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 TechnoTalk (talk | contribs) at 15:18, 21 October 2022 (→11:12:00, 21 October 2022 review of submission by Jepwashere: Article looks fine now, pinging reviewer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


October 15

11:44:28, 15 October 2022 review of draft by MoisesBlake


MoisesBlake (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Bienvenido Bones Bañez, Jr. Metropolitan Manila Museum Exhibit Video As I reported in Highbrow on August 27, 2018, the work of painter Bienvenido Bones Bañez, Jr. was featured this summer at the Metropolitan Museum of Manila as a notable museum.[reply]

The following video was part of that instillation. https://carterkaplan.blogspot.com/2018/10/bienvenido-banez-jr-mmm-exhibit-video.html?m=1

Contacting Checkuser. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:18, 15 October 2022 review of draft by TheBobs9


I feel like my draft that I have made in August is not too notable. I have found reliable sources by the website that editors use for references. I am not sure if you guys have the link to the draft but it is Draft: Tyler Brennan (ice hockey). One of the links that a decliner put up was to see if the player is notable or not. I checked and it said "plays for a team in the NHL. Some other leagues were told in that sentence. The player was drafted by an NHL team on July 8 this year. What can I do? TheBobs9

TheBobs9 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBobs9 Drafted is not the same as has played for an NHL team, many get drafted but never actually play in the NHL. The new WP:NSPORT also requires that there is some significant reliable coverage on the subject. This is beyond just proving they have played but someone else has decided to write about them in detail on their own accord and publish it in a reliable source. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBobs9 There's an ongoing discussion about the NHOCKEY notability criteria, and it's currently not entirely clear what exactly is required to qualify. Meanwhile, if you could show that this person satisfies the WP:GNG standard, that would be pretty uncontroversial, but I guess that's a big ask for someone who only just got drafted. Either way, just waiting a while could help. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:24, 15 October 2022 review of submission by Joscoboy98


Joscoboy98 (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joscoboy98 You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please see the comments left by reviewers on the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:31, 15 October 2022 review of draft by Ishra7


To whom it may concern,

I recently wrote a biography about an Indian Cricket coach, with all the information provided about him, also listing his awards and career. But Wikipedia keeps declining it saying that it doesn't qualify as Wikipedia content. I have included references and followed the template of how a biography is written in Wikipedia. Could you please check what is wrong and pls let me know so I can make the necessary changes. The draft name is " Mirza Rahamatullah Baig"

with regards, Ishra7

Ishra7 (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly source with an identifiable author and subjected to rigourous fact-checking that can confirm it or (if no such sources can be found) removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

11:03:56, 16 October 2022 review of draft by Darkfall7


I have submitted the above draft for revision three times, and the two most recent times I was told that the lede being unsourced was a problem. I have since sourced the lede with the same sources I use further down in the "Early Life and Education" and "Career" sections, but when looking for cast listings for several of the film and TV series', I could not find listings of the full casts. The only place that had the full cast listings that I could find was IMDb, but the use of cast lists from IMDb as a reference is a disputed use, so I removed all IMDb citations. Is there any other trusted websites where I could find full cast listings, or is the film/TV series itself considered a primary source? I have watched most of the media in question and can confirm that the subject appears in them, so I am not clear on whether or not citing a cast list is necessary? Also, if I cite sources in the lede that I also use in later sections that go more in depth, is it necessary to cite the same sources again, or should I remove the citations in either the lede or later sections?

Darkfall7 (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to cite a cast list; for film/television it is assumed that the named person is in the credits, which can be verified simply by viewing the production. If they aren't credited, then you would need a source. Theater productions are harder but they usually have published lists to cite.
I'm not sure why you are being told to cite the lede; the lede should be summarizing the contents of the article, so as long as the article is sourced that should be sufficient. I think the main issue is that you don't have much beyond listing his productions/appearances. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:54, 16 October 2022 review of submission by David1212121


Could you please advise how you would like this article to be edited. The science has been reviewed properly and the definitions are quite clear. Please tell us in details what is missing, so that I can improve the message, Best wishes, Pr. David Holcman Computational Biology and Applied Mathematics, 46 rue d'Ulm, Paris France.

