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 Jonknox12 (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 21 February 2022 (→‎17:57:01, 21 February 2022 review of submission by Jonknox12). 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


February 15

00:26:36, 15 February 2022 review of submission by M A Xqpb


M A Xqpb (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC) why did you get red of mason caudill[reply]

M A Xqbp, You have a message on your talk page that explains. Hoaxes and other vandalism are not welcome and they waste other people's time.Slywriter (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:14:52, 15 February 2022 review of draft by Ougibbons


Hello. I'm unsure why my draft has been rejected as I have seen other pages for studio albums that weren't particularly well known but from a well known artist. If I/we made a critical reception section, would that fix the problem?

Ougibbons (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ougibbons: your draft was declined because the references didn't show the topic was notable. After taking a quick look, three of the five sources are from Youtube (not reliable). Please find a few more independent secondary sources, and then it's a lot more likely it will be accepted. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 03:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wgullyn: great, so this is better? thanks

04:13:20, 15 February 2022 review of submission by LodoVena


LodoVena (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:01, 15 February 2022 review of draft by Terephthalic Acid


Terephthalic Acid (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terephthalic Acid You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My question is why does this get rejected, since I have put independent source, no blog, and have tried to follow the phrasing in some game articles in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terephthalic Acid (talk • contribs) 10:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:27:16, 15 February 2022 review of draft by Abigail Tavener


We are trying to publish this wikipedia article but it was declined. We have since updated the article in line with the feedback, but can't tell whether it has been declined again, or whether it is still awaiting review. Do we need to somehow request another review or will this take place automatically? The page we are trying to publish is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:See_Monster

Abigail Tavener (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Tavener Who is "we"? Only a single person should be operating your account. I see that you declared a conflict of interest, if you have a paid association with this public art or those working on it, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No it is just me editing this page, but I am working on the public art project. I am not being directly paid to set up this wikipedia page, but I have declared a conflict of interest because I am being paid to work on the project more broadly. How should I proceed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail Tavener (talk • contribs)

Abigail Tavener That counts as paid editing, you do not have to be specifically paid to edit. You need only replace your COI notice with a paid editing notice, see WP:PAID for instructions. To clarify, Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have done this. Does it now look correct? How do I proceed from here?

Abigail Tavener Yes, you did it correctly, thank you. As you successfully submitted the draft, you just need to wait for a review. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abigail Tavener I suggest you add {{Connected contributor (paid)}} to the talk page of the now accepted stub article, with parameters filled out correctly. I think the banner on the article itself that states paid contributions may be removed. There is nothing non neutral there. It is just possible to suggest this to be an advert, but I feel we are the right side of that borderline, which is why I have accepted the draft, FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your guidance. I have added this to the talk page of the stub article and hope all now looks ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail Tavener (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:50, 15 February 2022 review of submission by Marialbno96


Hi there! Can you explain me exactly what is needed to turn from start-class to proper, googlable wiki article the following page: Persuasion (online magazine). The guidelines online talk a bit fuzzily about "improving" the article, but I cannot see how that would look like: the article presents references when needed, is grammatically impeccable, and follows the style-guide to the t. I've seen other wiki articles lacking references and still be legitimate, visible articles on google. Why not this one?

Best wishes,

Maria

Marialbno96 (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marialbno96 Since your draft was accepted, you may use the more general Help Desk for questions. To answer you, though- Google takes time to index articles; it occurs once the article is marked as patrolled by a New Pages Patroller, or after a period of time(30-60 days I think). Do you have a particular need for it to appear in Google quickly?
As this is a volunteer project, inappropriate articles can get by us, we can only address what we know about.
I fixed the link to the article you wrote; the whole URL is unnecessary; simply place the title in double brackets. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. It's not visibility on Google that I'm interested in, more in turning it from star-class to proper article. It has been way more than 60 days since the article was published. The main thing needed is a blue tick on Twitter, which is only granted with an actual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marialbno96 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marialbno96 Are you employed by this online magazine? I greatly apologize for being frank, but Wikipedia has no interest in any requirements social media imposes on you for their verification processes(for which the presence of a Wikipedia article is only one possible method). Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see in the log that the page was marked as reviewed; that means Google should be indexing it at some point. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect Wikipedia to be interested in my social media dealings -- if anything, I would find the opposite creepy. The question I have now made twice is: what does the page need to be transformed from "star-class" into "article"? If this is a question that, as a volunteer, you are unable to answer, I will happily transfer my concerns to the Help Desk. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marialbno96 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marialbno96 Please review the Quality Scale to learn how each level is assessed. You have not answered my question, are you employed or otherwise associated with this magazine? 331dot (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am an editorial assistant with Persuasion, yes. I have already reviewed the grading scheme, and if I found it satisfactory I wouldn't have asked for a human insight. I am asking you if you are able to check the page and point out exactly what needs "improvement", since I can't figure it out myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marialbno96 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marialbno96 Please review WP:PAID and make the required declaration on your user page, this is a Terms of Use requirement. The article could almost certainly be rated higher than start class; I've marked it as C class so it is beyond Start at least. It may possibly be higher; though B class suggests illustrations if possible, as well as few if any missing pieces of information or citations. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the magazine has a logo, that would help. See WP:UPIMAGE for more information. An image of the logo would be a fair use license. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that. I've added an infobox+logo which might make it B class? I have also signed a disclosure in my user page. Marialbno96 (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marialbno96 I've made it B since there is a logo. I have found Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide at the Magazine WikiProject which may help you. Yes, you have disclosed correctly, thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot and Marialbno96: The logo being used in the article's infobox (File:Persuasion-community.png) is almost certainly too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States and doesn't really need to be licensed as {{Non-free logo}}. I suggest it be re-upload to Commons instead as c:Template:PD-textlogo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, 331dot. Marchjuly, I've uploaded the logo on wikimedia commons as you suggested: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. Am I supposed to add that to the infobox now? And if so, do I do that by just writing 'persuasion.community.png' in the Infobox's image voice? Marialbno96 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:41, 15 February 2022 review of submission by MehrMiranRakhi

Thank you for reviewing my article! However, it was declined because the subject already exists. I want to bring to your notice that the information on that article is false why is why I curated a new piece based on facts. Please let me know how I can have my article accepted. Any advice will be appreciated.

