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 Michron777 (talk | contribs) at 19:49, 13 May 2022. 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


May 4

Request on 00:18:25, 4 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 49.36.237.225


the list of youth writers in India are missing on Wikipedia and this names are most considered amongust the youth of India.

49.36.237.225 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a slam-dunk no-context speedy deletion were it in mainspace. Contextless lists aren't acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:42:17, 4 May 2022 review of submission by Chunglibey


why was the article not authorised? the page used to exist and the picture is still available but the article isn't

Chunglibey (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is unsourced. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide multiple references to in-depth articles written about him in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books or online. Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:23, 4 May 2022 review of submission by 4aliesmailizadeh


4aliesmailizadeh (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ali Esmailizadeh
@4aliesmailizadeh: One source is never going to be enough to justify a Wikipedia article, and this goes double for articles about living or recently-departed people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:53, 4 May 2022 review of submission by Gus1182


Gus1182 (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC) I believe that the materials and resources given in this article are sufficient for approving, also biographical sources in External Links that reviewers didn't even say anything about it.[reply]

Gus1182 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If the reviewer made an error or there is new information that was not considered, you should appeal to the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok, delete it please Gus1182 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:19, 4 May 2022 review of submission by Awaad10


Awaad10 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:14, 4 May 2022 review of draft by 134.215.134.119


134.215.134.119 (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be deleted?
@134.215.134.119: If there were any sources, this could be the start of a video directors section in the National Football League article, but it's far from ready to be published. Here are instructions for requesting the draft to be deleted. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions. TechnoTalk (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:40:59, 4 May 2022 review of submission by Shizzreal


Shizzreal (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC) peace, please help...just trying to add the artist Dagha to wiki[reply]

@Shizzreal: The draft was deleted as blatant promotion. What is your connexion to Dagha? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
peace...i'm Dagha's manager...he helped mr lif and he has a page...please help me get Dagha a page Shizzreal (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shizzreal: We don't reward ignorance of the Terms of Use. Disclose. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jeske for your time and info. I apologize for the confusion. I'll have Dagha set up his own page? if i'm understanding correctly. also i didn't disclose money info cause in Underground Hip Hop there's no money to talk about. I do it for the love:) best regards to you Jeske! peace. Shizzreal (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As 331dot says below, "Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Please read other stuff exists". That means articles about something or someone, not pages for something or someone. Are there independent, published articles in newspapers or magazines that are about this artist? (Interviews are not independent.) If you have those sources, you could write a draft based on what those sources say. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:20:56, 4 May 2022 review of submission by CharlesCooper17

Hey, just wanted to create a wiki page for Amart Furniture as there are pages for similar companies such as Fantastic Furniutre and Freedom furniture. All of the information is similar and from similar sources yet this page has been rejected many times. I have edited the page so there is no links to the website and nothing promoting the company. Just information about. CharlesCooper17 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CharlesCooper17 Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Please read other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, as this company does not meet the definition of a notable company. If you work for this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to create a Wikipedia article** sorry about using the wrong word. Amart Furniture is a top 5 largest furniture retailer in Australia, I am unable to see where this company would not meet the definition of a notable company and also unable to see how this article does not meet Wikipedia standards. CharlesCooper17 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CharlesCooper17 The sources you have provided are inappropriate for establishing notability, as they consist of the company website, press release type stories, and announcements of routine business activities. Please read WP:ORG. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it is notable. Again, if you work for this company, you must disclose that per the Terms of Use. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesCooper17: Refer to the top table here:
In summary, the lot of your sources are garbage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:12, 5 May 2022 review of submission by Валерий Пасько

An article about an unconditionally significant person who was awarded the highest award of the USSR. After creating this article in the main space, one user literally did not give me a few hours to post sources and moved the article to the draft. Валерий Пасько (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


May 5

07:51:12, 5 May 2022 review of submission by Валерий Пасько

An article about an unconditionally significant person who was awarded the highest award of the USSR. After creating this article in the main space, one user literally did not give me a few hours to post sources and moved the article to the draft. Валерий Пасько (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:17:51, 5 May 2022 review of submission by Gus1182


please do something with this article, i'am waiting long time


Draft:The Other Me (2022 film)


Gus1182 (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gus1182 You have submitted it for review; as noted at the top of the draft, this could take months. Reviews are conducted by volunteers, doing what they can when they can, in no particular order(it is not a queue), Please be patient. There is no way to guarantee a speedy review. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what this page is for? for advices? Gus1182 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't requested advice, you asked for "something" to be done. I said there is no way to guarantee that. If you would like advice, please ask what you want advice about. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done 'something' with it, namely dealt with the copyvio. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes Of course, you are the best in that! Gus1182 (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gus1182 Why is reference 2 in there? It doesn't seem to be about this movie. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
are you sure???? Gus1182 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gus1182 Sorry, I was wrong. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:22, 5 May 2022 review of submission by Wiki UoD Dental

Hi, a reviewer @RPSkokie, claimed my team and my article: Draft:Drug-induced_gingival_enlargement has a copyright violation and has stated "Declining submission: cv - Submission is a copyright violation (AFCH 0.9.1)" Though I must emphasize care was taken to cite and reference correctly, my team and I may have done this wrongly. What can I do to resolve the alleged copyright violation so that the article gets published. Wiki UOD Dental is part of the Dental Wikipedia Initiative a student-led group based in Dundee, trying to create more dental health relate information to widen the assess of dental knowledge to the public. I look forward to hearing your response. Wiki UoD Dental (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki UoD Dental: We don't allow content that's been lifted wholesale or closely-paraphrased from a source that is under full copyright. (If the copyright terms are not stated, assume all rights reserved.) The best way to not have material deleted for copyright is to write it in your own words. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:30:02, 5 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Anupx