David1212121 (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, so there is nothing that you can do. Please review the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:58, 16 October 2022 review of submission by Brahmastra85585


I want to know my page is rejected Brahmastra85585 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmastra85585 Your draft was deleted as a blatant advertisement. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about something. Please read the five pillars and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. You may also want to first edit existing articles, to help you learn. Creating a new article is difficult. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:40:12, 16 October 2022 review of submission by TLarish

Thanks to MaxnaCarta for reviewing the submission. Please clarify whether the issue is a) a lack of reliable, in-depth, secondary, and independent sources on the subject, or b) one of the sources fails to fit that category.

My thought is that the issue with it is the "efemeridespedrobeltran.com" citation. I have since removed it (and the information relying on it), leaving only Forbes, Financial Times, and HelloMonaco.

My second thought is that two of the sources (one FT and the HelloMonaco) are interviews with a Nahmad. However, the articles appear to be journalistic beyond rehashing the Nahmad's opinions — especially FT's.

TLarish (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TLarish this article is not suitable. "journalistic" is not relevant. There is "journalistic" content of all sorts of things. There needs to be significant coverage of a topic covered by multiple reliable sources, and the coverage within the article does not meet that standard. Also, just because something has been covered somewhat by media, that does not guarantee inclusion. There is absolutely no need for a separate article on the artwork owned by a person when they have their own article. So, per WP:PAGEDECIDE I do not consider this appropriate for its own article. That coupled with a lack of notability, this particular topic is not appropriate for Wikipedia. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't repeat what has already been said, especially as I'm asking for elaboration. "The coverage within the article does not meet that standard" — what standard? I see multiple reliable sources, and believe this coverage to be significant, especially compared to other articles on Wikipedia.
I admit fault, however. The purpose of the article was not sufficiently clear. This is not the art collection of one person, as you suggested; it is a family art collection, and therefore it cannot be placed (likely more aptly— I agree with you) within a single person's page. This is the largest individual art collection in the world, and has a great deal of notoriety in the art community that has leaked out public coverage on the Nahmads — much as they don't want coverage, much as they'd like to keep their record under the radar.
Again, I agree with you; this is certainly the type of content that would usually appear in an individual's article. However, there are five Nahmads relevant to this collection. David Nahmad is not the only one (Giuseppe might be a better choice for merger, if any). Purchases and Nahmad activity cannot be attributed directly to David Nahmad, and therefore do not belong in his article.
The closest precedent might be the Borghese, Royal, or Farnese collections. Or the Waddesdon Bequest. However, this has a public presence.
Please help me think of a solution. TLarish (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

17:36:13, 17 October 2022 review of draft by Outofindia


Outofindia (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to proceed with getting this article published. I did request help from wikipedians but was not told of any Conflict of interests in this article. I looked for what WP:UPE means but it gets redirected to a WP: COI page. I assume it mean Paid Editing which it is not, but dont understan what U stands for.I do need to learn though how to see an article through. I am not related or part of their company. I discovered this talent during the pandemic and thought it deserved an article, so did all the research needed for citations. Please help with what next.

I have other article stubs deleted but did not pursue it. would like to learn.

The "U" in UPE means "undisclosed". As to the draft itself, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly source written by identifiable authors and subject to rigourous fact-checking that explicitly confirms the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

04:22:55, 18 October 2022 review of submission by Sharpieethesharpie


I realised that there is a prior draft written for Toy Factory Productions Ltd. As I have worked on to edit and publish, i see this. How can i create a new article that is not related to this writer?


Sharpieethesharpie (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:35:34, 18 October 2022 review of draft by FreeSharedKnowledge


FreeSharedKnowledge (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC) I thought it would be useful to add on Wikipedia at least one essential information on the main scientific event concerning the international community that deals with diffraction from powders and polycrystalline materials. Also an example of spontaneous and transnational collaboration, and a topic that, in addition to experts, attracts the interest of many scientists and technologists. All of this is volunteer work. If it is made too difficult, frankly, it becomes impossible. Perhaps I would have expected a more benevolent attitude. Yes, of course, help is very welcome. But why not publish a first entry on EPDIC in this essential, even too laconic form? This makes it possible for others, perhaps more experienced, to intervene and make changes and additions more in line with your standards. Rejecting what I have proposed does not go in this direction[reply]

Discussion about this at User talk:FreeSharedKnowledge; the draft was a copyright violation and had no sources. The user has also been blocked for undeclared paid editing. --bonadea contributions talk 11:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:54:11, 18 October 2022 review of draft by Lombardes


Lombardes (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article I submitted was refused for "reading too much like an advertisement". I'm not sure how to amend this, as I tried to use as many references as possible that were not published by the company itself and to keep the tone factual and neutral. but it's my first attempt at writing an article so I'm grateful for any help! In terms of notability, I believe this is a company that has a remarkable product that will one day enable many people with paraplegia, quadriplegia and neurological diseases to live more normal lives.