Mehr Miran Rakhi (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MehrMiranRakhi If you would like to change an existing article, please go to the article talk page(Talk:Pakistan Engineering Company) and make an edit request(click for instructions), detailing the specific changes you feel are needed. Please note that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if those sources are not being correctly summarized, please tell how. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:50:47, 15 February 2022 review of submission by VikiKrisz

Hi, my draft was declined on the basis that it has no independent sources. However, the company in question is mentioned and referred to twice on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PTP_implementations (Polynet/PolyNet). That is what gave me the idea to create a new article on the company. Is it possible to connect these references with the new article "PolyNet Telecommunications"? Would that make this draft legit? Thank you for your time reviewing my question, I really appreciate your help. VikiKrisz (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VikiKrisz. Being mentioned on another Wikipedia page does not mean the company is a suitable subject for an entire encyclopedia article; it does not mean it is notable. The references used on that other page are the company's website, so are not independent sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:25, 15 February 2022 review of draft by Anders Bjorklund Lund


Hello. I have just submitted a Live Person page, which now is un der re-review as Draft:Anders Björklund. I have a head-shot photo that I would like to add to the Infobox. How can I do that? Can I get the permission to upload the picture, or can an editor do it for me? Best regards, Anders Bjrklund

Anders Bjorklund Lund (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Bjorklund Lund Images are not necessary for getting an article approved, but The best thing is if you took an image of yourself with your own camera, you may then upload it yourself, see WP:UPIMAGE. If you have a professional head shot that someone else took, they will need to upload it. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:28, 15 February 2022 review of submission by Rsmfilmsuk


Rsmfilmsuk (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M A Y [British Musician]

why has this been declined M A Y is a musician so pages like Spotify and Apple Music proof the material from the Artist how are they not reliable sources. could you please let me know what exactly is need to be changed on the article. as I am confused as to what needs to be taken out and added please help thanks.

Rsmfilmsuk You have only cited the existence of the music; this does not demonstrate notability. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:24:14, 15 February 2022 review of submission by Keros11


Keros11 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about Draft:Dhruva? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:04, 15 February 2022 review of submission by Mageteck


The problem and how to fix it are totally understandable. Please explain in clear English.

Mageteck The draft is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a guidebook, but an encyclopedia. Please read the five pillars and Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:13:21, 15 February 2022 review of submission by BrickBelltower

For my citation #2, Carla Zimmerman's Inventory to the Records of the Women's Project of New Jersey, an archive located in the Special Collections of the Rutgers U. Libraries, I keep putting in the URL address as "http://www2.scc.rutgers.edu/ead/manuscripts/wpnjf.html" and the wiki template keeps changing it to "www2.scc.rutgers.edu". Consequently, the link to the Women's Project of NJ archive is lost. How can I get the correct link to the WPNJ archive entered into the citation? Thanks, BrickBelltower BrickBelltower (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrickBelltower: Ref errors fixed. I tried to reduce the size, but there's still way too much info there, for the sourcing. In this case, less is more. I'd reduce it by about 75% and focus on finding more sources to demonstrate notability. Source everything that's there and you'll find it easier to figure out what to remove. BTW - this is a place to discuss the article being declined. The WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse can help you with syntax questions. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:51, 15 February 2022 review of submission by Eladlavy12

Hi, I would like to ask for advice regarding this article. I have helped with this article with the intention of making it notable, after thorough research about both the subject itself and its field. I am open to criticism and suggestion, however I do believe it has some reliable content, and at least some of it could be preserved or refined. I have consulted with some editors and Wikipedians, and while some had ideas and edited the content, they all thought that the article is at least respectful and followed the guidelines of Wikipedia. This gives me hope to not give up on it, but rather consult with you and see how can I achieve the optimal results for my efforts.
Would appreciate your advice, thank you. Eladlavy12 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eladlavy12: I made a few edits to restore some sources that were removed, but in such a way as to not be too promotional. I also added a new source with some decent info. Pinging @JBW: to see if he still feels this deserves a terminal rejection versus a decline, so it can continue to be improved before being resubmitted. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @JBW:, As you can see there has been some work on the article. perhaps we can discuss its status as declined?
Would appreciate your input. Eladlavy12 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eladlavy12: I will offer you my thoughts on the matter, and some advice. Unfortunately, it will be advice which you probably won't like, but I offer it because I sincerely think it will be more helpful to you than saying things which you might prefer to hear. Obviously, as with all advice, it will be for you to decide whether to take it or not.


