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 Rainbownautinspace (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 13 September 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


September 7

03:30:04, 7 September 2022 review of draft by Beanpods777


It is breaking News they found womens body remains and is currently active. Thoughts??? Beanpods777 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abston won't provide details of where the body is. Beanpods777 (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The killing of the victim maybe should have a page or possibly tye in Memphis abductions? Thanks Beanpods777 (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beanpods777 Please review WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPCRIME. You cannot name someone as having committed crimes unless that person has been convicted in a court of law of those crimes. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beanpods777 Wikipedia is not the news. Hmm, that shortcut is taking me to the wrong section of that page. There is a section saying that WP is not a newspaper... 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:21:37, 7 September 2022 review of submission by 45.123.219.70


45.123.219.70 (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:46, 7 September 2022 review of submission by Dn patelll


Dn patelll (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Dn patelll? Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered. Perhaps try one of the many social media sites instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:19, 7 September 2022 review of submission by 45.123.219.70

Dn patelll You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This is not social media where people tell the world about themselves, this is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:59, 7 September 2022 review of submission by Lucynder

Hello, I just realized that my article has been rejected. I do not know why it is, having gone through the process of sourcing and implementing references available for the film. I would like a re-review and hopefully a guide to put me through in referencing for the article. Also would like to know why exactly it has been rejected and is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Hoping for a positive response to this.

Thank you. Lucynder (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucynder: as I said already a few days ago, eventually the draft may be rejected if you keep resubmitting it without addressing the reasons why it was declined. I think that is the case here — with seven (!) previous declines, and very little if any progress in demonstrating notability, eventually the call has to be made whether this has any realistic prospect of being acceptable. We have another 2,300+ other drafts to review also, and cannot allocate indefinite time and resource to a draft that isn't making appropriate progress. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:02, 7 September 2022 review of submission by Surm31

Hello, this submission was declined due to a lack of significant coverage. The sources (except for one) are about the subject and are not passing mentions of the same. Should I be adding more sources? Or different sources? I am a little unsure of what to do next since I don't want the submission to be rejected. Any input would be helpful. Thank you in advance! Surm31 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Surm31: my opinion — and it is only that — is that with three sources, only two of which (as you say) provide significant coverage of the subject, this draft's notability is borderline; adding even just one more source that fully meets the WP:GNG standard would probably be enough to get this over the finish line. (That said, you may wish to ask the declining reviewer what specifically they had in mind when they declined this.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! @DoubleGrazing Surm31 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:47, 7 September 2022 review of submission by Waterbucket123

I was told to via the wiki help chat to re do the citations, and link references correctly. I believe that has been done and I would like this page to be looked at and approved please!

Thank you. Waterbucket123 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Waterbucket123: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have only one usable source, and one source in and of itself cannot justify an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

02:37:21, 8 September 2022 review of submission by Nfutvol

The article is sourced with in such a manner that includes significant coverage by multiple, independent sources including major media outlets, government records and documents, published books, et cetera. Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

The organization and individuals associated with it have participated in government-led efforts to include participation in foreign aid programs, as well as lobbying and as witnesses before the US Congress. This is in addition to its notable role in rural electrification in the United States. As far as coverage, it has been the subject of reports in both the New York Times and the Tennessean, two major newspapers, as well as smaller newspapers across the United States, thereby fulfilling the second standard. Based on all of this, which is well beyond the guidelines in WP:N, I am unsure why this is being denied on the grounds of notability. nf utvol (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfutvol: firstly, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered; if you wish to appeal that, you need to take the matter up with the rejecting reviewer.
That said, the sources cited are mostly primary, with some close to the subject, and therefore do not contribute to notability. The few secondary sources, including the NYT piece, make only passing mentions of Meriwether. (Also just to point out that "having participated in government-led efforts", etc., is not how notability in the Wikipedia context is defined.)
For clarity, I am not arguing that the draft should have been rejected as opposed to merely declined, but I am saying that notability has not been established, in the way that you seem to believe. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the wording I used there was...poor, to say the least. Never write while tired! I'm currently working with the individual who rejected it, hashing out whether or not this actually is notable. I'm trying to step back and take a more objective look, I've gotten a little overly involved since this is the I've had rejected or substantially challenged in 15 years of on-and-off editing. nf utvol (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:34, 8 September 2022 review of submission by 007Ranjeet


