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 Bikebagel (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 10 June 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


June 3

00:16:11, 3 June 2022 review of draft by 76.20.110.116

I added many reliable sources to this article. However, it got declined as inadequate and I didn't do anything wrong. There are details about the shopping center and I added the link to this website. I want to create an article about the shopping center that does not have a page about it unlike other shopping malls. I check the source and they look correct. Did I review my draft correctly or I copied the text? Thank you for it.

76.20.110.116 (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Finished[reply]

Just because a shopping mall exists, doesn't mean it warrants an article in a global encyclopaedia. Neither is 'other shopping malls have articles' a justification. In order to establish notability in Wikipedia terms, the mall must have received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites no such sources. (The draft also requires plenty of copy editing, and the citations should come immediately after the statements they support, not all piled at the end, but these were not the reasons for declining.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added many links. but can you explain why 8000 sunset strip is not notable or famous? I know my draft got decilned. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You offered sources that document its existence- that is insufficient. Any article about this mall must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about it. It actually should not detail things like the specific establishments that are there or how many parking spaces they have. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:02:46, 3 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Zxcvbnm123411


Hi there. My draft was rejected because it was considered an advertisement, but I believe the content was to state the facts from a neutral point of view, so please tell me which part or sentence in my draft is like advertisement and how I can improve it. Thanks！ Zxcvbnm123411 (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm123411 Please read the entire decline reason in the grey box; it isn't (IMO) so much that this draft is overly promotional, but that it isn't encyclopaedic, and more to the point that the sources cited originate with the organisation in question (own website, and regurgitations of press releases issued by them). This latter point has been pointed out also in the earlier declines. We need to see significant coverage by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. We also need to see some reason, beyond merely existing, why this organisation warrants an article in a global encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm123411 DoubleGrazing above, along with the decline notices themselves, mention the need for independent sources (independent from the company). See WP:Independent. The first two sources are to the company's own Web site, so they are not independent. It looks like all of the rest of the sources cover "routine business dealings" such as acquisitions, investments, etc. All companies go through routine business events like this, and none of that makes a company notable (click here). 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the references, according to Wikipedia’s editorial rules, a self-published work can be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself, That’s why I added the first two sources. And I also added some pieces of news which were related to my content from well-known media( Not regurgitations of the press releases), I think these sources can prove notability and meet the requirements of independent and multiple sources.
Looking forward to your reply and please let me know if I have any misunderstanding. Zxcvbnm123411 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm123411 I don't personally have anything more to add. If you use the blue button to resubmit the draft, it will be reviewed again. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:50:12, 3 June 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me


I have submitted for AfC review which is pending. The subject is very much notable. I'm requsting an assessment of the Draft and assist me if I need to expand, cite more. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have submitted it for review and it is pending. It will be reviewed in due course, though this may not happen immediately. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I just asked for suggestions. Can you please check the Draft and assist me for further so that it can be accepted? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it will be reviewed in due course. I don't have any specific suggestions to offer; I'd say the chances of acceptance are not bad. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thank you. I shall try to improve more. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: One thing I would remark on as an AfC reviewer is that the tone is not quite neutral, for instance in the headings in section 3. Also keep in mind that if, for instance, a source published by Amnesty International makes an evaluative statement like "the villagers were terrorized by the army", Wikipedia can't make that same statement as if it were a fact. Such claims need to be attributed to the source (perhaps on the lines of "Amnesty International condemned the army's actions and said [...]"). I haven't checked that source (since I'm not reviewing the draft now), but I see that you are providing page numbers for the information, which is great, and makes the reviewer's task much easier. --bonadea contributions talk 10:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea with due thanks for your compliment, I shall acknowledge your assessment with good faith. I am in a feel, that I need assistance with this article. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea please look now about the Amnesty thing. I haven't copied you, but used my own language. :) - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea by the time we were discussing about the Draft, the Draft was accepted. I'm glad that it is accepted. Can you please use Rater? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 23:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:15:56, 3 June 2022 review of submission by Nehakushwaha.jp


I am new here. So, please guide me so I will continue contributing. The above page has added references that include The Hindu, Times of India, NDTV News, News 18 and even have a portal of the Indian government. Clearly mentioned the author's name, his professional career and whatever he is contributing to the society that he can.

Please guide me if I will make any mistakes on the above contribution.

Nehakushwaha.jp (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehakushwaha.jp: I haven't read them all, but I think some of the sources for the books are OK, but not great. I recommend to use the best 1 or 2 to source the books in the body, and then add a "reception" section where you can briefly summarize the reviews from the other decent sources. You should also add some biographical info. If all he is known for is the books, then perhaps the books should have articles, but not him. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:39, 3 June 2022 review of submission by Jazzy is da best2022

Hey Wikipedia!, I was just wondering why my article didn't get processed, I made sure there were no inappropriate features throughout the essay, had no copyrighted themes, ect. Although it still didn't get processed. If you had a problem with no referencing page, that is because I interviewed the subject personally.

Kind Regards Jazzy Is Da Best2022 Jazzy is da best2022 (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft should have been rejected, it is clearly not a serious attempt at an article and it has been tagged for speedy deletion as an obvious hoax/vandalism. Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Soufia Taloni

Thank you for reviewing the Draft:Soufia Taloni. Though I worked hard for it, I was trepidatious about acceptance through AFC. As I had never created such a long article for AFC, I was worried too. Thanking you again. Regards - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.78.216.195 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked for block evasion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:55:33, 3 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by MorpheusDescending

An article draft I submitted was incorrectly rejected. 