Before I even saw the draft, it had been deleted three times as promotional, and at least seven times it had been submitted as an "article for creation", and each time declined, either because of lack of evidence of notability or because of its promotional character, or both. In its current form it doesn't look to me as blatantly promotional as some earlier versions, but to me it still has the feel of being written by a marketing or PR professional who wishes to impress the reader with how good the company is. However, there is a more fundamental problem. Promotional tone can be dealt with by rewriting, but no amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject of that article. None of the cited references is substantial coverage of the company in reliable independent sources. We have references to sources which are not independent of the subject, such as a page on a business promotion site, and a page which merely tells us what someone at the company says, a report covering a particular incident concerning the business, but not giving substantial coverage of the business itself, and so on. There may be better sources available, but I doubt it, because after the amount of work you and an earlier editor paid to create this article have put in to trying to get it accepted, one or other of you would almost certainly have produced it by now. You will, of course, make your own decision whether to put more work into this or not, and whether to submit it yet again as an article for creation, but my personal advice is that you would probably be wasting your time. Everything gives me the strong impression that the business doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notabilty guidelines, and if it ever becomes an article, it will almost certainly be deleted. JBW (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @JBW: thank you so much for your input!
It doesn't really matter to me that perhaps you didn't have good news, as I appreciate the time you put into it. I welcome advice and sometimes even criticism. As a matter of fact, I can't say I'm really surprised with what you had to say regarding it, but it is more effective to hear it from the other side, I guess.
I am hearing you and of course will look into it, but just wanted to go over with you one last thing before I would conclude my efforts, if you don't mind:
As a writer with some experience with Wikipedia, I of course go over first and foremost on the notability of the subject; I in no mean wish to waste my time or the time of the editors with creating irrelevant articles that don't hold up.
However, when researching about this subject to see if it could be notable, I came across some existing articles that give me the impression that even with the current coverage this draft could be made into a proper article.
I hate to play the "Whataboutism" card, and I know that Wikipedia doesn't favor this sort of conversation, but it is something that I can't really ignore. Such articles, for example, are JoyTunes or Epidemic Sound that are in sort of a similar field, which provide less coverage than what I brought. My intention is by no means to claim fault to those articles, but just perhaps a way to learn to observe differently from what I have seen so far. If, in fact, these are things I have missed - it would definitely would help me going forward in Wikipedia; or perhaps it might still give me a glimpse of hope for this article.
either way, I appreciate your input. Eladlavy12 (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:50:05, 15 February 2022 review of submission by 78.101.187.150

we need article for our honors program project 78.101.187.150 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@78.101.187.150: There's not enough material here for a standalone article. Your best bet is to find 1 or 2 good sources of coverage and add a student life section to the Qatar University article, with no more than two sentences. You can use the school papers as sources. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:38:09, 15 February 2022 review of draft by Svalluru81


Hi team,

This is first time I am submitting an entry. This is about a living person and I am not getting what kind of references it is needed. Please let me know before declining it.

Svalluru81 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Svalluru81: especially on biographies about living people, every claim should be backed up by a reliable reference with an inline citation. Right now the only source you have is a mention of the subject. I've declined the draft for now; before submitting it again, please add at least 4 reliable, in-depth sources on the subject. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 20:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, your userpage suggests you are writing about yourself. Autobiographies are conflict of interest editing and are strongly discouraged. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:08:22, 15 February 2022 review of submission by 51.37.253.178


51.37.253.178 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@51.37.253.178: You don't ask a question, but I assume this is about the rejection of your draft. The sourcing is poor, and this incident isn't notable enough to be more than a single line (or at most two) in Discord (software)#History. But only with a reliable third party source, none of which are currently in the draft. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

04:41:42, 16 February 2022 review of draft by Littlestepsforward


Please can you review the draft. I have updated the content with the new sources.

Littlestepsforward (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Littlestepsforward You have resubmitted it for review; as noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,232 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers doing what they can, when they can, in no particular order. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:12:40, 16 February 2022 review of submission by Aphis Marta

Hi everyone,

I submitted the above draft back in December because of my CoI. The draft has already been reviewed positively (yay!) but according to the reviewer it appears that there is a redirect in the way that prevents a simple move. I did a bit of digging around and according to WP:RFD#DELETE a page can not be moved over a redirect if the latter has a history of its own (the target page has been renamed several times, and the redirect edited accordingly).

My question therefore is whether Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests would be the right place to ask for this redirect to be deleted (there is a specific "Administrator needed" sub-section), or if it should be done here?

Thanks!

Aphis Marta (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that would be the correct place to request that. In your request, note that the reviewer would have accepted your draft. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:29:30, 16 February 2022 review of submission by Director Haseeb Azam


Director Haseeb Azam (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Haseeb Azam is a Video Director of Pakistan Born : 6 August 2003 Height : 5,2 Father : Muhammad Azam Best Friend : Suhaib Ali

Director Haseeb Azam Rejection means the draft cannot be reconsidered. As I said on your draft, Wikipedia is not social media where people can tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how the topic meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:44, 16 February 2022 review of submission by Fighterpoint32

I want to redirect a television show name Rang Jaun Tere Rang Mein. It is now on draftspace. I want to redirect now but I don't have a move option to move this page.

Fighterpoint32 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Rang Jaun Tere Rang Mein Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:34, 16 February 2022 review of submission by D3FAULTX8


D3FAULTX8 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The draft was updated and submitted. Still not reviewed yet.