007Ranjeet (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @007Ranjeet? Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what are mistake in that article correct those 007Ranjeet (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@007Ranjeet: the draft has various problems, but the biggest one, and the reason why it was declined each time and eventually rejected, is complete lack of notability. To resolve this, you need to cite multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the college, per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:42:55, 8 September 2022 review of draft by Kwokng


Hi there, we (two contributors) got a message that the page we submitted should be merged as a section into another page. However, we are not sure this would be a correct thing to do as, as the page that was suggested is only one part of what this page is trying to explain. In other words, a part of 'Kinesiology' is 'Adapted Physical Activity', but not all of 'Adapted Physical Activity' is kinesiology. For example, Parasport is not part of kinesiology. Rehabilitation is not part of kinesiology, and Parasport/Disability sport and rehabilitation are integral parts of Adapted Physical Activity, in addition to the sport science/kinesiology aspect of the term/field. Therefore, we disagree with the reviewer - Fakescientist8000. In the previous round, we included substantial references (from academic sources, that are reliable, and secondary sources that are independent of the subject) to demonstrate the need for the page and its uniqueness. We have not received feedback concerning this. We plan to add more references such editing content from books such as "Sports Science Handbook", "Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine", and the "Dictionary of the Sport and Exercise Sciences", all of which of specific entries to Adapted Physical Activity. See image of cover of the Sport Science Handbook

Cover of Sport Science Handbook
Cover of Sport Science Handbook

As such, we would like help to move this forward in preparation to make the page go live.

Kwokng (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify how many people are using the account Kwokng. --Kinu t/c 20:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:25, 8 September 2022 review of submission by CheckifyPro

This article provide only for information not promotion CheckifyPro (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CheckifyPro This article is pure promo, was correctly rejected, and should be deleted soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we don't need promo. This article was created only for approve our twitter account CheckifyPro (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no interest in your Twitter account. This is an encyclopaedia, not your marketing platform.
And please don't start a new thread every time you post a comment; you can just reply to the existing thread. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:24:24, 8 September 2022 review of submission by CheckifyPro

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because we can't and we don't promotional CheckifyPro (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked and draft deleted. --Kinu t/c 20:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:36, 8 September 2022 review of draft by Bobsyruncle


Hello there. Thank you for the comments. I am not sure I fully understand what is wrong with the sources for this article. Am I using the wrong way of referencing, or is it the actual sources that you consider too weak. Bobsyruncle (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobsyruncle: you may need to ask the declining reviewer directly. I didn't find anything obviously wrong with the sources, and it seems to me the content is pretty well supported, but perhaps I'm missing something. (Some of the sources aren't suitable for establishing notability, but that's not why this was declined.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:48, 8 September 2022 review of submission by JustTheFacts815

Can someone please help clarify what exactly needs to be adjusted for my article? It was declined, which is fine, but the it was declined for two reasons:

1. That it was not adequately sourced. 2. The submission was not formal enough.

But there were no specific mentions on what that was referring to within the article. I provided over 60 reliable, independent, verifiable sources, so I'm unsure how that makes it not adequately sourced? As far as the writing of the submission, I believe it was as formal and fact-based as could be, as nothing was written, stated, or quoted that couldn't be backed up with the sources.

I'm more than happy to make adjustments, but am honestly kind of lost as to what that might be without specifics being pointed out? Can someone (or many someones) take a look and give me some specific feedback?

JustTheFacts815 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JustTheFacts815: The "Notable Clients" section should be 86'd as promotion=by-overdetail. You also have several unsourced biographical claims which I will remove from the article in short order; do not restore them without providing an adequate source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JustTheFacts815: Another thing I notice is that the draft is over-cited in some spots. You don't need more than two sources to verify a particular claim. You also cite some sources we don't accept, such as YouTube (only verified news outlets' videos should be cited) and Daily Mail (deprecated). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THIS makes more sense -- thank you for your specificity on all you mentioned! I will go back and remove the Notable Clients section, as well as the Youtube and Daily Mail sources. I also didn't know you "over-source" on Wikipedia, so thanks for the heads up!
As far as the unsourced biographical claims, can I which ones you're referring to? I thought all were verifiable via the links, but would like to hear your thoughts! JustTheFacts815 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've already removed the clients list and the unsourced claims (see this for a summary of what I removed). For biographical claims, you need a cite at literally every single claim the article makes that could be challenged, even if that claim is in the middle of a sentence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

07:55:39, 9 September 2022 review of draft by Isaiah okolie

I am requesting a little help for the article i submitted but later turned down.