प्रदेश व देश के प्रमुख समाचार-पत्रों के संपादक पद को सुशोभित कर चुके श्री भास्कर राव रोकड़े एक प्रतिष्ठित लेखक व विचारक है। उन्होंने अब तक 30 पुस्तको का लेखन व कई पुस्तको का संपादन किया है। 

    उनके द्वारा म.प्र.के मंदसौर में किसानों पर पुलिस फायरिंग पर लिखी गई पुस्तक "पराकाष्ठा" देश-भर में चर्चित रही है। सन 2018 में विधानसभा चुनाव के समय छिंदवाड़ा जिले को सर्वांगीण विकास का मॉडल बताते हुए उनके द्वारा लिखी गई पुस्तक "छिंदवाड़ा मॉडल"के विमोचन में पूर्व मुख्यमंत्री वरिष्ठतम भाजपा नेता बाबूलाल गौर व तत्कालीन केंद्रीय राज्यमंत्री का दर्जा प्राप्त भाजपा नेत्री सुश्री अनुसुइया उइके (वर्तमान में राज्यपाल छत्तीसगढ़) के पुस्तक की परिचर्चा में भाग लेने से म.प्र.का चुनाव 'सर्वांगीण विकास के व्यापक दृष्टिकोण'पर केंद्रित हो गया था। इस प्रकार चुनाव के समय सर्वांगीण विकास के व्यापक दृष्टिकोण को सर्व-दलीय मान्यता दिलाकर उन्होंने अद्भुत रचनाशीलता का परिचय दिया।
   श्री रोकड़े लोकनीति के पैरोकार माने जाते है। राजनीतिक विश्लेषक व योजनाकार के रूप में भी वे चर्चा में रहे है। लेकिन उन्होंने कभी-भी प्रोफेशनल पोलिटिकल प्लानर  के रूप मे

Anupx (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anupx This is the English Wikipedia, contributions need to be in English. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:57, 5 May 2022 review of submission by ZaTruth YT

My article was declined and i wanted to ask why(:

ZaTruth YT (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the edit logs of your sandbox page, it was because the content was deemed as advertising for the subject, and misusing the Wikipedia as a webhost for said content. ValarianB (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:07, 5 May 2022 review of submission by Валерий Пасько

There were objections about the sources. As a result, dubious sources were removed as well as some fragments of the text.Валерий Пасько (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dpalazue/sandbox

21:10:05, 5 May 2022 review of draft by Dpalazue ==


Dpalazue (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission was blank it has no content, there is nothing to review. Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


May 6

12:22:54, 6 May 2022 review of submission by Agevenkat


Could you help me to create the page with Wiki standards, I need your suggestions to improve the article wiki ready, please help Agevenkat (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Aathi Jothi Babu was rejected because the topic is not notable. Patents confer zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

14:21:32, 7 May 2022 review of draft by WolfButcher


I need some help understanding rejection of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nestar_Systems on 3 April 2022, and how to fix it. The reviewer said "I did a quick search and the company is likely notable. However, in its current form it is promotional and many of the claims are not sourced. This needs to be rewritten completely due to its current tone."

-- I lead off with "was considered a pioneer in the industry" only to establish notability; the quote and the reference are to a news story published by Network World, not from the company.

-- The rest of the draft Wikipedia article is a pretty dry recitation of Nestar's history and products. Where reference is made to reviews, they are published by others ("PC Magazine said..."). There are 59 references, 83% of which are to material not produced by Nestar. That seems like a lot of references for a short article.

-- So I don't understand why this seems promotional, or how "many of of the claims are not sourced". I am at a loss as to how to approach "completely rewriting" it. Please help!

WolfButcher (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WolfButcher: Are you familiar with the concept of promotion-by-over-detail? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was declined not rejected. I suggest you remove everything that isn't sourced. There is WAY too much of that especially the products. Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a newbie, I was not familiar with "promotion-by-over-detail", and didn't even realize the difference between "declined" and "rejected". I will try to remove excess detail. Thank you both for your suggestions. WolfButcher (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:26, 7 May 2022 review of draft by Raleigh80Z90Faema69


Hello I'm trying to create an article for the novelist George Weinstein and I've been coming into some confusing and perhaps conflicting replies regarding what I need to do to publish this article. The first time I submitted the article the Editor declined the article and showed me a section that required a citation [citation needed]. I initially thought they meant proof that the novel existed so I provided the ISBN, publisher and publishing date. That turned out not to be what they were looking for and they wanted an article from an independent source that mentioned the book so I provided that. Then it was declined again and another Editor suggested an article that I should include which would be acceptable. Also it was mentioned that it should not be an article that only briefly mentions the author in passing, rather that the author should be the subject of the article. I clarified that I only included the article that mentioned the author in passing because the brief mention was for the Indie Book Award I was citing. Then I added in the article that the Editor Gusfriend suggested and resubmitted the article and the article was declined again, because no new sources were given, even though I added in the article that was suggested by the previous Editor, so I'm a bit confused as to what I actually need to do here. I fulfilled the first reason for being declined by adding in a source where the first Editor included the [citation needed] and then when the next editor decided that what the first Editor asked for wasn't actually enough I included the article that the 2nd Editor suggested and then the 3rd Editor said that what the 2nd Editor suggested wasn't actually enough, so what I'm wondering is, what do I actually need to provide to complete this page?