@D3FAULTX8: It takes time to be reviewed but it will be declined. The sourcing isn't about Gangadhar but instead is mostly about Angel Broking. Press releases don't count towards notability, and all the others all seem to be based on the same single event of him becoming CEO. You're better off simply doing a redirect to Angel One (company) until more sources about him can be uncovered. See WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:10, 16 February 2022 review of submission by Jon Deen

18:36:44, 16 February 2022 review of submission by Jon Deen Draft:Your submission name here -->Nikka Gershman-Pepper

Hello - my article was declined due to lack of notable links. In fact it has reliable outside sources such as NPR From The Top and The Columbian. Can you please help? Thank you. Jon Deen (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Nikka Gershman-Pepper @Jon Deen: There isn't enough coverage of her to demonstrate notability. Please see WP:NMUSICIAN. She's apparently still studying in music school - please see WP:TOOSOON. Also, please see WP:COI if you have a connection with the subject. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:18, 16 February 2022 review of submission by Woas Moji


Barbod Masoumi (Bitbod0 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Woas Moji: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't accept cirricula vitae, and interviews are useless for notability (connexion to subject). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:35:39, 16 February 2022 review of submission by JaneGaskell


I have followed the template and type of references from another historian on Wiki and I can't understand why my page has not been accepted?

JaneGaskell (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JaneGaskell Beware in using other articles as a model unless they are classified as good articles. 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. It could be that this other article you saw is also inappropriate. See other stuff exists.
The sources you have offered are not signficant coverage of Dr. Hulme in independent reliable sources; they seem to be a few profiles from places she is associated with(not independent) and other brief mentions, both of which do not establish that she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable academic. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


February 17

03:56:35, 17 February 2022 review of draft by Aimtoaddvalue


I have updated the content with new sources. Could you please review the draft. Aimtoaddvalue (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Draft Which is Decline

08:54:40, 17 February 2022 review of submission by Endrabcwizart


Endrabcwizart (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One article is decline by reviewer. So I'm here for discussion. According to this article all the given sources are reliable. please read this article and mention me on your answer. thank you

Endrabcwizart The sources you have offered are not significant coverage and do not show that he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable lyricist. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read the mansion guidelines, but found no weaknesses, If the source has not been reached, put the citation required tag there. thankyou Endrabcwizart (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endrabcwizart, subject fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. So, I suggest you re-read the policies of wikipedia as your statement of no weakness is incorrect. And a citation needed tag will not fix the fact the subject just isn't notable.Slywriter (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to your suggestion, I make some correction. Thank You... Endrabcwizart (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Endrabcwizart: That sources are reliable is necessary, but it is not enough. The reliable sources must also be independent, they should be secondary, and they should talk about the subject in some detail. The first source, from Annapurna Post, is an interview which means it is not secondary. There are two sources from The Rising Nepal (you call them GorakhaPatra in the draft, but I think that is the Nepali newspaper that covers the same content?), and the first one ("The Popular Lyricist: Ramesh Dahal") looks like it might be OK, but I am not quite sure. The second one ("Dahal wins modern song competition") is almost certainly a press release (not independent and not secondary) and is rather short. The "Nagarik Network" source is also a press release. I get the sense that this lyricist is potentially notable, but at the moment, the draft and the sources do not show it.
Where does the date of birth, May 19, come from? I can find the year of birth in one of the sources, but not the date. --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ohh!!!! According to your feedback '' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Thwala'' is this right article ? Endrabcwizart (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:08:31, 17 February 2022 review of submission by Thomson Walt

I want to resubmit this draft since Miss Grand International has been split into a separate article per this DRV. Thank You Thomson Walt (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:32, 17 February 2022 review of submission by Hfedit9898


Hfedit9898 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hfedit9898, no question but article has been rejected, again. Do not resubmit as it will not be considered further as being on YouTube is not inherently notable.Slywriter (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:12, 17 February 2022 review of submission by Hfedit9898

I Have Summited Many Verified Source Articles in This Draft Hfedit9898 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:50, 17 February 2022 review of draft by Mysterious Whisper


Declined by Liance on Notability grounds. Their comment:
Majority of cited sources do not demonstrate significant coverage (are part of lists, passing mentions, etc) or are not reliable sources. Significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources needs to be established per WP:GNG.
I disagree with the first part. My analysis of the sources:

Extended content
  • Hermitcraft Season 8: List of members, Minecraft builds, datapacks, and more - This article is entirely about Hermitcraft, and there are several paragraphs of prose in addition to the lists. Sportskeeda may not be the most authoritative source, but it is independent of the topic of the article, none of the information is controversial, and all of it can be verified through primary sources, so there's no reason to think it's not reliable in this instance.
  • A YouTuber Is Building Among Us In Survival Minecraft - This article is entirely about some recent events on Hermitcraft. I'm not too familiar with this publication, but they have the makings of a reliable source, e.g. editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc.
  • 5 most popular Minecraft SMPs of all time - This is a list, but note that it does contain "two or more paragraphs of text focused on the topic."
  • One Trillion Minecraft Views - This is from YouTube, but it's not a video, it's an article published by YouTube to mark the trillionth view of Minecraft content on YouTube. This article was linked via the logo on every page of YouTube the day it was published, and Hermitcraft features prominently, which shows its significance, though the coverage on Hermitcraft isn't in-depth. Seeing this on YouTube is what led me to this draft in the first place.
  • MINECON 2016 Hermitcraft: Growing and Maintaining a Strong Server Community &
    MINECON Earth community panel - Hermitcraft Presents: Creating, Maintaining, and Evolving An SMP - These are YouTube videos (gasp!), not produced by Hermitcraft, but by Minecon (a convention hosted by Minecraft developer Mojang), where Hermitcraft members have been featured speakers. This article is similar, though it could be considered a passing mention, it shows that Hermitcraft was featured at the 2019 convention.
  • Minecraft Icons Host 2nd Livestream Fundraising Event for SOS Africa - This is entirely about an event on Hermitcraft, also covered by the Business Insider article listed below.
  • Larissa Hjorth. Exploring Minecraft: Ethnographies of Play and Creativity. - This is a serious academic text published by Springer that has multiple paragraphs about Hermitcraft.