An article draft about a fictional character I submitted for approval was rejected by a reviewer whose reason for the rejection was that zero non-primary sources were cited in the article. However this reviewer is incorrect. The article draft actually cites *only* secondary sources published completely independently of the article's subject; there are no primary sources cited at all. How can I most easily have the article re-reviewed? I am pretty confident it meets standards for acceptance. Thank you!MorpheusDescending (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MorpheusDescending: The article is sourced with two Wonder Woman encyclopedias. I'm not sure if that is good enough or insufficient in comic book articles, an area outside my focus. I think you'd be better off posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/DC Comics work group for advice. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the counsel @TechnoTalk, I appreciate it! MorpheusDescending (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Adil Taouil

Request to move Draft:Adil Taouil to article name page Adil Taouil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.130.191.88 (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If and when the draft is accepted, it will automatically be moved to the article space; you do not need to request that here. What you should do instead is address the reasons why it was declined, and then resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did some minor cleanup, and hunted for more sources, but there's not much there to work with. There is a French article that looks quite similar, with a couple of additional foreign language sources [1]. This is going to be an uphill battle for the creator. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

04:03:39, 4 June 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me


Can anyone please assess the draft and guide me further to work for the AFC acceptance! - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For quicker turnaround time, be WP:BOLD and publish. The whole community can assist at that point. AfC is setup to prevent junk from getting published & guide well-intentioned new editors, it's not equipped to help make decent articles better.Slywriter (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter I can't be WP:BOLD to move it as I am in condition laid by Administrator to create article for submission only. Hence, I'm asking for higher-level users' help for it. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies. Makes more sense now. In a more general sense, do have some concern with this board being used to notify reviewers of drafts being "ready" since it's not really a place to expedite review.Slywriter (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter I need assistance and guidance. I'm not asking anyone to accept the Draft. If the Draft is suitable, then it will be. I see the article person is notable for his heinous crimes. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: I noticed the article has been resubmitted. I made some improvements that will hopefully help get it approved. It was a bit repetitive and overdramatic. You want the tone to be encyclopedic, despite how evil you think this person is. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NeverTry4Me, I didn't check the sources but this needs a huge cleanup. I did some copyediting but I don't think this is enough. WP:NPOV should always be maintained when writing articles that include controversies or anything such. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:52:22, 4 June 2022 review of submission by Abdallah H. Riziki


Abdallah H. Riziki (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdallah H. Riziki: what is your question? Your Draft:Abdallah H. Riziki autobio has been declined, because it is completely unreferenced. See WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:22, 4 June 2022 review of submission by 88.113.214.36


Do you have some proposals or suggestions what kind of content should be added in the article? There are lots of similar biographies of doctors (and people of other professions) available in Wikipedia like this, I don't see why this would not suffice?

88.113.214.36 (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. We do not review articles against the yardstick of whatever else may exist on Wikipedia, but rather against the relevant guidelines. In this case, the sources are nowhere near enough to establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG. So it isn't a question of adding more content, as such; it's a question of adding more and (significantly) better sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:00:57, 4 June 2022 review of draft by KatrinKultur


KatrinKultur (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KatrinKultur You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

03:41:49, 5 June 2022 review of draft by SimonUpNorth


Hi, it is my first time adding a new article. Am just checking I have done it correctly so far to allow it to be accepted, or if something will cause it to be rejected that means I'll have to go to the back of the queue. I have not been able to add an image yet (the league's logo), as it rejects it due to the article not being added yet, so presume that will need to wait till it is live? There is still info to add to the article with regard to the Divisional Honours from 1930s to present, and also the cup winners.

SimonUpNorth (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonUpNorth: you may struggle to establish notability of this subject. Most of the sources cited are primary, club websites and the like; the book appears to be self-published. You need to show that independent and reliable secondary sources have discussed this league in sufficient extent. You also need to support every material statement with a citation to a reliable source. As it stands, I personally would not be accepting this draft.
And just to explain a technical point: if your draft gets declined, it doesn't go to 'the back of the queue', because there is no queue; if anything, there is a pool, from which drafts are drawn more or less randomly for review. Whereas if your draft gets rejected, it doesn't go anywhere — that's the end of the road for it, as far as the AfC process is concerned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and advice. I should be able to find newspaper articles etc that discuss the league and also secondary sources such as FCHD that displays some of the later details, and I'll reference everything as discussed SimonUpNorth (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:06:08, 5 June 2022 review of draft by Thiagotsn


Thiagotsn (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fakescientist8000

I don’t get it, just two out of eleven references are from primary sources and this article was rejected anyway.