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear how they pass WP:NAUTHOR. Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:48, 7 May 2022 review of submission by Ajithkavi


Ajithkavi (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC) Please review the changes I made on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajithkavi (talk • contribs) 17:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:02, 7 May 2022 review of submission by 212.237.96.62


212.237.96.62 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry - I really get this. My new article on Slobodan Bozinovic was declined again. I found as much information online as I could - but was told, that the article was largely based Discogs, which is not regarded trustworthy. But firstly, my article is not based only on Discogs - but on several different from each other independent sources - about this major figure in Serbian music life. Secondly - this article Branimir Đokić https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branimir_Đokić on a very similar subject is shown on English Wikipedia - without ANY sources mentioned - just with a warning,, that it needs additional sources for verification - but it is still shown. My article - which is FAR more documentated - cannot be shown, at least with the same warning? Why?? Best regards, Adam

Hello Adam, "What about article XY?" is usally a bad argument. This is a volunteer encyclopedia, with people doing what they can to adress inappropiate articles. Branimir Đokić is currently nominated for deletion. If you want to take other articles as a model, make sure they're good articles or even featured articles. Discogs is considered a generally unreliable source here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

00:54:22, 8 May 2022 review of submission by YashMane


YashMane (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained before there is nothing there to suggest that you are notable. Theroadislong (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by "you are notable"? I am not writing about myself.
This is a notable, exhibited femal American artist and photographer. I believe the issue is the sources. I'd like to understand what to delete in order to make this publishing ready. Ovaryian (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ovaryian You are replying to another post, this is NOT about your draft Draft:Shari Diamond it is about Draft:Yashraj Mane. Theroadislong (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

02:55:14, 8 May 2022 review of submission by 103.67.158.17


103.67.158.17 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:37:36, 8 May 2022 review of draft by Ovaryian


Can you help me understand the editing changes needed for Draft: Shari_Diamond? Ovaryian (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Shari Diamond is awaiting review. Theroadislong (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:58:20, 8 May 2022 review of submission by 43.245.120.27


43.245.120.27 (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated again and declined. Theroadislong (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:50, 8 May 2022 review of submission by Rituraj7379469988


Rituraj7379469988 (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rituraj7379469988 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media where people tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia where we are interested in what independent reliable sources choose to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged, please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:40, 8 May 2022 review of draft by SimorghWay


Hello everyone

I do not understand why my article was seen as "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I already included "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I included all the available references from renowned sources about the subject of the article. I am confused what else could ever be added. Please advise.

SimorghWay (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SimorghWay The draft just summarizes what the person has done, not why it is significant or in Wikipedia parlance, notable. An article should summarize what independent reliable sources state about the topic with significant coverage, not just document the things that they do. Please see the definition of a notable person and Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:48, 8 May 2022 review of submission by DGoldHunterX


Hi. I am requesting a re-review because I think I am following the standards that you require to make a contribution in Wikipedia. Please reconsider by giving exact details of what to ommit and what to edit so so I may finally pass this article. Thanks so much. This article will give more information to the public of how gold has become part of human life since then and until this digital world after being stopped to be circulated and being used as trading currency. Thanks.

DGoldHunterX (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DGoldHunterX The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further, as it is essentially a promotional piece that is written more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I gather that you have some sort of conflict of interest here, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID as you may have required disclosures to make(declaring a paid relationship is a Terms of Use requirement). Wikipedia is not for merely giving information, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources about topics deemed notable by Wikipedia. Perhaps there is an existing article where something about this topic could be added; please review how to make a formal edit request. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:13:56, 8 May 2022 review of draft by Tnval


I have added references: articles, interviews and documentaries featuring Max Brandrett from recognised newspapers and video channels. Why are these not being accepted as legitimate? I have published them again below + another list which includes sources.

References Daily Mail article Artist-70-jailed-forging-famous-masterpieces-stage-exhibition-fake-work December 12th 2018 Latest TV interview - The Life and Work of Max Brandrett youtube.com August 26th 2019 Verso TV documentary vice.com how-i-made-millions-forging-priceless-art July 7th 2020 More Radio interview moreradio.online the-master-forger-goes-viral-in-documentary July 23rd 2020 The Argus article theargus.co.uk max-forger-reveals-conned-art-world August 12th 2020 The Times article thetimes.co.uk top-forger-max-brandrett-is-victim-of-his-own-success August 15th 2020 Sussex Express article sussexexpress.co.uk master-forger-becomes-a-victim-of-his-own-success August 18th 2020 Daily Express article pressreader.com daily-express October 7th 2020 Insider TV interview insider.com how-art-forgery-actually-works-according-to-a-former-forger October 29th 2021 KRN TV interview youtube.com November 6th 2021 i News article inews.co.uk art-forger-gives-up-a-life-of-crime-and-teaches-senior-citizens-how-to-paint February 1st 2022 Biography - Britain’s No1 Art Forger – The Life of a Cheeky Faker by Anthony Valentine - Gadfly Press February 28th 2022 Sussex Express article sussexexpress.co.uk britains-no-1-art-forger-reveals-all-from-his-west-sussex-home April 13th 2022 Sussex Express article sussexexpress.co.uk can-you-spot-which-of-these-famous-paintings-now-in-sussex-are-fake April 22nd 2022