The remaining sources don't contribute much to notability, they are mostly being used to support the list of members:

As you can see, we have several sources with in-depth coverage as defined by Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) (which is linked in the template message that's used when declining drafts).
I note that Liance been reviewing a lot of drafts lately - and they're often spending less than five minutes on each draft. I question whether they could actually review the article and the fifteen sources in that amount of time (and if you think that 15 sources is just too many, know that there were 24 present for the last review, and there's no official requirement that an article have exactly three top-quality sources). Mysterious Whisper (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing a breakdown on the sources, there definitely might have been some significant coverage I missed there. However I still stand by my rejection of the draft - aside from the academic text, significant, in-depth coverage in established reliable sources is quite sparse and does not meet GNG in my eyes. As always if any other reviewers disagree with my decision a second opinion is always appreciated. -Liancetalk/contribs 17:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as for the comment about my review speed - perennial AfC reviewers tend to develop an eye for which sources are worth reviewing (I can assure you all the sources you provided an analysis on were considered by me) and I tend to be an extremely fast reader. Please don't take the speed at which I edit as indication that my review was incomplete - there wouldn't be any reason for me to review at AfC at all if that were the case. -Liancetalk/contribs 17:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to review the draft and respond to my comments, but I would like a second opinion. This is a fairly new kind of topic with some unusual sources, but several of them are published, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of the topic, and that should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sportskeeda is an issue. They are generally unreliable as anyone can write for them and no editorial controls have been seen by the community. As a result, the article doesn't contribute to establishing notability. Minecraft would be connected (as in has vested interest in promoting mods), and if SOSAfrica benefited from the charity event, same issue there that are connected. Drop those and you have a subject that is notable to the Minecraft community but seems to fall short of Wikipedia notability.
An interim step would be adding a section in Minecraft as the material appears to meet WP:DUE for coverage there. From that section, an article may eventually arise.Slywriter (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the previous discussion at WP:RS/N about Sportskeeda, and agree that we can't assume it's reliable, which is why I assessed the specific Sportskeeda articles in question on their own merits. The SOSAfrica event was also covered by Business Insider, but the primary source has more Hermitcraft-specific information. The YouTube article convinced me that this is notable beyond just the Minecraft community, and we have articles on several other Minecraft servers, as well as the article "Minecraft server." These aren't just random WP:OSE examples, they're well-established articles featured in Template:Minecraft, some of which were explicitly kept via community consensus after unsuccessful deletion discussions. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that despite the apparent consensus at WP:RS/N, Sportskeeda is still used in hundreds of articles, and even without the sources you've noted, we still have a few that are clearly reliable with significant coverage as defined at Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). Mysterious Whisper (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm left with the impression that we're applying an arbitrarily high standard to this draft, or perhaps to drafts in general. Drafts do not need to be perfect, they just need enough to be able to survive AfD, and we have that at least. If you review the RS/N discussion about Sportskeeda, you will see that it has not been depreciated (that would require an RfC), and I have shown that it should be usable in this circumstance. The claim that being featured as a main event at an international convention doesn't contribute to notability, because the speakers are "connected" to the convention, is not a reasonable interpretation of the relevant guidelines (WP:GNG, which references WP:QS). Even if you disagree with all of that, we still have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - not much, but enough, and that's all that matters. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:04:35, 17 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Manonrouget


I would like to cite iodé's firm & iodé's work on wikipedia. Unfortunately, I tried to publish a draft but it failed for 'non-notable' reasons. How can I get help to get the article published? I would need a little guideline, and I can get more (independant) sources in order to help it get published.

Thanks for your help

Manonrouget (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manonrouget, you need to find independent reliable sources that discuss the subject. We care very little what a subject has to say about itself.Slywriter (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Manonrouget I did a quick Gsearch and found a couple of minor sources. [1][2] It's a start but you'll need more than blog-like coverage. It could be WP:TOOSOON, or simply that there's not enough interest outside of a very few privacy conscious individuals in a phone that can't access the Google store. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:08, 17 February 2022 review of draft by Akb bhatia


hey i want to create this page .she is indian tv actress but i don't know how to do it i have made one submission but it declined can some one help me Akb bhatia (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. Draft is being speedied and possibly even salted at some point. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:25, 17 February 2022 review of draft by Akb bhatia


hey can someone check why this references are not reliable

Akb bhatia (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered at The Teahouse are you expecting a different answer here? See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which says The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:26, 17 February 2022 review of draft by Krinesh62


Krinesh62 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. Shouldn't this Wikiproject tagging feature be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject? This doesn't seem to merit a standalone page, nor would it be very useful by itself. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TechnoTalk Usually when an editor links to that page they are asking about how to add tags to their draft; I've replaced the link with a link to their draft. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Krinesh62 You don't ask a question, but I can say that Twitter is not considerd an acceptable source. Any article about Amrendra Bagi must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:00:48, 17 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Garry23112



Garry23112 (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE - user has been warned on his talk page. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

14:50:52, 18 February 2022 review of draft by GJAHANA


GJAHANA (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Please anyone help me to publish my article about SHoxrux Hamdamov

GJAHANA (talk)

GJAHANA Please review the messages left by reviewers, and the policies and other information that they link to. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:34, 18 February 2022 review of draft by Al4He6


First I submitted a page and was told it would be up to 4 months for it to be reviewed, but then it got deleted because it hadn't been updated. Next a request for re-instatement was rejected because the wikipedia article was similar to an article I had subsequently written on another website. Then my submission was rejected because of a lack of independent verifiable sources (my article is about a programming tool that has existed for years, and has over a million users) At other times articles have been rejected because the reviewer believed it was a commercial enterprise (it is actually a not for profile organisation).