Hi @Thiagotsn: looks to me like there are more than two primary sources cited. (Only two cites are to the organisation's own website, but that's not the sole definition of primary.) Note also that merely having secondary sources isn't enough, they need to cover the subject in sufficient depth (as well as being independent and reliable, of course). If you still feel the referencing satisfies WP:GNG, please point out the three strongest sources that meet the criteria in that guideline. Thank you, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Just so we're clear, your draft wasn't rejected, only declined, meaning you're welcome to resubmit it once you've addressed the reasons for declining.
PPS: I've posted a COI query on your talk page, please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for replying.
The three I believe are strongest sources:
4. The biggest Portuguese tv broadcaster news video regarding the institute foundation (RTP)
9. Independent business portal describing one of the accreditations.
11. Business newspaper article regarding its rankings.
Honestly, I'm not sure about the decree-laws, what kind of sources can those be categorized? Thiagotsn (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:43, 5 June 2022 review of draft by 108.58.9.194

Typically tornadoes are mentioned in derecho articles when spawned by derecho, so one system. See August 2020 Midwest derecho.

108.58.9.194 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:10, 5 June 2022 review of submission by Sidbill60


I can understand why the discographical material from the subject's web site are not acceptable; I'll fix that. But I'm really surprised the main sources I included with this article are not deemed sufficient to establish Amado as a major figure in jazz, as a musician and label creator. These sources are leading publications specializing in improvised music. For a point of reference, I direct you to the Wikpedia pages on Ken Vandermark and Rob Mazurek, which rely on similar and in some cases the same sources I did. I'm happy to make changes, but Wikipedia needs to take a second look at this decision not to move forward.

Sidbill60 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let gallery is a primary source, profiles on Discogs are not independent, interviews are not reliable, Apple music is not independent, blogs are not reliable. See also other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: User:Sidbill60/sandbox/Rodrigo Amado
@Sidbill60: Congratulations! You've just activated Bastard Helper From Hell mode! Refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode.
As to the two grenades you lobbed, Ken Vandermark was created 2004/04/10 (and is presently tagged as being undersourced) and Rob Mazurek was created 2006/11/16. Both of these pages predate Articles for Creation's modern form and the strengthening of our standards enforcement. If you actually cared about Wikipedia, you'd bring those articles up to snuff as well, rather than use them as straw men to justify your draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ouch, but thanks! i needed that! Sidbill60 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a good source, in Downbeat. Unfortunately, one good source isn't enough to justify any article on Wikipedia, and especially not an article where more-or-less everything MUST have a cite. If you can find more sources of Downbeat's calibre or stronger - online or off, English-language or no - that would go a very long way towards proving notability, but you'd still have to essentially rewrite the article to summarise what sources you do end up citing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i do see that discog is an acceptable linked source on for amado on the german wikipedia Sidbill60 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bluntly, the English-language Wikipedia has more stringent standards on citations than the German-language version does. Discogs is right out, as far as we are concerned. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:55, 5 June 2022 review of draft by 174.91.89.244


How many more sources does my draft need? I can't even find anymore sources regarding '"Adeilosmilus. 174.91.89.244 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb we're looking for three high-quality sources (in this case, whitepapers that discuss the genus at length, either as a direct research topic or as part of a related one). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:11, 5 June 2022 review of draft by Socialresearch


I don't understand why this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Helen_Pitt was rejected. The reason given was "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

However, all of the references were -about- Helen Pitt, not passing references. All the references in in reliable secondary sources that are independent of Helen Pitt. I also added a bunch of references, again, all -about- Helen Pitt, not passing references, and all are published, reliable secondary sources independent of Helen Pitt.

Would someone please explain further why this got rejected?

Socialresearch (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected, rejected would mean that there was no chance of it being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:31:15, 5 June 2022 review of draft by CryptofanEn


Hello guys, my article has not been accepted, because it appears to sound too commercial, so I fix it and delete all the words and sentences that could be look that way. I have a lot a references from different objectives sources. Please help me to check it, to see if its all ok, for resubmitting. Thank you guys!

CryptofanEn (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is blatant advertising, do you work for them by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not, I just start my Wikipedia articles with that subjects i like like game and crypto CryptofanEn (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Requestor alerted to the blockchain sanctions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

02:18:36, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Makijohnson


I do not see a reason to decline my page request, it is a biography of a famous persons which is allowed on wikipedia Makijohnson (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Makijohnson: I do - your draft's improperly sourced, both in what is being cited and how. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent news or scholarly source that discusses him at length, is written by an identifiable author, and published in/by an outlet with competent editorial oversight responsible for fact-checking, disclosure, correction, and retractions that supports that claim. If no such sources can be found for a given claim, that claim must be removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:02:49, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Dravidhiman


Dravidhiman (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done deleted advertisement and probable conflict of interest/autobiography as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:09, 6 June 2022 review of submission by NeverTry4Me

I'm not able to figure out the reason mentioned: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view,..". Moreover, how a mob lynching incident (resulted in death) could have the view written in the draft? I need help and a fair review by some experienced reviewers. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: can you please help/assist me? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mu. (WP:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano That can't be the issue. And NPOV isn't the real issue as I have created several AFC and got approved. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase, then. I have absolutely zero desire to dive into an article about a controversial topic in a topic area that is KNOWN to attract more partisans than a mediaeval weapons museum. Why do you think that Arbitration case even exists in the first place? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I mentioned "Arbitration case even exists in the first place?" - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Draft is now approved by senior reviewer. Thank anyways. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a senior reviewer, we are all equal. Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:17:23, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Blucheez (Online Clothing Brand)


Blucheez (Online Clothing Brand) (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept advertizing or the users pushing it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:38, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Johupa

