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 Liptapp (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 15 March 2022 (→‎17:08:33, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Liptapp: Reply). 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


March 9

00:27:37, 9 March 2022 review of submission by 92.53.57.220


92.53.57.220 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:24:29, 9 March 2022 review of submission by Dgregory4


Dgregory4 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Dgregory4 Dgregory4 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:46:14, 9 March 2022 review of submission by AllOfUsAreDeadFan4565

How do I put an Country Flag on a template

AllOfUsAreDeadFan4565 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:10:59, 9 March 2022 review of submission by Johnmclane2

Hello, this article got declined and the tag said to ask for help here, without any other explanation and also I was not given a chance to resubmit again. First, I am a paid editor hired by the subject to help him and I have already disclosed my association. Second, as the subject has explained to me and as you can see from the history, the page was declined before and deleted in AFD, but this version of the page is completely different, much improved and he has had many new articles about him since 2020, so the page should not be solely declined based on the past AFD and should be looked at from scratch. Please let me know if someone can review it and tell me what the issues are. Subject has over 50 citations used here, and probably at least 30+ more that I didn't use. Johnmclane2 (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Johnmclane2 (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to add that he meets WP:ENT due to several main roles on several TV shows, as follows:
Catfish on MTV
Dating #NoFilter on E! and VH1
Phone Swap on FOX
Women of Wrestling, Several episodes on AXS TV
Magic For Humans on Netflix
Face the Truth on NBC
Justice for All with Judge Cristina Perez on Court TV
Investigating Free Money on FOX

Thanks. Johnmclane2 (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:10:24, 9 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SourceRight


hello... i need help with creating the page for actress jonita doda. can u please guide or give contact of the right person to create the content.thanks 14:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)SourceRight (talk)

SourceRight (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SourceRight Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Your draft article was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the correction. since it was my first contribution i wasn't a pro. but i have edited the article completely as advised. so can u please guide me on how to re submit it. SourceRight (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i have made all the changes and have added new primary , secondary resources , inline citations. besides the article subject is a notable person who has won many awards for her contribution to the film industry.

SourceRight (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SourceRight For further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. If you actually have new information that was not in the draft when it was reviewed, you must appeal to the last reviewer directly. Your username seems like it is that of a company; if so, you must rename your account immediately to have a more individualistic username; you may request a rename at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. Please also read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thankuu SourceRight (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:43:08, 9 March 2022 review of draft by Claire Leaf


Claire Leaf (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Leaf You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can this submission now be reviewed and suggestions made please. Draft:Seizure Rescue Breath Claire Leaf (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to resubmit the draft; you must click "resubmit" at the bottom of the box at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate advice on any further reviews required before the submission can be accepted. Claire Leaf (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Seizure Rescue Breath Seizure Rescue Breath submission declined by @Robertsky 4 days ago. Comment: Before pushing this article to the mainspace, the sentences: Seizure Rescue Breath provides an alternative approach to stopping seizures. The simple technique can be applied as part of the patients current Seizure Emergency Care Plan, in consultation with the individual’s medical team. needs to be addressed.

I have edited the submission to remove sentences flagged and added detail requested. please advise on how I can progress this submission as it is my first one and has taken several months already. Thanks in advance!! Claire

Claire Leaf (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated the two sections you created and changed your url to a standard internal link. Please edit this existing section for additional comment instead of creating new sections. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:02, 9 March 2022 review of submission by Ziaurrehman76


Ziaurrehman76 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ziaurrehman76 You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Please also review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:36, 9 March 2022 review of submission by Zaher Ibrahim Alzahrani


Zaher Ibrahim Alzahrani (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't cite Wikipedia or crypto exchanges, and Twitter and the subject's own website are worthless for notability as Wikipedia defines it. This draft falls into the cryptocurrency/blockchain/NFT topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day

Thank you for allowing me to try amending my article, I have tried my best and added external links and citations. 

 please assist as this is very critical to the purpose of the group that took allot of efforts to build.

Zaher Ibrahim Alzahrani (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I just said above, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, and all of your sources are completely useless from a WP:Notability standpoint. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

01:15:43, 10 March 2022 review of draft by GK1975


Please help me to improve my draft article, I like understand that what is missing as it already has a couple of secondary references with coverage about the article. Please suggest as per your best knowledge. GK1975 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is crammed with buzzwords, and all the sources are of unknown provenance. OP has since been blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: FYI, this has been submitted by at least four accounts and one IP under at least two different draft titles (Draft:PERICENT, Draft:Pericent), four of which were here: GK1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the apparent sockmaster Pericentjaipur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dravis williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the 7th. From the archive I also found Sanskriti88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 122.160.153.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:37:53, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Zarwara


Zarwara (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarwara: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Most of the sources are of unknown provenance, and the two that aren't are a (walled) interview (connexion to subject) and a Google search (too sparse). None of the proffered external links are any good as sources, either. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:15:49, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Loljack1