Al4He6 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al4He6 Your draft does little more than tell of the existence of this tool, and links to its official website, social media, and other associated websites. That is not what Wikipedia articles do. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please read Your First Article and if you have not already, use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:43, 18 February 2022 review of submission by Saher AlSous

is it okey to be accepted? is it possible to review it? Saher AlSous (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saher AlSous As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,091 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order, doing what they can when they can. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:09:28, 18 February 2022 review of draft by RebelRauser


You keep rejecting my draft due to "unreliable sources" - my biography is about Mary Susan James Barr, the surviving daughter of Jesse James, the outlaw. The sources I am providing are from the Jesse James Museum! Please explain to me why a museum is not a reliable source. The other sources is findagrave.com, maintained by Leo James, a descendant of Jesse James. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mary_Susan_James


RebelRauser (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RebelRauser Findagrave is not a reliable source as it is user-editable. The museum is not an independent source. There must be significant coverage of her in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


February 19

00:22:51, 19 February 2022 review of submission by Lexii60


Am requesting a review on this article I created Because this person I am writing about is very notable and I believe this article should be approvedLexii60 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Lexii60 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your sources to a one are non-sequiturs. You haven't shown he is notable per Wikipedia's definition because he's not even so much as mentioned in the lot of them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you all talking about, But What I can say is this person is very notable, He may have less mentions on the Internet/ Google searches but outside the internet he is very very notable to the public on an Social media he is verified.So What can I do more to convince you people to approve this article because am very frustrated now.Lexii60 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lexii60 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a specific definition of notability, which can be summarised as "Has this person received significant coverage in outlets with strong editorial oversight that wasn't written by him or someone else on his behalf?" Social media does not count. We accept citations to printed books/magazines/newspapers, but absolutely none of your sources are to such media. Your sources, as it stands, don't even help prove that he is notable because literally none of them so much as mention him, let alone actually discuss him in any depth. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the evidence https://g.co/kgs/2ksxSZ And Yes this person is a very talk about person and many journalist has write about him I dont know why some of his talk about article not showing up on google so I can give you evidence but it's there. But has I said he is very known to the public https://g.co/kgs/2ksxSZLexii60 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Lexii60 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a search results page. Please read the the replies above (and follow the links to policies and guidelines). --bonadea contributions talk 08:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:10:10, 19 February 2022 review of submission by Agorushin


Agorushin (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Agorushin: You do not ask a question but I recommend reading the notability guidelines for companies. S0091 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:07, 19 February 2022 review of submission by Irishsabumani


Irishsabumani (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This is my own profile. It doesn’t intend to promote, advertising or any misleading information is given. Please ask for any documentation if you believe is jot true. Kind regards. Sabu Mani

Wikipedia does not have profiles, Wikipedia has articles (profile is a social media term, but We are not social media). Autobiographys, while not forbidden, are strongely disocuraged, and there are reasons why a Wikipedia article might not nessesarely be desireable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:49:42, 19 February 2022 review of submission by Pepperlyl


Pepperlyl (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that you ask about Draft:Alshival, which was created by User:LWSHASE and has not been edited by you, and not about Draft:DR. AGIRIYE MONIMA HARRY, created by yourself which is the only page you have edited. Both these drafts are adverts for people who do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 17:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out Draft:DR. AGIRIYE MONIMA HARRY was created by User:Scicili, who also has no edits apart from that draft. --bonadea contributions talk 17:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:57:03, 19 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Joaquin89uy


Hi. I'm creating a draft on a NGO called Thirld World Network.

I consider the Org. to be relevant and important. To prove so, I added a specific reference to an Indian Newspaper in my article, this being India's The Economic Times. This Newspaper featured a list, which contained all its mentions of the NGO throughout the years. There are dozens upon dozens of these in there. This is explained by the fact that Third World Network is a very active global NGO, which was created back in the mid-80's. On the other hand, the aforementioned newspaper is also very famous and esteemed in India, of its own accord. I chose a list instead of any specific news article because I found it a more clear depiction of the amount of attention the NGO has got over the decades.

Apart from this, to support the existence and basic historical facts of the NGO, I cited three other NGO's websites, which contain a specific article about the existence and basic historical facts of the aforementioned NGO. There are many more NGO's' websites with articles about TWN on the web, of course.

All these things considered, the article has been nevertheless rejected again today. As a solution, I thought I could cite specific mentions of the NGO in the aforementioned Newspaper or in other newspapers from around the world, or maybe another list of these, as I already did once. Citations risk getting bulky though.

Also, should I delete the other NGO's articles on this NGO's background? I might be left with no such background reference. Or I could search for it in news articles. It may be hard, though, as articles are mostly focused on what articles are focused on, a.k.a. the topic at hand, and not necessarily historical backgrounds of things. But I might be wrong on that.

PS: The article itself is only a stub.