My drafts for Lord pharizz was turned down please I want to know where I made a mistake.

Isaiah okolie (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaiah okolie: there are all sorts of problems with this draft, so much so that I think you're lucky it was only declined and not speedily deleted.
  1. There are no references. See WP:REFB.
  2. There is no indication of notability. See WP:GNG.
  3. It seems to be an autobiography, which is a really bad idea. See WP:AUTOBIO.
It's also pretty promotional, but that's probably the least of its problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft lacks any sources or references so cannot be considered, there is zero indication that the topic is notable so you are probably wasting your time. Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:51:56, 9 September 2022 review of submission by Talimkhannoida


Talimkhannoida (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Talimkhannoida? Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered. (And please don't post this blank query several times. Thanks.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


09:02:25, 9 September 2022 review of submission by SItsandzile

Greetings. I submitted and article for "Amanda Mo", a female artist born in Eswatini but is currently based in South Africa. The article was rejected for not having reliable sources. I would like to point out that the sources used in the article were mainly those from South African and Eswatini National Newspapers that were specifically written to cover Amanda Mo and contained her as the headline for the articles, with her being a main headline story for the entertainment section of the publication. Eswatini does not have any magazines or tabloid publications. The country only has two main National newspapers, The Eswatini Times and Eswatini Observer. Eswatini also does not have regional newspaper publications but only has The Eswatini Times and Eswatini Observer to cover the whole country. For these publications, Amanda Mo as you will notice, is the main story and the articles are specifically written about her and her music because she is a notable and well respected musician in her country. Furthermore, The South African Publication called The Daily Mail which is a National Newspaper in South Africa also specifically published a story about her and music and had her as a headline. Also used as part of her references is her recent Power FM 98.7 interview, Power FM is one of the biggest talk radio stations in South Africa. Additional references were from PressReader. Please kindly highlight how these sources are no considered to be reliable, Taking for example the case of her home country Eswatini which has only two National Newspapers that have the country's Government endorsement, how would these be regarded as not reliable sources? How then would an artist from Eswatini be considered to have notable sources if the only two existing and trusted National newspapers are not considered reliable? Does this then mean that Wikipedia articles cannot be published for the Eswatini people unless they have articles from foreign countries written about them? Is this considered fair to Eswatini national? I am very concerned because this rule does not apply to other artists that have been approved by using references from their home countries. Please kindly help and assist on this regard. SItsandzile (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SItsandzile: debating this issue is somewhat academic, given that the draft appears to be a significant copyright violation, which is why I've requested for it to be deleted.
I've also posted on your talk page a conflict of interest query. Please respond to that before editing further. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I responded to that. Thanks SItsandzile (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:28:33, 9 September 2022 review of draft by Ggchor


Hello, Are there specifics that need to be taken out of the article or included?

Ggchor (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently large parts of the article that are entirely unsourced. Additionally, the sources that are in the article include two unreliable sources (WP:FORBESCON and what looks to be a industry press release republisher). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:52, 9 September 2022 review of submission by Chibombwe1


Chibombwe1 (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chibombwe1 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:42:02, 9 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Col. Coca Cola


I need help citing my references


Col. Coca Cola (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Col. Coca Cola: you are citing several sources, they're just not reliable ones. (See WP:RS) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
can you help me find reliable ones? Col. Coca Cola (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more about reliable sources. These would be things like news reports. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Col. Coca Cola Unfortunately, the volunteer editors who answer questions on this page about how to edit on Wikipedia do not (usually) help other editors (like yourself) do the research that's necessary to write an article. That work is up to you. 331dot has pointed out some information that should be helpful. Finally, please don't ask on your user talk page for an article to be reviewed quickly. WP has no deadline. Good luck. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:50:28, 9 September 2022 for assistance on Draft:Autosphere submission by JujuKP