My article about the band, Tinman Jones was denied and I was asked to come here for the reason why. Loljack1 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loljack1 The reason for the decline was given by the reviewer at the top of your draft. You offer only the band website as a source, that is not acceptable as it is a primary source. A Wikipedia article about a band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(not based on materials put out by the band like interviews, press releases, announcements) to say about the band, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Please read Your First Article. If there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that discuss the band, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every band does. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Loljack1 (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:51, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Meiwuzhang

Hi, this is the editor Meiwuzhang and I would like to ask why is my draft declined for the article 'Open: A Boy's Wayang Adventure'. This is my second article I have created. I joined a few months ago. Could you tell me what I am missing or how can I improve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiwuzhang (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:57, 10 March 2022 review of draft by Rillington


Rillington (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that yet again my article about West Wolds Radio has been rejected and no matter what I do it continues to be rejected.

First i was told that my references were not acceptable so i find additional independent references, this time from articles about the station in the local printed media. However I am still being told that the references do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Given that my references are about the subject and published in reliable independent sources I do not understand why they are deemed unacceptable.

I also do not understand why talking about the opening and closure of the station makes it not notable. Writing about the history of the station is surely an important part of any article? Plus most other articles about radio stations do not go into detail about programming but these articles aren't coming up against this level of opposition.

Please can I receive genuine help with this article and not have it rejected on what seems to be opinion, and for ever more petty and spurious reasons, rather than a breach of rules as frankly I am starting to feel that an example is being made out of me and this article given that no matter what I do it keeps getting rejected. Rillington (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rillington I would correct you in that your draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean it could not be resubmitted. The problem with your sources is not the sources themselves, but their content. They only discuss routine business activities, which does not establish that the radio station meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is looking for significant coverage in independent reliable sources; coverage that goes beyond merely documenting the existence of the topic or its routine activities. What makes this radio station important?(rhetorical question) Mere existence is not enough. If it had a notable impact on its community, then the draft should primarily summarize and cite sources that discuss that community impact(did it influence government policies? Cause more businesses to open in town? things like that). If no independent reliable sources discuss that impact, the station would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. If you just want to document the existence of the station and tell the world about it, you should use social media, your own website, or other forum with less stringent requirements.
Please read other stuff exists. The existence of or content of other articles has no bearing on your draft. Each is considered on their own merits. It is probably true that other articles on radio stations have inappropriate content or are entirely inappropriate. This is a volunteer effort with people doing what they can, when they can, and as such it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out in managing the over six million articles there are, feel free to identify other articles that do not meet guidelines for possible action. We could use the help, and it would be appreciated.
You are not being singled out here. There are numerous draft submissions every day from thousands of people, and thousands of drafts awaiting review, many of which will be treated the same. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a most helpful reply. I appreciate that it's a tough job for 1,000 administrators to patrol a project with over six millions articles but i do feel as though this, and two other articles - Morning Edition and Five Aside - have fallen foul of frankly rather tight rules despite providing good, reliable sources and when this keeps happening it becomes upsetting as it makes people like me feel as though my efforts aren't appreciated and that no matter how hard i try to obey these rules, I keep having articles effectively rejected. Rillington (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all editors manage articles, not just admins. Those two drafts you mention are each sourced to nothing but BBC websites, which are not independent sources. Some topic areas (like radio or news programs) are difficult to write about, as news/broadcasting organizations do not often write about each other. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your reply. I am still puzzled however as to why the sources that I have used for my West Wolds Radio are not showing significant coverage when both sources are articles about the station and are not passing references, and both are independent of the subject. I can see why this might be an issue for the two Radio 5 programme articles but not for West Wolds Radio. Rillington (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:33, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Liptapp

Can you help me solve the issue about publishing my article it says it appears to read more like an advertisement. But it is not an advertisement. Liptapp (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely an advertisement! “The mattresses are sold with a 101-night sleep trial, lifetime warranty, and mattress financing options.”

“The Puffy Lux Hybrid Mattress has six layers, including a patented stain-resistant cloud cover and contour-adapt coil technology.” “The original Puffy Mattress has five layers of memory foam, including the Cooling Cloud Foam.” “All products are sold online.” etc etc This is all just advertising and has no place on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liptapp: I would agree it looks like an advertisement. Please keep in mind that advertisement wording in Wikipedia does not necessarily mean you are trying to sell something. It can mean that the wording used in the page is of a tone used to tout the subject of the page, specifically by using language typical of advertising. As an example, "The Puffy Lux is also ranked first as the best-rated mattress by online mattress review company Best Mattress Online," is the type of language that the company would care about but isn't something that the reader of an encyclopedia cares about. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 I really appreciate your findings this is the first time I created an article, I will fix those content. Also I have a question the logo I use is from Puffy itself and it is flag as copyright, can you help me to fix the copyright issue with the logo I upload. Thanks Liptapp (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Thank you for your review I will fix the content, I really appreciate your findings this is the first time I created an article. Also I have a question the logo I use is from Puffy itself and it is flag as copyright how can I solve that issue as well can you help me. Thanks Liptapp (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liptapp:, first things first. Let's address the issue that is flagged on the page. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 I'm not getting paid for this article and I'm not related or any of my family to Puffy. Liptapp (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 so what will be the best option. Liptapp (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41What if they will approach me and ask me for editing and there will be compensation? Liptapp (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they? Theroadislong (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I'm not sure this is my first time writing an article, and I'm not sure what will I do if they approach me in case they reach out to me. I know Wikipedia should be free it's for general public. Liptapp (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I know I am not WP:AGF here, but I simply don't believe that someone would come to Wikipedia simply to write a promotional article about a pillow company without having some connection to it. I normally offer a lot of help to people who have a WP:COI but at this point I will say you will need to gain the WP:CIR on your own to clean up the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:56, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Macquigg