Thanks for reading. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin89uy (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joaquin89uy: the issues with your sources is none of them provide significant coverage, they only prove the organization exists. What you need to do is find sources which discuss the subject in greater detail on their own accord and not connected to the subject. Then you need to base the draft off these sources. If you cannot find these sources then the organization probably isn't notable enough for inclusion. Please see WP:NCORP, WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:40, 19 February 2022 review of submission by Lexii60


Okay then, So what can I do more to make this article to be approved, Because I'm unable to find more resources to proof to you guys that this person is very notable to the public. And the last thing before I go is this person is an Animator and an Artist he also has he's website about them.Lexii60 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Lexii60 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lexii60. The draft will not be accepted for publication because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability (inclusion) guidelines. There is nothing you can do about that, no amount of editing will fix it. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

04:12:32, 20 February 2022 review of submission by TLAGTeam


This page is not unambiguously promotional, because there are over 34,200 impressions made from people looking for adult gymnastics classes and how to train like a gymnast. The founder, Danielle Gray, is a public figure and notable in the fitness industry. The article was written neutrally with only facts, information and no persuasive language. Although short, three of the references were from national publications.

TLAGTeam (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TLAGTeam: We don't accept arguments by bizarre definition, and we don't accept investment brochures such as what you've written. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:06:02, 20 February 2022 review of submission by Deep Bishnoi0029


Deep Bishnoi0029 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deep Bishnoi0029: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This would be a slam-dunk no-context or no-content deletion if it were in mainspace. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:17:58, 20 February 2022 review of draft by Hksq


Hi. I’m looking for guidance on how to improve a page that was submitted for consideration and declined.

The page is about Stephen O’Meara, who is an important figure in the visual astronomy community: he’s been an editor and monthly columnist with Astronomy (the astronomy magazine with the largest circulation) for about 15 years; he is a noted visual astronomer, and has made two noteworthy scientific visual observations (spokes in Saturn’s B-ring before the arrival of Voyager and the rotation period of Uranus) and one other noteworthy but non-scientific observation (the first visual recovery of Comet Halley); he’s published about a dozen books with reputable publishers; he’s received awards for his observations and his work to popularize astronomy; and he’s been featured in a book and movie on visual astronomy. At the suggestion of comet-hunter David Levy, the IAU named a minor planet in his honor.

Specifically, I’m trying to figure out whether the rejection is because this person is not sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a page or whether because the references do not adequately support his noteworthiness. I’d be grateful for guidance. Thanks.

Hksq (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:36, 20 February 2022 review of draft by Charlesbooth12


Hello, I have a question about sources. My draft got declined due to a lack of sources, however, I noticed that another article uses Twitter to cite the birthdate of Swedish rapper bladee. I was just curious as to what the minimum requirements (if there are any) of citing twitter for posts from the musician themselves, or rather, if that is even allowed. Also, to cite the dates of albums, I used discogs in my citations as well, however I was told this is also not a reliable source. Why is that the case? Thanks. Charlesbooth12 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A verified Twitter account can be used in limited circumstances as a source, for purely factual points like a birth date, see WP:TWITTER. It cannot be used to establish notability. Discogs is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:35:03, 20 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Therealbollocksgang


hi, why was our article declined? Cheers

Therealbollocksgang (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Therealbollocksgang Wikipedia is not a place for groups to tell the world about themselves; a Wikipedia article about your group must 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. Please see your user talk page for important information regarding your username. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:58, 20 February 2022 review of submission by Makgeeky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhanda_(prophet)

Makgeeky (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article Makhanda (Prophet) is full of inaccuracies and needs to be amended or deleted completely. The history is not certain, the sources are unreliable.

Makgeeky This page is for seeking assistance with writing a draft. Please use the article talk page, Talk:Makhanda (prophet), to discuss concerns with that article. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:20:42, 20 February 2022 review of draft by Shortiefourten


Hey everyone! Thanks to Omni, healthcare has been swamped and I've been shirking my duties here to my own Wiki-work to look after "patriots"...but here I am on my only day off for the foreseeable future hoping to solve the issue with this draft! Let's do this...

So, the question is why a single page for two parks? This wasn't laziness or neglect. That's dishes left overnight in the sink by my husband. Here's the basic basis - the two parks are joined at the hip. Here's how:

  • Both founded/donated in the early 20th century; Dobson in 1905, McFadden, 1912...
  • Both have a shared history of starts and failures of getting up and running as full-fledged parks for decades...
  • Both saw traction as completed parks in the 1940's and 50's...
  • Both suffered from vandalism and neglect, simultaneously in the 1960's into the 21st century...
  • Decades of local vernacular and reporting listing the two parks together, known as the "top of the hill parks"
  • Located on the Chehalis city Hillside District, side-by-side...
  • While not directly sharing a border, the parks are separated by about 150 feet at their closet contact points...
  • The two parks share a trail, the Dobson-McFadden Trail...
  • They're both named/donated from early pioneers of Chehalis...
  • And finally, the are sadly both closed (almost at the exact time, too)

So, that was my reasoning to join the two in one page. They are just consistently joined to one another. Something happens at Dobson, McFadden follows. McFadden gets a news story, Dobson gets one, too. From a local perspective, this would make sense. The two parks are twins, in a sense. In the lede, I wrote about this "joined-at-the-hip" scenario and I do admit I am not no Inglisch scholar, but maybe that could have been written more clearly?

What better and more experienced editors here feel is best suited for these two parks is fine by me. Splitting the two off onto their own pages? I'll do that! Reword the existing draft to let the reader know the synonymous nature of the two parks! Let me see if some of my old English teachers are still alive and I'll get to work on it...