Hello,

My post on Autosphere is systematically declined for the reason "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". However, I have added reliable and quality sources, such as that of the BANQ which is the National Library of Quebec Archives. They are referencing Autosphere and all the details about the magazine. I would like to know what I should do and especially understand why I see a lot of validated pages when they hardly cite any sources.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Julien

JujuKP (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JujuKP: that "not adequately supported by reliable sources" decline notice can mean two different things: either the sources aren't reliable, or the draft isn't adequately supported by them. In this case, it's the latter (at least — I'm not commenting on whether the sources are, or aren't, reliable). Meaning, much of the content isn't supported at all, with several paragraphs without a single citation, begging the obvious question where is all that information coming from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ! So I should remove some parts of the text ? JujuKP (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't support them with reliable sources, then yes, you should remove them. Essentially, an article should only summarise what reliable published sources have said about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:39, 9 September 2022 review of submission by Zara2308

I want to have feedback from fellow wikians Zara2308 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zara2308: you will get feedback, of sorts, when you submit this for review (assuming it doesn't get deleted again). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

07:21:17, 10 September 2022 review of submission by Mat baba


Mat baba (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mat baba Did you take that picture with your own camera? It looks like a professional portrait. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was my Canon camera. Mat baba (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Help me and work on my Article, it's ever been rejected, And to whom tagged it with a stop, kindly release my Draft Article I am still working on it.

Regards

"Rejected" means that the draft will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can that stop tag be deleted off from it, I wish to Edit and resubmit new added content. Can you kindly help me and remove it.
@Kylie tastic Mat baba (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mat baba Apparently you don't understand. "Rejected" means that the draft will not be considered further. Let us know if this is not clear to you. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the meaning of "Rejected"!! So quote me clearly, what I meant was how can I appeal or what should I do such that my Draft Article @Mpiima musicTagged with ''STOP" by @Kylie tastics be removed, Remember it that I can nolonger submit edited content on my Draft Article even when I try to add Requested information, References.!!! Please understand me very well family, Otherwise am soon quiting this game if no one can help me. Nice time 🤦‍🚶🚶🚶 Mat baba (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mat baba: this draft will not be published, so the answer to your question 'how can you appeal or what should you do' is — nothing. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform, and certainly not a marketing channel. There is no automatic entitlement to inclusion, and only topics with demonstrable notability will be published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:46:26, 10 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Curran919


The new article was declined because a section already existed in Color blindness covering the same topic. However, that section has had a Split tag on it for 3 months. The new article is supposed to be the split. Did I do things in the wrong order? I didn't follow split step 4 and close the discussion, but because there was no one else participating in discussion, so I guess that makes it a bold split. The edit summary was also not word for word what is recommended, but its definitely clear its a split... ("Split from color blindness")

Curran919 (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Curran919: I'm guessing it wasn't clear to the reviewer that this was intended as a split. I also don't think this needs to go through AfC.
FYI, here's the procedure for splitting, in case you haven't found it: WP:CORRECTSPLIT.
Just to say also that the new split has to stand up on its own in terms of referencing and notability etc., whereas I noticed that your draft has quite a lot of unreferenced content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what you mean by I also don't think this needs to go through AfC.; Is this not simply a place to ask questions about article creation? The split content is inheriting the lack of references from the parent content, but I can spend some more time on that. Thanks. Curran919 (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curran919 Generally questions here should pertain to the Articles for Creation process, not article creation in general. The general Help Desk is for any topic area, and the Teahouse is an area for new users to ask questions about any topic area. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I just followed the advice written on my talk page: If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. Otherwise Articles for Creation process, not article creation in general is - I'm afraid - not a clear distinction, especially because my questions seems to be in line with almost every other question on this page. Curran919 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curran919 You attempted to submit a draft through AFC and are now asking about it, so you are in the right place. I was simply responding to your question. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:01:48, 10 September 2022 review of submission by TaiyoHoneyMoon