I got a message: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." with no further explanation. I can only guess that the sources were not acceptable, because they are documents published by the company producing the reactor. This will be true for all the articles on different reactors I would like to submit. There is no other reliable source of information on these reactors. Can we make these articles less about a specific design? I don't think so. To provide definitive answers to questions raised by the anti-nuclear community, we really need to see the details of each design. Then if there is still controversy, the issue can be settled with a quick point-counterpoint on the discussion page. A good example is the question about vulnerability of MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors) to diversion of nuclear material. The Union of Concerned Scientists has stated that ALL MSRs are vulnerable, due to on-site fuel processing. See the Talk page on this article for the response from the designer of this reactor. Can we get someone from the Engineering group to weigh in on this? David MacQuigg 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Macquigg:, thanks for the question. The comment left by Nirmaljoshi is that the sources need to be WP:I. In order to show notability, the sources must be independent. Using a self-published source to explain or show certain items within the draft is acceptable (depending), but the independent sources are needed to show why the topic qualifies for a Wikipedia page. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Thanks for your prompt reply. I am still confused, however. The comment by Nirmaljoshi was that the article didn't have reliable sources. Where can we find more reliable information on the details of each reactor design? There is no better source than the spec sheets and other documents on the websites of these companies. I understand that there may be some claim that this information is not reliable, but I know of no better source. Perhaps we should say this in the article - "The company claims that their reactor can follow changes in loading at a rate of 5% per minute." and then link to their spec sheet.
I don't know what you mean by a "self-published source". I have no connection with ThorCon Inc, or any of the companies producing the new generation of reactors that claim to solve all the problems with safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. I have no self-promotion motive in writing these articles. I just want to provide a shorter path for others who are where I was a few months ago, just waking up to the possibility that nuclear fission could be the solution to our global warming problem.
There are plenty of general sources on nuclear reactor design, but they don't provide the details needed to answer the questions coming up in discussions on FaceBook and other social media. I've given two examples - diversion of material from an MSR, and load following. Another that came up on FaceBook this morning - the difficulty of reprocessing spent fuel. I responded with a link to a video on another MSR design (not ThorCon). These discussions can go unresolved forever, if we don't have specific designs to look at. That is the purpose of these articles - one for every new design, showing the details (as stated by the companies producing these reactors), and collecting the critical information in a consistent format, so we can compare one design to another.
Please find someone with an interest in nuclear engineering to review this submission and give specific feedback, not just a template response. David MacQuigg 02:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job to "find someone with an interest in nuclear engineering" to review the submission. In fact, that is an argument from authority and it wouldn't make any difference since such person who have to evaluate the draft based on Wikipedia guidelines, not their knowledge of the topic. What is comes down to is FIRST showing that the topic is notable. In order to do so, you must show they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You will find the answers to most of your questions at those links. If such sources don't exist, then it would not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia and a page cannot be created. Only AFTER notability is established should we discuss what claims can be made to secondary or primary sources and whether it would be okay to say the "company claims...", etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I want to point out that the reviewer left the notificaiton of it needing more reliable sources, but the comment states specifically "Comment: Please add independent sources."--CNMall41 (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Thank you for the clarification on requirements for independent sources on these new designs. I will check with the companies producing these reactors and see if any such sources exist. My guess is that there are only videos and discussions in forums like FaceBook that may be challenged as unreliable. This puts new reactor designs at a disadvantage in the misinformation war, but that is perhaps a better topic to discuss in another forum. Thank you and @Nirmaljoshi for all your help. I will withdraw the submission. David MacQuigg 12:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum for clarifying misinformation. Wikipedia is here to summarize what is said in reliable sources. Withdrawing the submission is likely the best option if there are no independent reliable source to who its notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 I contacted ThorCon, and they suggested I use as sources the documents they filed with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). These provide a tremendous amount of detail on reactor designs, and are thoroughly reviewed before publication. They are also more tedious reading than the documents on the company websites. So there is a choice, and I will go with your recommendation. On statements where there might be a challenge, I can cite the IAEA docs. On statements that really shouldn't be challenged, and the reader just wants a little more detail, I can cite the more readable sources. I can also put both citations on each statement, as I have done in references [16][17]. Please look at these two, and let me know if I am on the right track. I will then make all the changes before re-submitting the article and contacting other companies for similar official documents.
I appreciate your efforts in this initial screening process, and I apologize if I seemed impatient or unclear as to my motive in requesting review by someone with an interest in nuclear engineering. I am definitely NOT intending to make an "argument from authority". I am not familiar with Wikipedia's process, and I mistakenly assumed that this was an automated rejection of a high-quality article on an important topic. I will be more patient with the initial screening and welcome later reviews by people with more expertise in this topic. David MacQuigg 00:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:27, 10 March 2022 review of submission by SourceRight