So, didn't try to circumvent any rules or be a burden or nuisance. It just made sense to combine the two parks...simply because that's what the city and people of Chehalis do.

Alright, time to enjoy my day off before me and my fellow healthcare workers have to deal with the glut of surgeries and medical care postponed by "patriotism"! Make sure to thank anyone you know who is employed in healthcare...we are going thru some, uh, excrement.

Thanks, Shortiefourten (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Shortiefourten (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: When you draftified Draft:Parks and Recreation in Chehalis, Washington and Draft:John Dobson and McFadden Parks on 10 December 2021, you wrote in your edit summaries: "improper move of AFC draft without reviewer approval". WP:AFC is an optional process for most users. Generally speaking, no reviewer approval is required to move a draft to article space. Would you elaborate on why you require these two pages to be reviewed at AFC rather than simply taking their chances in article space? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Giving new users the option to bypass AFC review and move their work into mainspace themselves literally defeats the entire purpose of AFC even existing at all, which was to control the excessive creation of bad articles that aren't ready for prime time by new users who don't actually understand what's required. So if users have free rein to submit their work to the AFC review queue and then immediately move it into mainspace themselves, then there's inherently no purpose in the AFC review queue even existing at all — and that's especially true if they move it into mainspace with the AFC submission template still on the page, with the result that Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space has any contents in it at all. That category needs to be empty at all times, so if it's ever found to be non-empty that must be fixed immediately.
But resolving that issue means looking at the page with my "would I have been able to approve this if I were conducting a proper AFC review on it?" glasses — and if the answer to that question is no (as it was for both of those pages as of December 10), then just walking away from it simply isn't an option. The only choices at that point are to either move it back into AFC, or list it for an AFD discussion, and listing it for an AFD discussion would be done in the full knowledge that the AFD would also inevitably conclude as "move back to draftspace" anyway, because that's exactly what AFD does when drafts that were prematurely moved to articlespace before they were ready for articlespace actually end up at AFD.
So the snowball clause pertains: if just leaving it untouched isn't an option, then why bother putting it through a full week of AFD just to end up with the page back in draftspace anyway, instead of just moving it back to draftspace immediately? If I come across a page like that and it actually would have been approvable, then obviously I just remove the template and categorize the page where it's supposed to be — but if the page would not have been approvable, as neither of those pages were as of December 10, then I can't just leave it without doing anything about it: it's either back to AFC or over to AFD, and there's no third way in that situation — and just moving it back to draftspace immediately is far less bitey than taking it to AFD, to boot. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

02:55:32, 21 February 2022 review of draft by ChinthakaGK


Hi Dear all, This is my first submission and I have got some notes on this, could you please point out which sentence/s that I need to modify or remove. ChinthakaGK (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asked (and I expect will be answered) at Teahouse, so I see no need for a reply here. David notMD (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:24, 21 February 2022 review of submission by Adrai

@KylieTastic what are the concrete steps/information needed for the submission to be accepted? For example, what is missing compared to this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrase_(software) Adrai (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:14, 21 February 2022 review of draft by Chillibee


Hi I tried to publish an article about the geologic museum 'focusTerra' at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich). After a first revision, the added references have not been accepted as 'published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject' (comment by user Theroadislong). There has also been left a comment by user DGG saying 'museums are usually notable'. May I please ask you to double-check if there still is need to revise the article (i.e., add more references)? Cheers

Chillibee (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:36:26, 21 February 2022 review of submission by LodoVena


LodoVena (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC) gadchiroli bagiya tabana — Preceding unsigned comment added by LodoVena (talk • contribs) 09:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you SURE you want to edit in this topic area? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:55:45, 21 February 2022 review of draft by LemanXL


Hi, please indicate what I need to add and what part I need to add to confirm. Information has not been shared for 2 weeks

LemanXL (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LemanXL: This draft is written as an advertizement, and a pretty blatant one at that. What is your connexion to Locavis? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:09, 21 February 2022 review of submission by Emmy1707

Hello, I have a question about reliable sources. The article (Draft:Philipp Hochmair) was declined twice because the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I have added the filmography and a few newspaper articles, but I don't know if that is enough. It would be a great pity if the article is declined a third time. Thank you very much for the support.Emmy1707 (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Emmy1707 (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:58, 21 February 2022 review of submission by Pat-obg-79


Hello, my item was rejected twice. This article already exists in the German Wikipedia. Why was the article rejected in English Wikipedia? This is the german article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMA_CAD-Software This is the draft of the english version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SEMA_3D_CAD/CAM_Software

Pat-obg-79 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pat-obg-79 Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. Please read the comments left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:04, 21 February 2022 review of draft by Abraham Abdul Miel Smith


Abraham Abdul Miel Smith (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am Smith Miel a Gambian artist bone on july 18th 1998 real name Abraham Abdul Smith sing in Dancehall Hip Hop Ragga father name James Smith mother Awa Kamara sister Divine Joy Smith born in the sierra leone from the gambia, fajara

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:01, 21 February 2022 review of submission by Jonknox12


Hi all,

For a little while now, I have been trying to get this draft approved for Denise C. Park, a researcher at The University of Texas at Dallas, and have received a lot of feedback about sourcing information. I do currently believe that the current edition's sources match Wikipedia's guidelines, and I have added a stub template, since the current draft is far from encyclopedic. Is there anything more that needs to be done, or should this article be ok for approval?

Any and all responses are greatly appreciated!

Thank you, Jonknox12 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonknox12 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1073237080"