References including links to sources Daily Mail article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6488711/Artist-70-jailed-forging-famous-masterpieces-stage-exhibition-fake-work.html December 12th 2018 Latest TV interview - The Life and Work of Max Brandrett https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFyBYRyF5nc August 26th 2019 Verso TV documentary https://video.vice.com/en_uk/video/vice-how-i-made-millions-forging-priceless-art/5da73154be407711c72fa2a1 July 7th 2020 More Radio interview https://www.moreradio.online/news/sussex-news/listen-burgess-hills-the-master-forger-goes-viral-in-documentary/ July 23rd 2020 The Argus article https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/18647835.max-forger-reveals-conned-art-world/ August 12th 2020 The Times article https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-forger-max-brandrett-is-victim-of-his-own-success-8mk6706tz August 15th 2020 Sussex Express article https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/people/mid-sussex-master-forger-becomes-a-victim-of-his-own-success-2946051 August 18th 2020 Daily Express article https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20201007/283205855727952 October 7th 2020 Insider TV interview https://www.insider.com/how-art-forgery-actually-works-according-to-a-former-forger-2021-10 October 29th 2021 KRN TV interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=065kugPkQ9g November 6th 2021 i News article https://inews.co.uk/culture/arts/art-forger-gives-up-a-life-of-crime-and-teaches-senior-citizens-how-to-paint-1436205 February 1st 2022 Biography - Britain’s No1 Art Forger – The Life of a Cheeky Faker by Anthony Valentine - Gadfly Press February 28th 2022 Sussex Express article https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/people/britains-no-1-art-forger-reveals-all-from-his-west-sussex-home-3649164 April 13th 2022 Sussex Express article https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/people/can-you-spot-which-of-these-famous-paintings-now-in-sussex-are-fake-3664090 April 22nd 2022


Tnval (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is NEVER a reliable source, YouTube very rarely is and press releases and interviews are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:39:19, 8 May 2022 review of submission by Nuferdan


My submission was declined and I am looking for additional explanation as to why so that I might improve or alter it in such a way that might make it suitable for Wikipedia. I feel strongly this is the right content for Wikipedia as it uses a scientifically-valid methodology to identify what 5 of the top resources in the field agree are the greatest films of all time, which does not exist as a list today and would be incredibly useful to the masses. It also opens the door for additional explorations into genres & decades with the most occurrences in the overall top 100, as well as, potential explorations into gender and race disparities in the film industry. This could serve as a fantastic resource for many purposes and I would very much appreciate guidance into how I might better suit it for Wikipedia.


Nuferdan (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuferdan I assume this is about User:Nuferdan/sandbox/Highest Ranked Films of All-Time. Original research is never appropriate for Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the world needs it, publish it elsewhere. If reliable sources cover your published list, someone may make a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is the last stop for an idea/theory/band/etc once they have been recognized by others, it is never the place something is established.Slywriter (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by original research? Can you clarify? This list is not of my own opinion at all, it's purely a culmination of multiple sources. For instance, I don't see a difference between what this article does and what mine did other than the fact that mine goes a bit more into detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best
We even reference the same sources in a few cases. Nuferdan (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nuferdan The list article you cite summarizes what reliable sources consider to be the best. The draft you created is your own judgment using your own methodology. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm can I just ask to be sure that you read my article? Only asking because perhaps I misrepresented what I did. All I've done is list list the Top 100 Films from 5 different reputable lists and averaged their ranking on those lists. For instance, for The Godfather, the link I reference from Rotten Tomatoes ranks it at 17 of 100, IMDb at 2 of 100, Empire at 3 of 100, AFI at 2 of 100, and Sights & Sounds at 21 of 100. Making its average ranking 8.6666667 which puts it higher than any other film across those 5 lists.
I didn't use my own judgement at all and the only methodology I used was standard averaging. Again, maybe I didn't explain that well enough in the article or am still missing something, but this truly has absolutely none of my own opinion (truth be told, I don't even agree with the top 10 as the data worked out, but such is math). Nuferdan (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How did you choose these 5 lists? Averaging is still original research if the information was not presented that way by a reliable source. Are you a notable movie reviewer or film historian? 331dot (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you plan to keep this list up to date, forever, as new movies are released? And yes, the averaging methodology chosen does constitute original research. If Rotten Tomatoes has 10 times the readership of Empire, does its ranking get weighted more? Choosing to use equal weights, or unequal weights, is a choice you made, and that choice would affect the results. You might not have realized this, but making these choices does constitute OR. (It's not clear (to me) that equal weighting is appropriate.) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