i made the edits as i was advised to. but im really confused about the notability factor as the subject is quite notable and has been covered widely in al the sources required by wikipedia primary , secondary etc. i had attached new citations and references. ill leave it at it.--SourceRight (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC) SourceRight (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:28, 10 March 2022 review of submission by 9072Billy-Joel8719


You see this is for my school comedy class and I decided for extra credit I will make a deep rooted 21 century humor related joke via use of Wikipedia. It would the world to me if this article gets published so I can exceed expectations on my comedy assignment for class.

Sincerely, 9072Billy-Joel8719 9072Billy-Joel8719 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not your personal joke book - drafts without any encyclopedic content or value will not be accepted or published, no exceptions. -Liancetalk/contribs 18:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:55:44, 10 March 2022 review of draft by Flurrious


Tanya X. Short is featured in at least 3 different reviews:
https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/02/20-women-in-gaming-you-should-know/
https://www.pcgamer.com/8-people-shaping-pc-gaming-at-the-start-of-the-decade/
https://www.insightssuccess.com/seven-notable-women-in-the-online-gaming-industry/

Would the above sources be enough for notability? If so, I'll base another draft on them without primary sources.


Flurrious (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Flurrious: Only the PC Gamer article would unambiguously help; the other two are perfunctory listicles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 11

01:16:19, 11 March 2022 review of draft by Seraphinas3


I am writing an article on Common Good, which is a non-profit I am working for and overseeing the member relations and development. I was wondering if a coverage by WEMU radio (Eastern Michigan Public Radio Station) would make the organization a valid entry. It is an interview, so someone from the organization is talking about it, but it is a regional outlet so I wanted to ask about it regardless. Thank you in advance for your feedback. the coverage is here: https://www.wemu.org/wemu-news/2014-04-08/organizers-hold-meeting-on-rcredits-community-currency Seraphinas3 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphinas3 Interviews are primary sources and as such do not establish notability. A Wikipedia article should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphinas3 You'll also want to read WP:COI since you are connected to the subject. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:17, 11 March 2022 review of submission by 106.220.100.107


106.220.100.107 (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Landing

18:58:19, 11 March 2022 review of submission by TipsyElephant

The podcast Draft:Blind Landing is clearly notable but was rejected because the editor who started the article had a conflict of interest. I wouldn't mind working on the draft and removing tone and pov problems before resubmitting the article through AFC. I'm also an AfC reviewer and was wondering if I have the ability to reinstate the draft, do I just have to press the "clean submission" button? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more documentation on rejecting a draft or documentation on cleaning a submission? I read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions back when applying for the AfC helper script, but there is only a couple sentences on each topic and they don't exactly go into depth. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:48, 11 March 2022 review of submission by Junchoshi

I added more information. Junchoshi (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:05:48, 11 March 2022 review of draft by Jcwsandiego


Hello - I need help because my article was first declined for having too many internal references and then denied for not having enough external references. In my article, I referenced the Nature publication that put Micronoma on the map for scientific discovery. What other kind of reference do you need to validate my article? Thanks for your help!

Jcwsandiego (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcwsandiego: You should read WP:COI. Only insiders would include the TM symbols. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:33, 11 March 2022 review of draft by StevenOliveGarden


Hello! I am wondering how I can amend my draft to make it read less as a promotional/advertisement style page or resume. I was considering if it might be wise to remove the section that lists out all of the talks that Ross has participated in, particularly because that doesn't seem to be backed by a lot of secondary sources and is mostly backed by primary sources such as Facebook events and Google Calendar events from the respective organizations.

Also, I was hoping for some guidance as to how I can resolve the issue of overlinking! I went back and tried to remove some and make it a little cleaner, but I'm not sure how much that changed it.

