڪ سولنڪي (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:07:55, 21 November 2021 review of submission by ZX2006XZ


ZX2006XZ (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


How can I make this article notable?

ZX2006XZ You cannot "make" it notable, as no amount of editing can confer notability. You will have to wait until the film is released. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:47, 21 November 2021 review of submission by Pinksimplelight


Pinksimplelight (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinksimplelight You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:27:24, 21 November 2021 review of submission by Mitchellfrieder

Hello, I am writing my first article for Wikipedia about artist Andrew Frieder and entered it into my Sandbox. The reviewer has twice told me, after one round of revisions, that I need to add context, but will give me no further explanation or detail. I am hoping that someone can set me on the right path towards understanding what is required.

Thank you,

MitchellMitchellfrieder (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Mitchellfrieder (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mitchellfrieder: your sandbox only has a name. Are you trying to write an article or just practicing? If you are practicing, there is no need to submit your sandbox for review. If you are intending to write an article, please read Your first article. If you are related to or affiliated with Andrew Frieder, then you need to declare your conflict of interest and also follow those guidelines. I will post some additional information on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

02:22:43, 22 November 2021 review of submission by Joeblow8567


Joeblow8567 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


May need someone higher than I in editing this document. thanks

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1056484478"