Hi, it would be good to get some advice. I wanted to add an album to this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rough_Trade_Records_albums. The page said to create a page and put this text at bottom Category:Rough Trade Records albums. Didn't intend to make it a big deal as this was my 1st effort at a page, but got rejected for lack of "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". So added references to detailed description in Guardian Newspaper, Performance Magazine, French magazine, academic institutions - would have thought these fit the requirements. Still rejected...anybody able to give advice - maybe I need to improve the way I've cited them or remove some of the less impressive references? Or is there a simpler way to ensure the album is listed in the category Rough_Trade_Records_albums?? Thanks in advance ! Johupa (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johupa: categories are there to index existing articles, therefore you cannot add to a category any content that hasn't been published as an article; or, put another way, the only way to add content to a category is by first creating an article.
And to create an article on a subject, that subject must be deemed notable, usually by way of the general notability standard, which requires significant coverage — of the subject, not of indirectly related matters — in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Find and cite such sources, enabling the article to be created, and you can then add it to relevant categories. HTH -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply, you've helped clear up about categories. Re: general notability standard I did cite multiple reliable independent sources but I guess I need to find more specific examples and tidy the references up a bit. Thanks again. Johupa (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:22:22, 6 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Kawadkarchaitali



Kawadkarchaitali (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kawadkarchaitali: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been deleted, and the many warnings and notices posted on User talk:Kawadkarchaitali probably tell you why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:STUDENTS CHEMICAL SOCIETY OF NIGERIA (SCSN)

I made alot of mistake in writing the first article but now I have started familiar with the wikepedia please review it as I have finally edit it in good manner. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samum2 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:49:54, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Edechiconza


We are requesting assistance because we do not really know what we do to satisfy the requests of the reviewer Let's start from the two first sentences of the article you have suggested by the reviewer WP:Notability (academic journals)

"If an academic journal can be demonstrated to be impactful via reliable sources, we should probably have a dedicated article on it." Being indexed in DOAJ does not demonstrate the reliability and the impact of an academic journal, but being indexed in Scopus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopus) and Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Sources_Citation_Index) yes. I do not know how familiar are you with the reliability of the academic journals but, for example, to get indexed in Scopus it takes, often, more than two years. The journal is monitored for a long period, has to undergone a severe scrutiny by scientific committees and has to respect many strict criteria. This the reason why scholars all over the world are asked to publish their works in Scopus indexed journals. Moreover Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCImago_Journal_Rank) indicator is a measure of the scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where the citations come from. According to SJR Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal is by large more influent of many of the journals listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals. Just to give you an idea, Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal ranks as 36th in the world for the Architecture/Design domain (first quartile) and pretty well also for all other domains of interest (2nd quartile in Media Technology and Social Science - 3rd quartile for Human Computer Interaction, Computer Science applications and Education. Scopus, SJR and ESCI are the most reliable and noticeable third-party sources to legitimate the reliability and impact of an academic journal.

"Articles on academic journals are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as established by reliable sources." Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal, however, is not only notable but it is also unusual enough and worthy to be noticed for many reasons, here at least a couple: - most of the open access Scopus indexed journals can be considered to have a "commercial" purpose since the publisher ask the authors to pay a fee to have the submitted papers published, while Interaction Design and Architecture(s) implements the diamond route with no expenses to access and publish papers. Papers are selected only on a scientific basis, after a rigorous double blind reviewing process and a check against malpractices; - Interaction Design and Architecture(s) is one of the few (maybe no more than five) academic journals in the world that implements video presentations of the published papers (the only one in their domains of interest); of course all video are open access and available on-line.

Let's come now to the criteria listed in the same article: Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.

Criterion 1 has been fully demonstrated (see above) Criterion 2 is also fulfilled if you consider that the journal h-index is 14 (of course it could be improved but can be considered quite good for the domains of reference and in comparison to most of the open access journal (in particular those listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals). Criterium 3 should be considered in relation to the year in which the journal has been established (2005): in 17 years, thanks also to the achieved rankings can be considered quite important in the subject areas of interest (for some of them more, for some of them less; but it is well known in all domains of reference). Note that Journal age is not a consideration, and in general a recently established journal is not necessarily disqualified by its age.

Considering all that, we do really wonder if the content of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) is applied with equity to all wikipedia articles, in particular to those concerning open access journals and, as written before what we can in addition to improve the article and be compliant with Wikipedia rules Thanks in advance