Thank you to anyone who can provide some further guidance and advice! :-)

StevenOliveGarden (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StevenOliveGarden. Removing the talks is a good idea, one that I see another editor has already put into effect. I advise extending the idea to the list of publications. The title of his master's thesis can be mentioned when discussing when and where he received his degree. The journal articles aren't worth mentioning unless they've had significant impact, as evidenced by high citation counts or people writing about them.
With regards to links, ask yourself whether reading a linked article would deepen a reader's understanding of your topic. Reading YouTuber might, but if they've read that, do they really need to read 13,000 words about the history of YouTube, its technology, products, finances, etc.? YouTube, like Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, and Google is a common term. Assume readers have basic familiarity with them. If that isn't enough to understand what you've written, expand your text with context, such as "Google, the parent company of YouTube," rather than making the reader follow a link to more information than they need. A link to South Shore Greenfield Park might help readers understand what it was like to grow up there, but if they've read that, do they also need to read Quebec, and Canada? When there are related terms, link only the most specific one. This concept also applies to double mastectomy and top surgery, and to Section 230 and Communications Decency Act. Is there anything in Montreal General Hospital or United States magistrate judge that helps readers understand Ross? Ask yourself these questions about every link; you should be able to remove 10-20. See WP:LINK for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Worldbruce,
Thank you so much! That helped a lot and that clarified a lot more about the overlinking, especially to figure out where I should cut down. I removed the list of publications, although I was admittedly sad to see them go. I felt that they were particularly notable because I found his works to be a particularly valuable source for research papers on the subject of trans masculinity and body modifications, but I also understand that that's a pretty niche interest that isn't as widely cited within academia. I really appreciate the guidance!!
I guess what I'm considering now is how else I can improve it to read less like an advertisement, or if at this point it seems valid for resubmission. This totally isn't just directed for you; I absolutely invite anyone to provide any insight as to whether I should edit it a bit more or if it seems all right to try resubmitting it! StevenOliveGarden (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

00:12:36, 12 March 2022 review of submission by Mohsman


I have tried to publish a page for the American Society For Mohs Surgery (ASMS). There are currently two major Mohs surgery societies in the USA. The other group, the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), already has a Wikipedia page. So, I modeled the draft for the ASMS almost exactly the same as the ACMS article. Indeed, several of the secondary references are the same.

Almost immediately, it was rejected because the references " they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Yet, the references are in some cases identical and in all cases of the same significant coverage as the ACMS. Yet, the Wikipedia "Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)" guidelines says this does not apply to "non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams."

The ASMS is of nearly identical membership size and influence as the ACMS within the profession of dermatology. Please advise what additional references I can provide to prove "notability" as the secondary references already supplied would seem to be sufficient.

Thanks Mohsman (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsman (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsman Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles has no bearing on what happens to your draft. It could be that this other article is also inappropriate and simply has not been addressed yet(I may look at it after I post here). As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about.
The ACMS does not "have a Wikipedia page" here. Wikipedia has an article about the ACMS. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization and what it does. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. A professional association is not a non-profit educational institution(which is mostly high schools/universities) so it must meet that criteria. If no independent sources give the organization significant coverage, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time(even if another similar organization might). 331dot (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see some of the same problems with the ACMS article. I have marked it as problematic. I would advise against using other articles as a model unless they are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
thanks for your explanation. I appreciate you taking the time to answer.
The reason I noted the ACMS article is that their structure and function is nearly identical, and Mohs surgeons are often members of one or both. That is why I patterned the ASMS article on the ACMS one.
Thanks for the clarification on non-profits. I'm very new at editing pages and am clearly still on the steep portion of the curve.
Sincerely,
Mohsman (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:23, 12 March 2022 review of submission by Ronydip4


Ronydip4 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronydip4 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is a long way from being a Wikipedia article. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial and read Your First Article to learn more about Wikipedia, as well as spending much time editing existing articles, before attempting to create a new one, which is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:50, 12 March 2022 review of submission by Arbil44