17:03:43, 9 May 2022 review of draft by Marthature


Hello - I am having problems in formatting the draft of my article about musician Bobby Black. 1. In trying to use the Named References tab, I found that only some, not all, of my named references appear in the dropdown menu of named references. The result is that I must insert some of the references in the article several times. I don't know how to fix this. 2. When I look at the preview of the article, I see that the text a reader would see includes the url's of some citations, rather than seeing a live link. Example: "...Bobby received a six-string Rickenbacker http://www.rickenbacker.com/model_all.asp?series=all steel guitar and amplifier." I don't know how to fix this. 3. When I look at the preview of the article, I see that in some places the formatting of the headings and paragraphs are erratic as well as showing the URL's instead of live links. Example: "In 1947, the family moved to San Mateo, California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Mateo,_California . In 1948, on his 14th birthday, Bobby received a six-string Rickenbacker" I don't know how to fix this. I would very much like to get this article in proper form and out in the world. I thank you in advance for your help.Marthature (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC) Marthature (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If I'm understanding your question correctly, I think it would be easier if you switched to visual editor, it allows for a more intuitive citation process where you can copy and paste citations and reuse them.
  2. Please read point 2 under WP:ELPOINTS, I don't think what you are saying would be allowed under that policy
  3. The edits that you are mentioning appear to have been reverted, although I think it would be easier if you switched to visual editor (as mentioned before)
Hopefully I answered your questions @Marthature, if you need clarification, feel free to reply here but (please use {{reply to|Justiyaya}} on reply), happy editing! Justiyaya 08:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Justiyaya,@Justiyaya: @Justiyaya:
I'm looking at the Editing draft page and to my surprise it is no longer what it was when I put it up yesterday. It has been significantly changed. This means I will have to restore the draft on which I was working and hope that it is not changed again.
1. I will try to switch to visual editor, thank you.
2. I have just been reading point 2 under WP:ELPOINTS, "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article..." I will go through the draft and see if this makes it work. Thank you. Marthature (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marthature Please do not restore the previous version, it was not an improvement from the version right now. Please skim through WP:BLP and WP:V, the previous version significantly lacked references. It is best that you do not add external links your self, if they are appropriate, someone else will after publishing. Justiyaya 11:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again -I am quite confused. I have read Lopifalko's "Latest revision as of 18:32, 9 May 2022
(Restored revision 1083366561 by Lopifalko (talk): Not an improvement)" It is not clear to me what "Restored revision 1083366561" means. Which is the previous version which you ask me to not restore? Is "previous version" "Restored revision 1083366561" or does it mean my Revision as of 16:17, 9 May 2022 which Lopifalko stated is not an improvement? Is it the case that Lopifalko's version of the piece is publishable? Thank you kindly for your assistance, Justiyaya. Marthature (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Justiyaya,
I see that someone with the handle "Lopifalko" substantially changed my draft, with the comment "Not an improvement." This is not a helpful comment. It's not clear to me what I can do. The edit created by Lopifalko removes the photograph, removes the full birthdate and substitutes just the year of birth, removes the distinction between the birth name and the common name, and removes a great deal of text. I could really use some guidance other than "Not an improvement." Thank you. {{reply to|Justiyaya}} Marthature (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:04:33, 9 May 2022 review of draft by Eugenioceri


Hello, the submission has been refused, I have put 10 different references, some of them were entire articles written about the station and things we have been broadcasting, not sure what could be better? Those are not passing mentions, some of those are entire articles done based on guests and interviews the station has done? Can you please help me with some more clear indication? I don’t think a radio station would have much more coverage from media than that

Eugenioceri (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eugenioceri, here's my analysis of the sources in the article
  1. Questionable reliability/independence, article reads really like an ad, see [1]
  2. Passing mention
  3. Same as 1
  4. Passing mention
  5. Passing mention
  6. Passing mention
  7. Looks good skimming through the website, no significant issues at a glance
  8. Mostly passing mention
  9. Passing mention
  10. Passing mention
At best, the article contains 2 sources that provide significant coverage to the subject. If you want an easy accept, add at least 2-3 more reliable sources that give significant coverage and significantly trim the article where it contains original research. If you want clarification, please contact me on my talk page or reply on this thread and ping me. Justiyaya 08:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:20, 9 May 2022 review of submission by Shalom777br


Shalom777br (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Distler, Tomoharu Ushida provided the day's "most pleasant surprise", giving a "masterclass in horizontal clarity and the spacing of notes in time". (Gramophone) from Wikipedia page about XVIII Chopin Competition. I want to add the sentence above to my draft. Shalom777br (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to know how to improve my draft to be published as a official Wikipedia page. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tomoharu_Ushida Shalom777br (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Ts12rAc: who reviewed the linked draft Justiyaya 08:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:23, 9 May 2022 review of draft by Castawayed


Hello. My request is regarding Draft:Department of Homeland Security Outstanding Unit Award, the newest of the Awards and decorations of the United States Coast Guard. The draft has been reviewed once already, and I have attempted to address all issues raised. Kindly request further assessment. Thank you! Castawayed (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Castawayed You have submitted it for review; a volunteer will review it in due course. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

02:01:09, 10 May 2022 review of draft by 31.217.30.45


31.217.30.45 (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC) i need help i have refrences but i doesnt wanna publish :([reply]

"Publish page" is equivalent to "Save page". (It used to be the latter, but people kept complaining because they didn't want it to be found by other people.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:51:21, 10 May 2022 review of draft by Aramoana-Otumaetai-01


The article is intended only as a stub, so obviously should be expanded.

Can you explain why the sources I site are nor "reliable secondary sources"? I think Auckand Art Gallery is reliable, and it is indepndendent of the artist, apart from fining his works fit to exhibit. Similarly for the others. There are several similar web pages with similar information.

Or have I perhaps not put the citations in the right place

A full article of course should be written by an expert. I only need the article so I can link to it from another article, in which he features incidentally, but significantly. But I think the stub I have written clearly identifies him, and the links give evidence of his notability. I haven't yet found any information about hard copy works, biographies etc.