@Edechiconza: TL;DNR — what is your question, please, succinctly? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also please can you explain who "we" is, Wikipedia user acccounts are strictly for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically why it has been rejected?
I have read the suggested page and I have not found any good reason to reject the proposed articles, also in comparison with similar ones. Sorry but the reasons cannot be provided succinctly. I prefer, always, to fully justify and argue my claims, also because in this way I can better understand your suggestions.
Sorry For the use of the plural.
Looking forward and thanks in advance. Edechiconza (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VERY weird that you use "we" throughout your question. Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, we have zero interest in what the journal says about itself. Please also see other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edechiconza: I recommend that you not include anything in the article that can't be sourced with an independent third party source. This is how notability is demonstrated. See WP:GNG. Verified independent coverage is required. After going through that exercise, if you cannot find info, then you will understand what the reviewers are telling you. This will save you a lot of frustration with future declines. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk
what you state is very clear to me. As already written in my original question Scopus, SJR and ESCI are the most reliable and noticeable third-party sources to legitimate the reliability and impact of an academic journal. It is not what the journal says about itself. Why they are not recognized in the case of the article on Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal?
It seems to me that criteria are not applied with equity for all the journal articles.
I think that if you do not have any additional observations the article should be accepted ... but of course if you have additional indications I'll be more than happy to try to satisfy them. Edechiconza (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edechiconza This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, we don't have a paid staff available 24/7 to immediately address all problems- as such, it is possible for other inappropriate content to get by us. This does not mean that more inappropriate content can be added, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help out, you can identify the other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action.
The statement "Interaction Design and Architecture(s) is abstracted and indexed in Scopus" merely tells us that the journal is indexed. This is not significant coverage of the subject. I can't examine this source itself, but if it says more than the fact it indexes this journal, please add that information. 331dot (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot
thanks for the advice, I will try to make the reading clearer also for not experts (people expert in academic journal know very well that indexing coupled with SRJ and position in the rankings are enough to identify notable journals);
I understand and appreciate very much being a volunteer (and you cannot even image how much) as I appreciate guidelines. What I appreciate less is the uneven application of the guidelines and, sometime, the hurry and shallowness with which are applied.
I'm always ready to learn from others but I do not think that a shallow deletionism or rejection (accompanied by very generic indications without an in-depth examination of the contents of an article) can be beneficial for wikipedia.
Thanks again. After having upgraded the text I will resubmit the article for review again.
@DoubleGrazing
I agree that each piece of information has its own merit in a specific context. Anyway, when the context is the same and the pieces of information belong to the same category a comparison is needed to maintain the credibility of the context. Edechiconza (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edechiconza It may look like "uneven application of the guidelines" if the other articles were accepted before we had our current guidelines. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the guidelines which have been referred in this case are not new ones, and as explained above they have been respected; the problem here is the expert (or not expert) evaluation of the content and the ability to suggest possible changes as is has been done by 331dot (that I thank again for);
generic observations or statements do not help to progress and are the mirror of a rigid mentality; usually a community, to be such, should be helpful (while respecting the guidelines);
in general when observations are made, it would be appropriate not to erect walls but to try to understand others' reasons and whether there is indeed something that needs to be improved in the procedures in use ... just my two cents. Edechiconza (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edechiconza: firstly, the draft has not been submitted for review since the last decline. Once you click that blue button, it goes into the pool of drafts awaiting review. Whether it is then accepted or not, remains to be seen. I appreciate that you feel it should be accepted now, but that's pretty much par for the course for the article creator.
Secondly, the notion of comparing this draft to articles already existing is a red herring. The notability of this subject is judged against the relevant guidelines, not against the standards of other articles that may be out there. In other words, the notability of this subject stands or falls on its own merits alone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:34:52, 6 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by KARAM777



KARAM777 (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)  Not done deleted as spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:09:16, 6 June 2022 review of draft by Faa212684


Faa212684 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |- |DELETE|Russia||(Moscow)[reply]

CHECK WITH COMPANY IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME? Faa212684 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OUR FLIGHTS DONOT DESTINATE AT MOST OF THESE LOCATIONS?

@Faa212684: This page is not for asking with help editing an infobox, and your hysterical screaming at us is counterproductive. You've already been blocked once for this and carrying on like this is very likely to see you on the receiving end of a longer block. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Faa212684: Whether I believe you or not is immaterial at this point; you're, by your own admission here, an undisclosed paid editor trying to use the drafting process for a purpose it was never intended for, and I don't see any indications you're actually reading the pages you've been trying to force edits on. The hysterical all-caps screaming really doesn't help. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:25:34, 6 June 2022 review of draft by Jh.hamburg


Hi everybody!


I need help on how can I change this article - see above - up to a point that it's fine to get published.

Yes, I understand the criticism - but score composers generally do rarely get long journalistic articles written about them - they get interviews, awards and brief mentions here and there, like most artists working in the second row behind the lime light.

Also: Somebody else has put a less informative article on the german wikipedia server, so I do not understand what is the standard here?

I added the mentioned Wikipedia article as another weblink (though it already has been included in direct reference links and footnotes).

Also to make sure about what's desired I checked the list of wikipedia's film composers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_score_composers

So there are a lot of existing articles that seem to be very similar in form, content and most references. For example this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bergeaud

All these articles look like resumes - I mean that's the purpose, isn't it:

To account for these composers that you might have heard about and want to look up on Wikipedia to find out more.

To find out about the public knowledge we have about these perons and most importantly about their work. How they are connected to which films, games and projects. And yes, also awards and prices.

Personally I frequently check artists on Wikipedia to see which projects they contributed to, whether I know these projects and whether I recognize this artist's contribution.

I tried to write the article with all these examples, purposes, standards and Wiki recommendations in mind. (Well, technically I also wanted to learn to use sortable tables in an article...)

Sure, some of the sources mentioned are in German language but that can hardly be avoided - B. Salchow stems from Hamburg in northern Germany - also my city of choice.

Now I am lost. How do I proceed from here now?