wizard in vinyl is a Japanese power pop and guitar pop label. Mainly crunchy powerpop and crystal guitar pop. RADIO DAYS, who released Rave On! all over the world simultaneously in May, performed their best live ever at Firenze Rocks with Green Day and Weezer. In addition, BUZZ CLICK and BRUCE MOODY belonging to WiV are artists who are highly popular and attracting attention from enthusiastic power pop fans around the world. In addition, HAWAII MUD BOMBERS and Suzy Los Quattro, who were artists at the beginning of the launch, are also very popular in Japan. In addition, Mr. Kambe Daisuke has about 2,400 followers on his Facebook page and is a friend of many celebrities. TaiyoHoneyMoon (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TaiyoHoneyMoon Facebook followers and association with celebrities is not relevant. What matters is significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. The last reviewer must have though this unlikely to occur, as they rejected the draft, meaning it won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:02:49, 10 September 2022 review of draft by TexasEditor1


Hi there,

I've submitted my first article for review and have continued editing; I understand it takes time, but it's been a couple of months I'm wondering what I can do to get a review or further feedback to enhance review prospects. Everyone who has looked at it has helped so much already, but most seem to indicate the content is very solid and have made just a few technical changes. I don't want to write more until I'm secure that I'm on the right track by getting this one accepted. I did an exhaustive amount of work — too much, actually, considering what I wound up taking out — so I want to continue honing my technique while expanding my knowledge of how to make solid entries. If there is anyone who might offer further advice or instruction, or an actual review, I'd very much appreciate it. Meanwhile, I will continue to edit my way through Wikipedia when I see something I think I can fix.

Thanks!

TexasEditor1 (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TexasEditor1: for starters, REFBOMBING the draft with 70+ sources certainly doesn't help. Can you tell us the THREE strongest ones, in terms of establishing GNG? Having said which, the current waiting time for a review is c. 4 months, so your 2 months isn't extraordinary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was trying to be diligent; Wikipedia repeatedly instructs that every fact must be verified by reliable sources, so I endeavored to do that as thoroughly as possible. Observing your response to user JujuKP, in which not enough citations was mentioned as a concern, I have to say this is the first time anyone suggested I use less references, or that notability would still be in question at this stage. Consultations through the teahouse, as well as combing every instruction I could find regarding establishing and proving notability, not to mention my daily consultation of Wikipedia pages about musicians and countless other subjects, led me to believe that notability is well-established, and once I crossed all the I's and dotted all the T's (including creating archive copies of references to assure permanent link accessibility), that I would be in good shape. But according to that page about musician notability, this subject meets the guidelines in several ways.
I'm shocked that I'm just now seeing the pages you've directed me to regarding refbombing, etc. I've tried to be very, very careful in that department, as well as every other one. One thing I've learned through this experience is that there's a bottomless well of information regarding contributing to Wikipedia, but unfortunately, some of it is not easy to discover, and that there are always more layers — some of which conflict with one another.
I also understand the wait time can be up to four months, but oddly, every time I call up my page and see that mentioned in the box that appears, the number of articles cited as waiting in the cue never changes. I figured it couldn't hurt to see if any input might be available in the meantime, or if there might be a chance that I could interest someone in an actual review.
Are you asking me to mention a few top references here, in correspondence, to confirm legitimacy? In my opinion, Mark Addison's legitimacy doesn't hinge on one or two pieces of information; it's cumulative. But here is his list of over 400 Allmusic.com credits, which confirms he's written songs recorded by Cher, Joan Baez, Italian star Zucchero and Kiss member Gene Simmons, and has credits from writer to producer on albums by Maia Sharp, Hanson, Mundy, etc. He is the subject of entries in several books and is covered in several feature articles involving various facets of his career, etc., so I'm not even sure which ones would be more convincing than others. His connection to the film "Light of Day" and to Springsteen's song "Born in the U.S.A." is rather convoluted, but very interesting; his band, the Generators, was the model for Paul Schrader's film, originally titled "Born in the U.S.A." from a line in a song by that band. Springsteen had a copy of the script and lifted the title for his song (by his admission). He wrote a different song for the film, in which Addison appears; he also recruited the band he performs with in the film. That band includes a young Trent Reznor, later of Nine Inch Nails. Varying versions of this story are told in different accounts I referenced on the page.
If you're wondering what connection I have to the artist, we happen know each other because we both live in Austin, where he makes music and I write about music. I just think his story is interesting and his credits are impressive. Someone already asked if I accepted money to write this page. I know Wikipedia's guidelines and distaste for that activity; I'm not interested in violating the rules — though I have checked pages I know to be written by people who do that, and in fact, edited at least one entry that, if I were an approving editor, I would likely have nixed. I'm trying to adhere to every Wiki conduct and composition code I can, which is why I reached out in the first place; I want to keep going.
I can't thank you enough for your time and for directing me to those pages. They offer more food for thought. But here's a question regarding my sourcing for fact confirmation. Addison's credits include working with Zuccero, who's virtually unknown in some parts of the world and huge in others. I cite a 2020 Sydney Morning Herald story headlined, "Zucchero is a living legend, selling 60 million albums, yet many say 'who'?" It doesn't mention page subject Addison, yet it validates claims that Zucchero is a very popular artist. I also included a much older, but more even more informative article about Zucchero and his renown, and verify, via ASCAP, Addison's credit on a song Zucchero recorded, So which would I do away with if my goal is to support statements in the entry and validate facts? TexasEditor1 (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