Aramoana-Otumaetai-01 (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aramoana-Otumaetai-01: https://fletchercollection.org.nz/artists/bracey-ted/ is merely a content-free gallery listing, no details whatsoever. https://www.aucklandartgallery.com/explore-art-and-ideas/artist/897/ted-bracey is a likewise content-free profile. https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/art-and-stage/75313601/christchurch-art-gallery-ted-bracey is quite literally the best source you've got. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the info is not immediately visible on the 1st link, pressing the info button on it gives an extensive biography. The second link is more minimal, but being the Auckland Art Gallery, is highly reliable. The third is somewhat less useful than the first, but is in agreement.
Other links tend to be very similar.
If this is not acceptable, what would be? I think the information is reliable, verifiable if care is taken to understand how artistic websites can tend to be obscure, and is definitely secondary. Aramoana-Otumaetai-01 (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Auckland Art Gallery may be reliable but is absolutely NOT independent he will need to pass the criteria at WP:NARTIST which he clearly doesn't yet. Theroadislong (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:08, 10 May 2022 review of submission by Bernice860114

Hello, thanks for your patience and please kindly review the article, I've added more information and external links to prove the sources. Bernice860114 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected it will not be reviewed again. Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:50, 10 May 2022 review of submission by Muhammad aalian 000


Muhammad aalian 000 (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:26, 10 May 2022 review of draft by Krakozjabla


Krakozjabla (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:43:52, 10 May 2022 review of submission by Baltaborg


Draft:PaperTale

I've submitted this several times now and there are many sources that are independant, so I don't understand why it's not approved. On my last submission they said:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I then added even more references and sent it again, but it still isn't approved and I asked them why but no answer. What do I need to do to show independent reliable sources? They are just that! Thanks :)


Baltaborg (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see the draft? Baltaborg (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link. We only need the title in the template, not a link. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources summarize the activities of the company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize significant coverage of the company itself, not just what it does, showing how the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:24, 10 May 2022 review of submission by VikasSinghDelhi


VikasSinghDelhi (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VikasSinghDelhi You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:19, 10 May 2022 review of submission by LuxembourgLover

It said not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia how is someone notable? LuxembourgLover (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LuxembourgLover Please see the notability criteria for bands and musicians. This must be demonstrated with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, that an article can summarize. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:21, 10 May 2022 review of submission by Michalgitnik


Hello, I am trying to create a page for an artist named Maya Gelfman. Recently I was told that her work does not meet the notability criteria om wikipedia and therefore they cannot approve my draft, and I beg to differ. I have presented many references to independent websites and media outlets, including a few important newspapers' websites and a TedX talk as well. How is that not notable enough? She has a very long list of exhibitions, in multiple countries, and has contributed and was featured in many artistic books, amongst other things. She is quite active and holds a long track record in her field.

She has a page in the Wikipedia in Hebrew. She exhibited in the national museum who is also in the international top 10. She also presented in Bangkok, in the national gallery there. She had also a lot of exposure in the US. And many more..

What Can I do to convince editors that this artists deserves, or in other words, is actually notable enough to earn her a Wikipedia page in English?

Thank you very much !

Michalgitnik (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michalgitnik: he.wp and en.wp do not have identical policies; if anything en.wp is far stricter. It doesn't help you have a lot of claims in your massive-wall-o'-text lists that are unsourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:53:23, 10 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Shatbhisha6


My drafthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Swami_Avdheshanand_Giri was rejected twice and then declined last year by the same user who was later on blocked for sockpuppetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kashmorwiki. The accounts created by him post that, were also blocked and he was also accused of vandalism in the investigation. My draft has banners put up by him. One helpful editor helped me put the draft for review again, but its been over 2 months its still not approved. please help me with this article, I have tried to follow all wiki guidelines, if someone can guide me what more is lacking? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:46, 10 May 2022 review of draft by Tnataloni


My submission keeps getting declined stating my references arent reliable sources. The bulk of them are high end publications like The Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Magazine. What else do i need to provide?

Tnataloni (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tnataloni First I see that you declared a conflict of interest; if you have a paid relationship with Chris Visco, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement.
The problem here is your approach. You have essentially posted Visco's resume and accomplishments. That's not what Wikipedia is for. A Wikipedia article about Visco must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her, showing how she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person- not just document what she has done. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
understood. thank you for the succinct feedback. Tnataloni (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


May 11

00:03:06, 11 May 2022 review of submission by Nautilus126


Nautilus126 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC) I would like this page to be reviewed again because I believe I have cited enough sources for it to be verifiable, if you wish, I can further remove information in order to make sure it meets your standards for citation. I also believe that the subject Is noteworthy enough for all these articles to be written on her, both in her home country and in others. I am being paid by the subject, so I would just like to get this over with. I would greatly appreciate it if you reconsider and tell me what needs to be added/removed for it to be published. Thank you.[reply]

00:41:40, 11 May 2022 review of draft by Loveleyla


Why is it not allowing me to tag my draft article? Do I need to tag it after I submit it for review? I keep getting the comment, "Please check the draft page title. No such page exists." So does this mean submitting it before tagging it?


Loveleyla (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:07:13, 11 May 2022 review of draft by KeithH1969


I submitted my article for review too soon because I was confused about the Publish button. I think it is now ready to review, but am wondering if there is a way to have it informally reviewed. I gether that it is a bad thing to have an article rejected multiple times.KeithH1969 (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KeithH1969 (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:22, 11 May 2022 review of draft by Xclusive123



I have tried to publish a profile for the wife of the king of Warri, my draft kept getting declined, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Olori_Atuwatse_III see the draft here, please can you tell me what is wrong



Xclusive123 (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:09, 11 May 2022 review of submission by Xclusive123


i have been trying to submit a profile for the wife of the king of Warri, but it keeps declining , i will need help to know what i am doing wrongly

here is the draft Draft:Olori Atuwatse III

Xclusive123 (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xclusive123 Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles. Your draft was deleted as promotional and a copyright violation. You cannot copy content from other websites to Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article about this person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:22, 11 May 2022 review of submission by Its4aparna