Anne (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


May I have a second opinion, based on my "comment" following Clarityfiend's rejection? I would add, having studied the American Revolution for many years, I know for a fact that hundreds (thousands?) of Revolutionary War records have been lost or destroyed - especially, and particularly, where Militia officers are concerned. Robert Hicks did not claim a pension. Pension records are one of few surviving records for Militiamen, hence there are scarce sources for this particular officer. Mrs Cicero W. Harris makes the point that she has based her biographies on oral history passed down to her by the people who knew her subjects in their lifetimes. She thought Robert Hicks worthy of being her first-mentioned subject. This can be verified in her opening paragraph [1]. Could Cordless Larry comment, having suggested to me that I write this short article? Anne (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even in these better documented times, it is hard for a soldier to warrant an article. Just being brave isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You downgrade him further by calling him a "soldier", Clarityfiend. He was an officer. There are articles on Wikipedia for officers who have done less - qualifying simply because they were officers. Anne (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who for example? (Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came here for a "second opinion" Clarityfiend and yet you continue to express yours, which are known. I hope Cordless Larry will comment, since the article was written at his suggestion. He congratulated me; thought it would be accepted, but perhaps needed tweaking (without giving me specifics). Anne (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blocking you from getting a second or third opinion. I'm just trying to help you understand why this man does not satisfy our notability standards (WP:GNG, WP:BIO). I'm afraid Cordless Larry has raised false hopes. If you check Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count, you will see that he doesn't appear on it. I, on the other hand, have created 3070 pages. But since you are offended by my efforts, I will cease and desist. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Had you "turned down" the AfC in pleasant terms, with some thought to the feelings of the creator - indeed, much more so, the subject ('Tis well that a State should often be reminded of her great citizens.) - I would probably have left it at that. But you chose wording which did, indeed, "offend me". Furthermore Clarityfiend, you demean Cordless Larry, who is as first-class Administrator and also a volunteer who replies to the millions of emails sent in by members of the public, and Wikipedians. I can only imagine that leaves him little time for more than his full time job. Anne (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember discussing this but I can't find that discussion now, Arbil44. I see that Rusalkii previously suggested that Hicks might be notable but that more coverage was needed. Are all the sources you can find now cited in the draft? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, your comments were in an email, last year. Your suggestion was, I think, on the talk page of the Battle of Guildford Courthouse, or the wp article for a descendant of Hicks - whose name now escapes me. I will try to find your email again and email it back! However, the article is as sourced as it is possible for me to make it. I have explained that it would have been helpful had Hicks claimed a pension, but he didn't - the family was very wealthy, and I believe such families did not claim pensions. Anne (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be confusing me with Spencer at Talk:James W. Crawford Jr.#Ancestor of James Crawford, Arbil44. In any case, it doesn't really matter who suggested it - that doesn't really come into the notability question. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the email in which you made comments about the article and have returned it to you. Thank you for the reminder of James W. Crawford's name, which had escaped me, but as your email will attest, I am not confusing you with anyone else. Anne (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see from what you sent me that I congratulated you on creating the draft, which isn't quite the same as suggesting that you write it. But none of this really helps the matter at hand, which is whether the draft is acceptable. Can other reviewers comment on that, please? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A review of the sources, Wheeler- good source, Torch Light - Assuming the transcription is true and accurate, appears to be a good source(partisan paper of its time but that's not disqualifying). Its a good start but then you get to Spangler, Dar, Hicks, & Mayflower, none of which can contribute to notability. They prove existence, but existence is not notability. The lack of a third secondary source makes me agree that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines.Slywriter (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search of Google Books suggests there might be other sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Harris, Mrs Cicero W. (1878) Early Times In Granville County. Transcribed and contributed by Tina Tarlton Smith The Torch Light. p.1
Wow, thank you Cordless Larry! The first thing I did was to contact the people in Granville County (---@granvillecounty.org) and asked them if there were any sources of information about the Hicks family. The man in question was a close personal friend of James W. Crawford, so I thought I was right where I needed to be. But I was told a resounding "no" (other than the sources I have used) so, thinking I had gone to the horse's mouth, I only searched Hathitrust, but not Google books. I have my time cut out for me now, looking through that lot! I am so grateful to you for this help. Anne (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cordless Larry, that was an interesting exercise. It is no wonder I did not find these books on Hathitrust, because virtually all of them have been written in the 20th and 21st centuries, so the contents are copyrighted and only snippet views available. Really frustrating because a few of them would have been fascinating for me to read. I think they all relate to "the" Hicks family, in one way or another, which shows that they will always be integral to the history of America. I haven't, however, found the "golden nugget" which would change the situation on Wikipedia. I still think it is sad that such outstanding bravery is considered to be of no value whatsoever. Today, he would have been awarded the Victoria Cross. Please would you delete the draft and send it to its Wikipedia graveyard since I would like to put this chapter firmly behind me now? Many thanks. Anne (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before requesting deletion of the article, Arbil44, you might want to check whether any of the books are available to borrow electronically here, Arbil44, in case it helps you find something not visible via Google Books. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A kind thought. I did check on this one Brunswick County, Virginia, 1720-1975, but the answer was 'not available'. The sad fact is that this family were very involved in all aspects of life in New York, and the Southern States, in particular. I must console myself that they are mentioned here! ferry operation But the "outstanding" event was the act of bravery at Guildford Court House. This is of no interest to Wikipedia. This, plus the long wait, has been stressful for me, so I would like to put an end to it now, but thank you for your (as always) practical help. Anne (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Arbil44, draft now deleted. I'm sorry that this proved to be a waste of your time. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:11, 12 March 2022 review of submission by Mytom3

Dear, Team Why did you decline the page I created?

Mytom3 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mytom3 The reason for the decline was left by the reviewer at the top of the draft. Please review it, and the policies linked to therein, carefully, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:21, 12 March 2022 review of draft by 88.98.165.58


The citations mentioned include links to reputable sources, including a full writeup on Microsoft News specifically about 57Digital. But for some reason, the wikipedia page was rejected due to "mentions in passing". However, the sources are products created by 57Digital, and a full biography news article.