Thanks for helping! jh

Jh.hamburg (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jh.hamburg: German Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have different sourcing and notability standards, so what works there does not necessarily work here. In fact, the English-language Wikipedia has amongst the strictest sourcing standards (though language is not amongst them; German-language sources are perfectly OK). You also cannot use the existence, absence, or condition of other articles to justify your own (in this case, the article you point at predates AfC by a few years, having been created 2007/04/05). Finally, if "all these articles look like resumes" then all these articles need deep-sixed or heavily edited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jh.hamburg: I made some improvements to the draft, but there aren't enough sources to demonstrate notability. I don't see a single profile of the subject. For sources, you need independent third party sources. IMDB is crowdsourced and considered unreliable. Otherwise, anyone could add anything and use that to substantiate an article about themselves. And then we'd be no different than LinkedIn. See WP:GNG for the English notability guidelines. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

00:48:57, 7 June 2022 review of draft by Sebastiandelfi


Hi there, I would like guidance on my article Sebastian Delfi I’m unsure of what part needs to be changed as I have made a lot of references. Much appreciated.

Sebastiandelfi (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastiandelfi If you are not Sebastian Delfi, you will need to change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. You cannot use his name as your username unless you are him. See the notability guidance for boxers and tell us how this person meets some aspect of them. 331dot (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made adjustments as requested. Thank you for the guidance. Apollosouthpaw (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:12:07, 7 June 2022 review of draft by 174.88.30.132


Am I ready to go with these sources? 174.88.30.132 (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@174.88.30.132: I made some minor improvements and it looks good to go. It should be accepted as soon as someone gets to it. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:55, 7 June 2022 review of submission by Lognetics


Lognetics (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lognetics: You don't ask a question, but your article is poorly sourced. Remove everything that doesn't come from an independent source, and if there's not enough left for an article, then the subject doesn't meet our requirements for notability. See WP:GNG. I think you'd be better off taking a step back and reading WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:46, 7 June 2022 review of submission by Kerrylei14

May I ask what would be considered as notable? Kerrylei14 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrylei14 All of the messages on your draft included a link to the notability guidelines, but here it is, WP:N. Furthermore, editing about cryptocurrencies is a contentious area and has its own special rules, because of continuing disruption and flooding of crypto edits. I will inform you of these special rules on your user talk page. If this is your company, you must also read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:20:41, 7 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by AfterBlack


Hello, I have made two submissions for my first wikipedia article which has unfortunately been declined. I would appreciate your assistance in learning article writing. Thank you


AfterBlack (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AfterBlack: The draft as written is unsalvageably promotional; I am going to tag it for deletion as such. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:12, 7 June 2022 review of submission by DiploCult


I have previously submitted without proper disclosures and have resubmitted the draft with all previous comments taken into account. I've been suggested to post here because of this history connected to the article. Could you please take a look and let me know if there are any remaining concerns?

DiploCult (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DiploCult: you do not need to "post here because of this history connected to the article"; only if you have any questions. As for someone "taking a look", that is what will happen when the draft is reviewed, whenever that may happen. And just to note, because of your COI, you should not be tempted to publish this directly, but must wait for the review process to complete. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

02:48:04, 8 June 2022 review of draft by 174.88.30.132


Are these sources good enough to have my draft accepted? 174.88.30.132 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is, indeed, one of the main things the reviewer will consider, when they come to assess your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:16:25, 8 June 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me


I need assistance to get this draft accepted through AFC. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me: the draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. It isn't necessary to flag it up here at the help desk, especially merely as an attempt to jump the queue (not that there is a queue), unless you have an actual question you want to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I need assistance, whether I need something more to add in the draft or is just enough. As the draft article person is yet alive, further development can be found as time goes. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you want a review of the draft. The draft will be reviewed in due time. --bonadea contributions talk 07:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:37, 8 June 2022 review of draft by Row2022


Row2022 (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The following comment has been added to my article, and yet when I look i cannot see that there is any such redirect. Please can you advise whether you too can see the redirect to enable me to correct this.


There is a redirect from Victoria Evans to Eunice Spry, but it seems to be a mistake. That article does not mention a Victoria Evans, and there is no indication that Victoria Spry was known as Victoria Evans. So if this draft is to be accepted, the redirect should simply be tagged for G6. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Row2022: it just means that there is currently a redir at Victoria Evans which forwards to Eunice Spry, and that it could be replaced by the new article if/when accepted. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:33:53, 8 June 2022 review of submission by Qhamro

I am currently rewriting the contents of the page, in the current form (which has been declined) there are references which I'm trying to decide which ones are appropriate and which are not. I am a little confused on if some are considered appropriate references, for example I've referenced Companies House (reference 1 and 2) which is a British government website to prove the ownership of a company, is this something I need to do? The same question can be applied to references 4 and 8 which are links to the UK charity registry. In the "Charitable Work" section references 14-25 are mostly links to the named charity websites (some of which include the mention of Hamro Foundation as a partner) whilst these are primary sources, would they still be okay to use as they provide more information on a charity and show that the subject of the page has been involved with them? Qhamro (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qhamro (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qhamro: I can't immediately think of any reason why you would need to cite Companies House or Charity Commission records. As for primary sources in general, they don't contribute towards notability, therefore whether you take them out or leave them makes no difference in that respect. (I also don't think we particularly need to know what companies or charities this person is involved in, unless that information is somehow crucial, so you can probably remove all that.)
In any case, you're going about this the wrong way: you shouldn't write what your client/boss wants to say about themselves, and then try to find sources to support that; you should be summarising what reliable, independent sources have said, which then tells you exactly what sources you need to cite — namely, the ones that you're summarising. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. This information has been really helpful Qhamro (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:45:51, 8 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Liao.benny


The reason why I am reaching out is because after submitting the article, the reviewer said the sources were not reliable. These sources were published by the best 2 universities in Canada. The company I am writing about is new and not peer reviewed article has been written about it. All the sources I get are from the schools and news letter that have published the company. I don't know what else to do because I thought my sources were reliable since the University of Toronto and Queen's university are the best in canada and all the sources cited in the article came from them. Please advise me on how I should proceed because I have tried my very very best and also consulted many people who agreed that the sources I provided should be considered reliable considering that the company is new and there haven't been any peer article written about it yet.