Hello, please share any changes that can be made to publish the article since it has info relevant to many environmental restoration activities happening around here. Thanks Its4aparna (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its4aparna There are no changes you can make, as the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a topic, even if it is a good cause, and to be frank we are not concerned with how an article or lack of one impacts off wiki matters. Any Wikipedia article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(not press releases, announcements, interviews, or brief mentions) to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization.
If you are associated with this organization, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:14:46, 11 May 2022 review of draft by Stockholm Writer


I am seeking assistance on how to add the summary box to my draft article. Thank you. Stockholm Writer (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stockholm Writer What 'summary box' are you referring to? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I copied an 'InfoBox' from another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockholm Writer (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:52:56, 11 May 2022 review of submission by Sophie Miao Miao


The last time this draft was declined when a review was requested, the explanation was that "A search in Google, Google News and Google Books does not find sources to justify notability based on on the general notability guideline or the guideline on notability for educational institutions". I'm a little confused, which criteria specifically are not being met? I can't imagine that it's a problem with the notability of the school itself, given that schools that seem similarly notable to me such as Brighton or Vancouver Career College also have a page on Wikipedia. Sophie Miao Miao (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Miao Miao No organization "has a page" on Wikipedia for its use and benefit; Wikipedia has articles about organizations, which are not under the control of those organizations. Please review the notability criteria for organizations. Your draft just documents the existence of the college and its offerings. Wikipedia articles must do more. Any 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 those criteria. Vancouver Career College has similar issues as your draft, and I will mark it as problematic, thank you for pointing that out. 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. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the coding on your COI declaration. (it had "nowiki" tags around it which suppressed its function). If you work for the college, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

02:25:37, 12 May 2022 review of submission by Wizardofozmuseum

I placed minimum information about the museum and it is deleted. Need assistance. Wizardofozmuseum (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:32, 12 May 2022 review of submission by Swatiysahu


In this article, I am showing the generic information which is helpful for students and their parents who wants to study abroad and how they can avail this opportunity from KC Overseas Education.

Swatiysahu (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swatiysahu That is the definition of advertising, and why your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. If you work for this organization, you must per the Terms of Use declare as a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:28, 12 May 2022 review of draft by Binx1966


I am unclear as to why this page Draft: Peter Felt was not approved and this page, Throope Chapman, was Throope Chapman

The Peter Felt page has many more sources than the Throope Chapman page, and shows significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, unlike the Throope Chapman page.

Thank you.


Binx1966 (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Binx1966 Be wary in citing something in another article as a reason for something in your draft, see other stuff exists. It could be that this other article is also inappropriate and simply has not been addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get past us. If you want to use another article as a model, make sure it is classified as a good article. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft reads like a family history project, not an encyclopaedia article it also begins with details about a house rather than him, which confuses the reviewers. Theroadislong (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:21, 12 May 2022 review of draft by Frangle


Frangle (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found the submitting process often confusing. Also I don't see any way to edit the text I uploaded on author Patricia Volk--it eliminated paragraph breaks, for one thing, and I can't add notes. Also I wasn't sure about the title, so at the moment it has my name, Jan Swafford, when it should be Patricia Volk. Please advise.

Draft:Doomocracy (band)

Hi. i wrote the Doomocracy (band) draft.

It got rejected due to copyright reasons. WHAT exactly is the copyright here? The band's site that has all the info from which I took the information? Guess what... I WROTE THAT TOO.

You think I steal myself? Then tell me how to do this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milekaki12 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your website http://www.doomocracy.com explicitly states at the bottom “COPYRIGHT © 2014-2022 DOOMOCRACY” You would need to change this to a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Milekaki12: Wikipedia uses an irrevocable copyright licence that is completely incompatible with standard all-rights-reserved copyright. This is why we cannot use content you wrote for other websites. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Milekaki12: Your article draft doesn’t contain enough sourcing to demonstrate notability, as defined by Wikipedia. You need to find independent media coverage. Think about it - if all there is is only known by you, they don’t seem to be well known enough. See WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:52:16, 12 May 2022 review of submission by Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet

Hi there, I'm trying to publish a page about a road safety index which is a research project that we're working on. My request for publishing the page has rejected and I wonder why? thanks. Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet: No sources, no article, no debate. We also do not accept research essays as we are an encyclopaedia project. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but if you read the text, you understand that we're trying to introduce a new safety index which is an encyclopaedia project.
What are the terms to making it published? Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet: You can't. That is what rejected means. Wikipedia is not the place to introduce your index to the world. If independent reliable sources take note of your index and give it significant coverage, it may merit an article that summarizes that coverage. Have you read WP:COI and WP:PAID? 331dot (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you response.
I've read WP:COI and I don't see any conflict of interest in this case. I'd be appreciate it if you can make it clear for me if you see COI.
And regarding WP:PAID, I've written that who made this index on behalf of which company. Do I need to clarify it more? :) Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your user name is Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet. That's also the name of a division at AFRY, so the COI is crystal clear. What do you mean by "I've written that who made this index on behalf of which company."? (Are you using Google Translate? The sentence is garbled nonsense in English, but running it through GTranslate results in a perfectly good sentence in Swedish. Please do not use machine translations in Wikipedia – it is pretty rude to your fellow Wikipedia editors. --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use google translate at all! I think humiliating people because of their language skills is rude!
By this sentence: "I've written that who made this index on behalf of which company." I meant that the FIA RS Index is developed by AFRY but the request for developing it is from FIA federation. Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samhällsutveckling och Mobilitet: This doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not the venue for publishing novel research or to try and publicise something. That just is not how an encyclopaedia works. Published sources that have already discussed the topic are a hard requirement for us to even consider having an article, and even with sources we wouldn't accept novel research like this as it's out-of-scope. I would suggest that whoever's asking you to do this has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia actually is.
And bonadea's not trying to humiliate you or belittle your language skills. That sentence they pointed out is basically word salad in English, and it definitely sounds like something automated translation would generate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

04:44:17, 13 May 2022 review of submission by NickyThejournalist


NickyThejournalist (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently Submitted an article and it was Declined for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." would you be able to tell me which sources? Can you help me so I can get this page published correctly.