08:16:57, 11 September 2022 review of submission by Davidt1510


Hi there, I have taken references from other wikipedia articles on the same topic category such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Consulting_Group and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridgespan_Group, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_%26_Company. I did a major overhaul to ensure neutrality...

Kindly advise so I can re-write it better, thanks! Davidt1510 (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidt1510:
First and foremost, this has been rejected and won't be considered further.
Second, using other articles as your yardstick is just asking for trouble; you should instead follow the various guidelines.
In any case, neutral tone and NPOV isn't really something you copy from other articles, it comes from you as the author. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:26, 11 September 2022 review of submission by MrScottyNotter54


MrScottyNotter54 (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This shit again?! You get no sympathy from me.
This is the same tired fucking song and dance as the repeatedly-spammed-to-death attempts to get a BfDI article, and honestly we're fucking sick of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A thorough analysis but settle down there, Jéské. I'm sure this editor, who has now been blocked, is unaware of previous efforts to get an article on BfDI subjects on to the project. We can't assume that inexperienced editors are familiar with the trials of the good folks at AFC who've seen many versions of these articles pass through review. It's great that you spent the so much time to go through all of these inadequate sources in detail but if doing so makes you this angry and frustrated, it's probably best to take a pass, especially if it looks like the editor won't be here for long. Experienced and knowledgeable editors are too valuable to lose! Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "angry and frustrated" part is more about this being attempt number I-lost-count to push a BfDI-related article, not because of the source assessment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano But do these editors know that? Or should they? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they bothered to do any research, yes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:06, 11 September 2022 review of submission by MrScottyNotter54


MrScottyNotter54 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:43:58, 11 September 2022 review of submission by Lindleygallegos


Hi! I'd love to get some help with my page "Rasmus Bach" I haven't been accepted. I would love some help editing it and adding citiations. Somehow I'm in a developer view as well. I don’t know how to see the simple view. Please help! Thanks Lindley