Liao.benny (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liao.benny The provenance of the publishers is not the issue- it is the content. None of the sources you provide have significant coverage of the company itself. If, as you say, there are no articles written about the company yet, then it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time and no amount of editing can change that. It's unfortunate that your company has given you an impossible task. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at these articles, they all talk about the company:
https://thevarsity.ca/2022/03/13/utsc-the-hub-2022/
https://smith.queensu.ca/grad_studies/mei/our-students/venture-spotlight.php (this one is from one of the best university in Canada)
https://smith.queensu.ca/grad_studies/mei/our-students/success-stories.php (this one talks about the CEO of the company in the article)
https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/thehub/startup-intake (this one talks about the competition that the company was involved in as mentioned in the article)
Please please advise me on what I should do because I have been working on this content for awhile. I even waited longer until someting about the companany was written somewhere so I could use that fir my source Liao.benny (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liao.benny: no, what the reviewer said was that there was no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. You're citing four sources, three of which are primary, and the one secondary one (NYT) probably doesn't provide significant coverage (I can't read it as it's behind a pay wall, but I'm going by the article title). Therefore in conclusion, only one of the sources meets the secondary requirement, but may or may not meet the significant coverage one, and in any case isn't alone enough to meet the multiple sources requirement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at these articles, they all talk about the company:
https://thevarsity.ca/2022/03/13/utsc-the-hub-2022/
https://smith.queensu.ca/grad_studies/mei/our-students/venture-spotlight.php (this one is from one of the best university in Canada)
https://smith.queensu.ca/grad_studies/mei/our-students/success-stories.php (this one talks about the CEO of the company in the article)
https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/thehub/startup-intake (this one talks about the competition that the company was involved in as mentioned in the article)
Please please advise me on what I should do because I have been working on this content for awhile. I even waited longer until someting about the companany was written somewhere so I could use that fir my source Liao.benny (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources must be at once secondary, independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage; those attributes are not alternatives to each other, they must all be satisfied by a single source, for it to count towards notability. The U of Toronto, their student paper, and the Queen's U are all primary sources, and the first two of them are also too close to the subject to be truly independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the draft reads like advertising eg. "Anticipating Toronto’s growing talent and it’s reputation as Canada’s fasting growing Technology hub" " primarily focuses on providing an online Marketplace" "Verxil Learning aims to help people around the world" "Verxil has accumulated over 50 unique vendors and local businesses" etc. etc. is just blatant marketing puffery and totally unsuitable in tone. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liao.benny: Maybe take a step back and read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly this section: More than 200 articles are typically deleted from the English Wikipedia every day, mostly because of lack of notability. Please make sure your topic is notable by our definition before you spend time and effort on it. An article on a non-notable subject will be rejected or deleted. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liao.benny, it looks as if your company, like many other companies (and bands, brands, youtubers, artists etc) is under the mistaken impression that it can use Wikipedia to promote itself: it cannot. Promotion is forbidden on Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. You might also find it helpful to read an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:14:01, 8 June 2022 review of submission by 23laudanoh

Article made for reference link for the page about the name "Van Geel" 23laudanoh (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@23laudarch: I've just removed a MASSIVE and improperly-done quote from the draft as copyright infringement. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:54:05, 8 June 2022 review of submission by Alex Magezi Kanuga


Alex Magezi Kanuga (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC) i have failed to submit my article[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Alex_Magezi_Kanuga/sandbox
@Alex Magezi Kanuga: Your only source is Facebook (No editorial oversight). This is not acceptable for any article, let alone one with stricter sourcing requirements. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

03:02:50, 9 June 2022 review of draft by 174.88.30.132


Am I all ready to go? 174.88.30.132 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:28:49, 9 June 2022 review of submission by Anton Godfrey


Anton Godfrey (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Blocked for spamming) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:08:46, 9 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Natalie EPT


Hello there. I am trying to create a page for The Ectopic Pregnancy Trust. We are a small charity in the UK that works hard to raise awareness of ectopic pregnancy and support those who are affected by it. We work alongside many independent notable organisations who I have listed in the article, on research. We are also a founding member of Baby Loss Awareness Week in the UK, along with SANDS - who are are listed on Wikipedia.

Please can you advise what more I need to do to get our page published? I have listed many of the independent organisations that we work with - and provided the supporting documentation that shows they consider us a credible source of information. The organisations listed include the NHS, the UK Government, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Society for Reproduction and Fertility.

Please can you help? Many thanks.