88.98.165.58 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An interview(the Microsoft News source you mention) is not acceptable, as it is a primary source. Sources must have significant coverage of the company itself, not just its products. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

02:36:24, 13 March 2022 review of submission by 69.172.148.230

What is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia in the entry that I created? Thanks! 69.172.148.230 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept plagiarised or otherwise copy-pasted text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:43:09, 13 March 2022 review of draft by Thomas Meng


Hi, my article on the most popular testing framework in Python (programming language) Draft:Pytest was declined for lack of secondary sources. The reviewer gave some suggestions afterwards on my talk page, and I followed them by adding more sources, including two more published books. I think the article is in very good shape now, but the previous reviewer seems unreachable. Please help review this article and any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Meng (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas Meng. The draft is in the submitted pool. It may be reviewed by the same editor who handled the first submission, or it may be reviewed by any of hundreds of other reviewers. The advantage of the latter is that the draft gets a fresh look by someone who may have different strengths, and may point out different problems. Submission and review is an iterative process. Please be patient, there are about 3000 other submissions waiting. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thanks for the explanation, and my apologies for being a bit impatient. But since Pytest is such a popular testing framework, I do worry that while in the long waiting process someone else might create a duplicate. Do you think it's a good idea to seek out a reviewer who knows Python programming to take a look at this article? Thomas Meng (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas Meng: In the decade or so of pytest's existence, no one else has written an encyclopedia article about it, so there's little risk of someone else doing so soon. And if they did, so what? There are no points here for being first. The purpose of Wikipedia is to give readers the best possible content. Whether that is arrived at by someone else editing something you started, or you editing something someone else started is immaterial. The draft is already advertised to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science and Wikipedia:WikiProject Software. That may shorten the review cycle by attracting a volunteer who would not be interested in reviewing any random draft, but one needn't be a Python programmer to evaluate the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:55, 13 March 2022 review of submission by Khabykalua9922


Khabykalua9922 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabykalua9922: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. We have no interest in what you want to say about yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:19, 13 March 2022 review of submission by Vychpedia

Hello, how am I able to find more sources for Lisa Oxenham? Vychpedia (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vychpedia Use your preferred search engine, your local library, newspaper archives. A Wikipedia article is not for merely documenting the existence of a topic, but for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic. If no such sources exist, showing how the topic meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, the topic would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:44:35, 13 March 2022 review of submission by Beth Wimmer

Dear Missvain, and Hello Wikipedia Experts and Help Volunteers I'd like to ask for a re-review, and/or some advice with this article. I would very much like to write other articles on Wikipedia - and i do edit articles sometimes, fixing grammar, fixing broken links, etc - but I would like to know more about what makes a successful Wikipedia article. I have read many things on Wikipedia, and read the feedback about my first attempt at an article... and i've implemented the feedback into my own first article, "Draft: Manfred Little Konzett". I would like to engage in a tiny conversation with you, or someone, as to why my article doesn't show notability, in your opinions. I have linked, within my article, to many other musicians' articles and many of them are very noteworthy. Some of the other musicians to whom I have linked my article (to their Wikipedia articles) do not seem very noteworthy at all, yet they HAVE Wikipedia articles about them. So my big, long question is: Why would Wikipedia say that a man who is still living, in his 40s, who has a giant, self-made business after having grown up on an Austrian farm, who is a keen networker, bringing together many aspects of music-gear manufacturers, a man who receives sponsorship from major microphone, headphones, and cable manufacturers (and those businesses' Wikipedia articles are now linked to Manfred Little Konzett's); a man who is a sought-after (by famous musicians: Judith Hill, Fred Wesley) music engineer, music producer and musician (drummer), who has been nominated for national music awards (in Austria), and who has worked with many famous people (who are noteworthy and have Wikipedia articles (Simon Phillips, Fred Wesley, Judith Hill, Adam Ben Ezra) of their own... and lastly, a man (Manfred Little Konzett) who has received citizenship in one of the hardest countries in the world from which to receive citizenship (Liechtenstein)...how is this a person who is not noteworthy? I don't ask because I have personal ties to the subject; i don't. I ask because in my opinion, and in the opinion of many people whom I know, who know this famous engineer, producer, musician (Manfred Little Konzett) either personally, or who know of him, all agree that this is a noteworthy person. A noteworthy person who will continue to work with more famous people, receive more press and notoriety. I also have in my possession, with permission to use, high quality, black and white professional photos to add to this article; yet they were rejected and deleted by Wikipedia. I knew it could and would take quite some time to have my first article published, but I really thought that Manfred Little Konzett would be a 'safe' person about whom to write my first Wikipedia article. So today I kindly ask for a re-review, and I truly look forward to your feedback. Thank you, Beth Wimmer (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)beth wimmer Beth Wimmer (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Wimmer (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: Because we don't do notability-by-osmosis. Being associated with people who are themselves notable per Wikipedia's definition does not make one notable themselves. I'll look over your sources shortly; watch this space. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beth Wimmer: Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Barring the three German newspaper sources (and those need someone who can read German to assess them) all of your sources are completely useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano - thank you so much for your quick and thorough input! ok, it helps to know and understand these things. ok, i'll see if there is some 'valid' new press. maybe it would be better if a german person wrote this article in german, for the german Wikipedia pages. ? thank you again! Beth Wimmer (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly; I cannot speak to the German-language Wikipedia's policies as that is a different project entirely. Different language-editions of Wikipedia set their own policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:12:42, 13 March 2022 review of draft by Mdgtrust