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rasmus Bach
Before we start, I'm going to have a look at the sources you do cite. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode.
Now, you do have some sources, so that's good. The bad news is that this is a biography of a living person, so you need at least one source for literally every claim the article makes. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that are written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. I will refer you again to /Decode:
  • (July 22, 1995) - Source? (Dates of birth are considered controversial information due to ageism in professional settings; while this generally does not apply to sports we have to request a source here.)
  • Rasmus Bach attended high school in Austin, Texas (Anderson High School)[...] - Source?
  • [...]played his NCAA Division II basketball for Fort Lewis College in the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference in Durango, Colorado. Cite the Durango Herald source here (see Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once).
  • Bach scored 1,702 points in his FLC career, which ranks third all-time in Fort Lewis College history. - Source?
  • Alex Herrera is second with 1,758 points, and DeAndre Lansdowne is first with 1,861. - The specific figures are irrelevant. I'd actually replace the full stop in the last sentence with a standard stop, and write the two thus: Bach scored 1,702 points in his Fort Lewis College career, ranking third in all-time points behind Alex Herrera and DeAndre Lansdowne. You would still need to provide a source that backs up these claims.
  • Bach won numerous Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference awards, including for academics, in his senior season her was named NABC Honors Court, D2CCA All-Region Second Team, All-RMAC First Team, Academic All-RMAC First Team, and RMAC Player of the Week. - Lists of stuff fall into what I call "promotion-by-overdetail", and unless it's absolutely essential to understanding who someone is and what they do and have done, it should be left out or winnowed to the most important stuff. The source here was also dismissed above; you need a different one.
  • He made the All-RMAC team every year and was named Freshman of the Year in 2014. - Need a source for each claim (All-RMAC team every year and Frosh of the Year).
  • Under captain, Rasmus Bach, his team won two regular season championships in 2017 and 2018. - This sentence scans badly and seems to be very ambiguous as to its meaning. Rewrite it to be more clear. We need a source for each championship.
  • Rasmus Bach played two and half seasons (2019-2021) in the Danish National League where he played for Randers Cimbria. - Source? (We accept non-English sources and automated translation doesn't do too terribly with Dutch.)
  • He was last there in 2020 where he was averaging 12.5 points, 6.1 rebounds and 2.3 assists a game before the competition was shut down because of the pandemic. - The back half of this sentence needs to be rephrased a bit.
  • His team in Randers won the Silver medal in the 2020 season. - Irrelevant. It's one thing to state his team won it; it's quite another to claim he was instrumental in doing so. This would fit better in the article on his DNL team.
  • Bach signed a two year contract to the New Zealand Breakers in late 2020. - The Stuff source confirms the signing in late 2020; it however does not confirm the 2yr contract and would need to be supplemented with another source that does.
  • In his first season he appeared in 18 games and averaged 4.78 points per game shooting 44% from the field and 40% from the three point arch. - The source cited here is the NBL homepage, which is not fit as a cite. The other statistics line is uncited entirely.
  • Rasmus Bach is the son of Peter Bach and Janni Bach, both of whom played European Handball in the 2000 Summer Sydney Olympics. - Source?
  • Rasmus is married (2019) to Lindley Bach (Gallegos). - Source?
Hopefully this helps to explain what all needs sourced and what we're looking for source-wise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rasmus Bach

Lindleygallegos (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lindleygallegos: you have to make sure that every material statement is either supported with a reliable published source, or else removed. For example, the 'Personal Life' section talks about his family, but there is no source cited — where does that information come from? (See WP:BLP.)
And on a related point, I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page; please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

08:16:13, 12 September 2022 review of draft by 91.106.36.249


Can I get help from someone to modify this article to be accepted and published on wikipedia . this is my first project on Wikipedia . 91.106.36.249 (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now moot, as draft was deleted under G11 and G12. OP has been given GS/CRYPTO warning. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 08:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:55:08, 12 September 2022 review of draft by İsa şahintürk


İsa şahintürk (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @İsa şahintürk? This draft was declined because it isn't in English (among its other issues). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:12, 12 September 2022 review of submission by Prads999

I am trying to publish a Wikipedia Page for the company KISSHT. I have also added a disclaimer in my profile as required by WIKIPEDIA. However the article submitted by me was rejected due to below reasons. Kindly help. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified" "All the references are examples of trivial reporting, does nothing for notability" Prads999 (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Prads999: The draft has since been deleted as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion. Disclosure does not remove the requirement to write neutrally, and in fact this tends to be where most conflict of interest editors go wrong. Even the best writer shows their biases in their writing, and while you may not be able to see and recognise it someone who doesn't have this pre-existing connexion can and often will.
As to the matter of sourcing, we're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. Name-drops, routine business news, and company profiles are all worthless as sources for this reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:01, 12 September 2022 review of submission by Toptoptop1111

My article was rejected. Toptoptop1111 (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toptoptop1111: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. The draft is highly promotional (see what Wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is a means of promotion.) None of the references are considered reliable, independent, significant coverage. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Draft deleted, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:42, 12 September 2022 review of submission by Toptoptop1111

I would like to know the reason why my article was rejected. Toptoptop1111 (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toptoptop1111 see above. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:00, 12 September 2022 review of draft by JenniferRose77


I would just like to know if there is anything I can do to improve this article or make it get approved faster. This is my first article. Thank you for your help!