Natalie EPT (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Natalie EPT: I'm sure your trust is worthy and does a lot of important work. Alas, in what comes to notability in the Wikipedia context, none of that matters (much); nor does working with notable organisations. Wikipedia only summarises what others have said about a subject, and therefore notability is defined in terms of existing coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. To warrant an article, you need to find significant coverage of your trust in newspapers, TV documentaries, radio programmes, books, etc., and this coverage must be independently produced, not based on eg. the trust's press releases or similar material. You then precis this coverage, citing the sources where it was published. Conversely, without such sources, it will not be possible to publish an article on your trust. (See WP:GNG for more info.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:42:02, 9 June 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me


I need help regarding the Draft. The subject person is notable though, I might missing something. Is there any experienced editor to assist me? I'm yet unable to understand why the draft is pending(after declined), even though I have done a massive edit. I'm yet unable to understand what's wrong with the updated draft. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NeverTry4Me You resubmitted it and removed the prior reviews; these must remain on the draft. You actually have too many sources in the draft. A small number of high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. Sources that you use must provide significant coverage of this person, not just a brief mention or telling us what they do. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thank you. This is what I was missing in the draft. Now your assistance will help me a lot. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:35:45, 9 June 2022 review of submission by Billapartygang123

Please approve my draft. zIt's been 6 months. Billapartygang123 (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billapartygang123 The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability. You will have to move on from this. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:00, 9 June 2022 review of draft by CatIvan


Hello,

1. Am I using correctly the categories and portals for this article? For example: should I use the larger as well well as the narrow scope categories? 

 say: "Canadian>Ontarian>Franco-Ontarian>northern Ontarian", 
 or "Cultural personality>Artist>Visual artist>Painter"

2. What is a good article on how to best use categories and portals?

Thank you! Cat

cat (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CatIvan: categories and portals have no bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted at AfC. If you want to ask about them more generally, I suggest you do so at the TEAHOUSE. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:00, 9 June 2022 review of submission by Nwiles1414


My submission got rejected for being an advert, but we wrote the article as an industry-focused explanation for a new technology process and cited scientific references.

What would we need to change to get it accepted?

Nwiles1414 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Accounts are for individuals only. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You find (and base the article entirely on) published sources wholly independent of the developers. (I can't see the deleted submission, but I'm guessing that all the scientific references were to papers by the people behind the process. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Wait until other writers, unconnected with the developers, have chosen to write about it - and not just to cite it). ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft in question was written like a white paper written by the company behind the process right down to including the ™ behind the use of the name. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:42, 9 June 2022 review of draft by 2604:CB00:273A:700:2415:39EC:B731:46A1


I need the Just dance controller page

2604:CB00:273A:700:2415:39EC:B731:46A1 (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for this article are almost to a one non-sequiturs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

04:51:36, 10 June 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me


I want to know whether this kind of AfC draft is allowed for submission or not? Though I have to expand the draft more. If such AfC is not allowed then I shall stop working on such draft. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me: members of legislative assemblies are presumed to be notable per WP:NPOL, if that's what you're asking. Obviously the article still needs to be appropriately referenced and otherwise compliant with the various guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing and this draft:Madan_Kalita? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 05:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: the Draft I have submitted along with Draft:Madan_Kalita as both passes WP:NPOL. Kindly assist me if I'm missing something in these drafts. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: AfC drafts are reviewed in due time. You can work on the drafts in the meantime. Please stop asking for preferential treatment. --bonadea contributions talk 10:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea I was just curious whether such Drafts are eligible for AfC submission or not. If not, I shall delete them. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding @Bonadea here. NT4M, you've been advised to stop jumping the queue. Your drafts are of no more importance than any other editor's. There is no deadline and reviewers will come along whenever they do. cc: @Deepfriedokra Star Mississippi 15:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me:. Jeez. What's the rush? Please wait your turn. And no, I don't think you are ready to end the AFC only restriction. Please feel free to appeal that at WP:AN six months after you were unblocked on Sept. 7, as I've gone inactive . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:23:23, 10 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 97.89.193.22


I am the elected District Attorney of St. Landry Parish Louisiana. There are only 42 DAs in Louisiana. I am the only registered republican ever elected to this position in this parish (county). I have been covered in statewide newspaper articles and local television news programs. That's it. Should I continue to try to be published? Thanks, Chad.

97.89.193.22 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you should read this guidance on creating autobiographies WP:AUTOBIO, which will hopefully convince you not to do it.
Beyond that, much depends on the availability of sources: you say you have been covered in many newspaper articles and TV programmes, yet your draft cites none (yes, it mentions one possible source, but it isn't properly cited). Please see the general notability guideline at WP:GNG for advice on how to establish notability, and WP:REFB for advice on how to reference articles. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please read WP:Biographies of living persons. If your draft is bereft of sources, or has far too few in-depth, non-routine, independent sources written by identifiable journalists and published in outlets with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts, it will be declined. Sourcing is king. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:39:20, 10 June 2022 review of submission by Bikebagel

Hello, my submission for this article was rejected on the basis that is sounds too much like an advertisement. I'm looking for clarification on what aspects in the article sounds too much like an advertisement. I kept to the information directly related to the carshare, and did not include any pricing data. I tried to follow the established article for Modo, another carshare service, which, in my opinion, sounds more like an advertisement than my draft for peg city car co-op does. There is an difficulty in writing about a company while avoiding terms that sounds like advertising. Any guidance on how to improve this article will be much appreciated!

Bikebagel (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1092524284"