Mdgtrust (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/chop-suey-history on Chop Suey.
Authentic Chinese chef & Cecilia Chang, ( mentioned) refused to serve it !!! Mdgtrust (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]



I have been reading Wikipedia for a long time. The article you have on CHOP SUEY is NOT factual; just ask REAL CHINESE . I am a retired Bicultural & Bilingual Chinese educator.

Mdgtrust Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If you have such sources describing what chop suey is in China, please offer them on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Chop suey. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 14

00:31:18, 14 March 2022 review of draft by Taki60


Taki60 (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have spent more than one day time to get the page complete. It is purely for the community's good after I notice a lot of misinformation online.

It is a list of manufactories with additional information for the community. I don't know why the page content doesn't meet the content requirement. I haven't had all information filled in due to my limited available time. I hope to create the groundwork to let the community fill in any missing pieces. Please spell it out if anything is missing for publishing, but not a simple declined note.

Thanks.

@Taki60: We aren't a directory. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:36:50, 14 March 2022 review of submission by Wikiwikiuser23


Wikiwikiuser23 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the entry rejected?

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments, it is a place to summarize independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this page was not approved. Can anyone please inform me? Wikiwikiuser23 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwikiuser23 For additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. I've answered your question here. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:59:47, 14 March 2022 review of submission by Madhukaramgowda


Madhukaramgowda (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:33, 14 March 2022 review of submission by ChinthakaGK

If someone has visibility on my first submission which is National Green Front, what is the status of this article, it is a bit complicated to see the current status as it is not listed under the Pending AfC submissions.ChinthakaGK (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC) ChinthakaGK (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChinthakaGK: You have resubmitted Draft:National Green Front and its currently pending review. If yu don't see a giant yellow box at the draft's top, bypass your browser cache. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt Thank you very much for the update. Yes big yellow box is there, my worry was its been a few weeks and neither alerts nor couldn't find it under the pending list. ChinthakaGK (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:56, 14 March 2022 review of draft by Jwyatt123


Jwyatt123 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings, I hope to publish the draft for Nathan Kuppermann, chair of our Department at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine. I am unfamiliar with the submission process of Wikipedia and am unclear if patience or further information is needed.

Thank you.

Jennifer Wyatt

Jwyatt123 As noted on your draft, the review process "may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,853 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient, a volunteer will eventually review it. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:59, 14 March 2022 review of draft by Mmt21pf


My submission continues to get rejected. Can you please provide any insights on how I can improve so that is it approved.

Mmt21pf (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mmt21pf It has been declined, not rejected. I can't say anything beyond what reviewers have said. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. I had been declined several times. I'm not sure exactly how to correct in order to be approved. Does it make sense for me to delete and start over, submitting just a small portion at a time for approval? Or should I just trim the current submission back? Any thoughts you could provide on the best strategy for gaining approval would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Mmt21pf (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 15

00:05:45, 15 March 2022 review of draft by 2601:642:4C0C:C83:445B:87C1:46B1:58EC


Hello,

I made the Wiki "Drama.gg (Draft:Drama.gg)" I submitted it & has a couple questions on why it was removed:

- All sources were from the UK goverments website, or the forum site (drama.gg, the wiki's topic), - I am giving a open view about the forum & not being a one-sided opinion, I showed posts from Drama.gg to show a reference on almost everything. "Submission is about web content not yet shown to meet notability guidelines " Could you please be more vague, if a wiki about doxbin was allowed, why isn't this wiki allowed?

Thanks.

2601:642:4C0C:C83:445B:87C1:46B1:58EC (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "Wikipedia article", not "a wiki". A wiki is an entire website of which Wikipedia is one example.
Please read other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. It could be that this other article is also inappropriate. Because 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.
None of the sources you offer seem to be independent reliable sources. Any article about a website must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the website, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable website. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:06:32, 15 March 2022 review of submission by Kafoxe

Hello, I'd like to inquire about the declining of my draft for Dave Thomas. It was not approved on the basis that it fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, though the latter states "or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels". Thomas was an elected official in the Alabama House of Representatives, so would he not qualify in that regard? Most politicians serving in state legislatures have pages of their own, from what I can tell, some of whom I've worked on articles for in the past. I'd also like to know how specifically it fails GNG, so that the article could potentially be improved in the future and establish notability. I feel that many of the references in the article are rather in-depth, especially the ones concerning his gubernatorial candidacy, and come from reliable, secondary sources. Thank you. Kafoxe (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1077225957"