@NickyThejournalist: We're looking for a in-depth, non-routine, independent source about the subject that was written by an identifiable author and published in an outlet with competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts for each and every claim that could possibly be challenged. Refer to the top table here:
Did you actually read any of these sources? The lot of them read like ad copy, and are written to take in gullible fools who mistakenly believe they're actual news, so as to improve a subject's search engine ranking results. We're nowhere near as credulous as the audience these "news pieces" are intended for, and we're not going to accept an article, let alone a biography of a living person, based on such obvious churnalism. A Google search gives me absolutely nothing usable, either (string: joshdifferent) - not even the News section, which tends to include an embarrasing-for-Google amount of black-hat SEO and churnalism in its results, shows up. The chance of this becoming an article at this time is absolutely zero. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:56, 13 May 2022 review of draft by Pensy65


Could you please give me a specific suggestion on how to improve this article so that is published? I used existing sources of information that refer not only to fragmented articles, but also to articles that are related to the company’s history and not produced by creator of the subject. For example : CNews/”Moscow Times” / D.J. Peterson articles are independent, reliable and published sources. I appreciate your help. Thanks a lot. Pensy

Pensy65 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined as advertising eg. “SmartDev makes it easier for companies to scale people, processes, and products.” “focuses on delivering high quality products with short turnarounds”, “a strong track record in the development of applications” “gaming development company with over 70 years of cumulative industry experience” “focuses on bringing leading edge technologies to developing markets across Europe, Africa, and Asia. The Group” none of which is acceptable and is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:45:46, 13 May 2022 review of draft by Pensy65


Could you please give me a specific suggestion on how to improve this article so that it is published? I used existing sources of information that refer to the company’s history and current trends. What kind of additional references to be used? I appreciate your help. Thanks a lot. Pensy

Pensy65 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pensy65 Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a company. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article.
If you work for this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:07:45, 13 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Greenjoy1445


why was my draft deleted it was just for fun

Greenjoy1445 (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:08:29, 13 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Krakozjabla


Dear reviewer, my submission was declined due to it was not supported by reliable sources. I studied this topic well for my article and tried to collect well-known reliable sources, and they are also independent, like klankosova.tv and albinfo.ch. Some of them contain entire articles (not passing mentions) written about TVALB as the first Albanian IPTV platform that launched in the US for the Albanian diaspora, as well as about the support of the company from the Republic of Kosovo. Could you please help me with some more clear information about the references in my article? Why are they not considered reliable and what kind of additional references should be used? Thank you in advanced.


Krakozjabla (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:48, 13 May 2022 review of submission by Spacecat711

My draft for a children's book author was declined with this comment, "Early life section - try not to use author biography writeup as they may be provided by the author." I am not sure what is meant by this, how can biographical information not be provided by the author? The source I initially used was provided by her publishing house (Allen & Unwin), although this information can be verified across multiple sources. I have since changed the source to the Australian Writer's Center. Any insight and assistance you can provide about author biographical information moving forward is greatly appreciated! Spacecat711 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecat711 We aren't interested in what someone(or close associates) says about themselves, only in what independent reliable sources say about them. What she or her publisher say about her is a primary source. If an independent source with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control reports on her personal history, that should be used instead of statements from herself or her publisher. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:12, 13 May 2022 review of draft by Kpddg


Hello. I had created this draft in January, and it has since been awaiting review. But today I saw another article created much later, by another user. I don't think that article went through the Afc process. It also lacks references. What should be done here? Thanks in advance.

Kpddg (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:12:18, 13 May 2022 review of draft by XenaRyder


My submission on Parisi Vending Co. was declined on grounds of notability/references (or both). I originally provided 6 references. Three of those references now have hyperlinks for verification. I am unable to find the other three online, but have PDFs of the original magazine articles. Is it possible to: 1 - Attach PDFs in citations? (I could not find a Help topic on this.) 2 - Get more specific feedback on what needs to be provided/corrected? Eventually I would like to do multiple articles on the history of bulk vending, which would provide more context for your article on Folz Vending. Thanks in advance for your assistance.

XenaRyder (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XenaRyder: In order:
  1. We do accept PDFs as sources, but note that Wikipedia generally cannot host them as they're going to be copyrighted in 99.9% of cases (see WP:NFCC).
  2. Of your sources, three of them are missing critical bibliographical information (page #s and authors), one of them is about the wrong subject (coverage of the founder is not coverage of the company), another is an announcement of a new product launch/test, and the last is a very sparse and routine article about a website redesign. None of the sources I am able to assess are in-depth, non-routine, independent articles written by identifiable authors and published in outlets with competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts.
Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:48:24, 13 May 2022 review of submission by Leonardrigby

What specifically do I need to add in order for this article to be published? Thank you!

Leonardrigby (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, independent sources, NOT press releases or his own business websites. Theroadislong (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:49:12, 13 May 2022 review of submission by Michron777


I believe that before I did not include the online references so that they are easy to be reviewed and verified by someone. Perhaps that was greatly lacking. Before it was mainly hard copy. Now I added where they can be viewed online. Also, I added more accurate detail in the references (location of publication, page numbers, and ISBNs).

Michron777 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1087659220"