JenniferRose77 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JenniferRose77 Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers, doing what they can when they can. There isn't anything you can really do to speed up the process. Please be patient- as noted on your draft, it could take some time. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JenniferRose77: I took a quick look at the article, and don't see how the chief is notable. Just being a police chief isn't enough. Has he done anything unique that has gotten him media coverage, besides being hired and retiring? TechnoTalk (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:06, 12 September 2022 review of submission by Billatek


16:20:06, 12 September 2022 review of submission by Billatek



Decorpot(Company) Decorpot is a Bangalore-based interior design company with professional experts who deliver the highest level of excellence. Founded in 2015, the firm focuses on providing high-quality home interiors while operating across India. They use German technology and machinery for accuracy and precision. They offer a solution to formatting, edge-banding, soft forming, post forming and shaped parts through feed machines.

@Billatek: what is your question? This draft, such as it is, has been rejected and won't be considered further. Please see WP:YFA for advice on creating an article. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and this Draft:Decorpot is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:10, 12 September 2022 review of draft by Rocky.perera


Rocky.perera (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the Senior Marketing Manager for Merrithew. We are working towards updating the company information on Wikipedia. Is there someone on Wikipedia's end we can speak to to help facilitate this? Please advise on the best next step for us in this process to ensure successful submission/approval of our updated page.

@Rocky.perera: I am going to be VERY blunt: DISCLOSE YOUR EMPLOYMENT. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As to the article, with the exception of the WSJ Magazine source (can't assess - walled) the lot of your sources are useless for notability (in order: too sparse, wrong subject, too sparse, website homepage, deprecated, too sparse x2, website homepage x2, connexion to subject). Even if that Wall Street Journal source is usable it cannot support an article by itself.
Since the sources are junk (and barring a significant improvement on that front) anything written in the article matters only for determining if speedy deletion criterion G11 (blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion) applies - and it very much does, reading more like an extended advertizement for the company than a clinical encyclopaedia article. Don't try to use Wikipedia in your marketing strategy; we don't like it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rocky.perera: You may be aware by now that your company article has been deleted for violating Wikipedia's policy forbidding blatant advertising. There are likely other similar advertising-like articles on the encyclopedia, but that just means they have not been addressed yet. The important thing for you to know is that notability comes from identifying independent third party media sources. See WP:NCORP. I Googled the phrase Merrithew 30th anniversary and couldn't find a single article about the anniversary. I do see a passing mention in the WSJ that suggests your equipment is considered to be premium, but can't find other in-depth media coverage to substantiate notability. So that's the main issue. You are also discouraged from writing anything yourself. It's too hard to separate yourself from the marketing copy. If sufficient media coverage ever does develop, then a fan who is also an experienced editor will likely start an article for you. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:30:46, 12 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by ReaderK1967


Hello, I created an article for creation and it was declined. I went back into the article, and updated the info based on the declination notes. Do I need to resubmit the article for it the be reviewed? Thank you

ReaderK1967 (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderK1967: It looks like the article has already been been resubmitted. I made some improvements and removed some of the weaker primary sources. My recommendation is to not include any info that can't be independently sourced. Speaker bios don't count, since those are just reposted by the media without verification. I also removed announcements of appearances and readings, since those don't really show notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

04:11:38, 13 September 2022 review of draft by Nhutchison


Hello,

My article submission for the Hot Club of San Francisco was rejected by a reviewer because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I'm thankful for the speedy review and respect Wikipedia's policies to ensure the veracity of information. I (now) understand that the Hot Club of San Francisco's website is not a verifiable source and have removed it, however I would really appreciate some clarity/specifics on my remaining sources and/or the info they pertain to. Would it be possible to look at my article and identify some potentially problematic sources/statements? Anything you can point out that you think would make the article submission adhere to Wikipedia's standards (and make it more likely to be accepted) would help. Thank you so much!

Nhutchison (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:09, 13 September 2022 review of submission by Rainbownautinspace

My article got rejected for lack of reliable sources. As it is the first article i've drafted could i receive some guidance on how to improve these references! Rainbownautinspace (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1110033559"