11:00:57, 18 October 2022 review of submission by 24.212.231.146


Hi, I hope to get some assistance with this. I prepared a page for a band and it was rejected. The first issue I notice is that a prior reviewer for someone else's draft wrote that my draft had a high risk of bias and I feel like this influenced the reviewer which to me seems inappropriate. Second, the new reviewer rejected the article due to not having references of notoriety. I disagree with this as there is a reference to a full story published by Exclaim! Magazine, a national online and print Magazine here in Canada. There is a national online article by CBC. The reviewer indicates that there are only passing mentions of the band but again, this isn't true. The band won some major awards in Canada (East Coast Music Awards, 2 of them) and I feel as though based on articles and this information as well as charting in Canada, they easily should be published. Furthermore, the band has played with major rock acts including Eric Avery of Jane's Addiction, they have produced remixes for the band Berlin and have won awards for producing music for film soundtracks.

I am unsure why they are being left off and others are not. As an example, I looked to other acts from their location and there are many bands published on Wikipedia that have far less notability and references. One example would be Slowcoast a second would be Jimmy Swift Band and a third would be Tome Fun Occhestra. All three of these bands have full Wikipedia pages and not nearly the national and international notability. I think this deletion was in error and should be corrected yet I am unsure where to turn.

Thank you.

24.212.231.146 (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


24.212.231.146 (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, please read other stuff exists. The existence of other articles has no bearing on your draft, each draft or article is considered on its own merits. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply have not been addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We could use the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted and evaluated by the community.
Quite frankly, yes, the fact that at least one band member attempted to create an article does influence what happens down the road, because we don't know what goes on off-wiki. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see the "Exclaim!" magazine or CBC sources you describe. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:14, 18 October 2022 review of draft by Karlpaulo


Not sure how many more sources i need for this because this was instructed by Wen-Szu Lin himself to include. All of which are lifted from his book Deliver: the Untaught Lessons

Karlpaulo (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karlpaulo: Lin (and you) may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles should be based on information published in reliable sources that are independent and secondary, and articles are not "owned" or controlled by people who are directly connected to the topic.
Have multiple sources that are wholly unconnected to Wen-Szu Lin discussed BSP? If not, it is unlikely that the concept is notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. A link to a sales website selling the book where the BSP concept was explained is not a source, and the other source in the draft doesn't appear to mention BSP at all. --bonadea contributions talk 15:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:36, 18 October 2022 review of submission by I LoveHorror Movies ForLife

I want the sandbox back...i didnt mean to publish, so if i could have it back that would be cool. And i would gain respect for you, especially bc you said that my page was not important... I LoveHorror Movies ForLife (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still have access to your sandbox, but its content is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:37, 18 October 2022 review of submission by Hhuften


Hi - I have read your guidelines and I don't understand why Anthony Chase is not considered notable for inclusion. I admire his work, philanthropy and contribution to the community. Please let me know how I can continue to proceed. Thank you.

Hhuften (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hhuften The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. As noted by reviewers, he does not have the coverage needed to demonstrate that he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a person and what they do. An article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person and their significance. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:52, 18 October 2022 review of draft by SC Marketing LLC


Mr. Jaskani retired in 1995, therefore there are no sources available on him on the -internet, except the death announcement by the official Pakistan Boy Scouts Association page on Facebook.


SC Marketing LLC (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources, he would not merit a Wikipedia article. Facebook is not an acceptable source. If you just want to tell the world about him or memorialize him, I would suggest websites with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We accept offline sources, if cited properly. This is a situation where we would expect there to be little-to-no online sources and would thus rely on whatever offline sources there are that discuss him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Request on 09:36:19, 19 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by FrankoSayHi5


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shree_Ramkrishna_Exports

please help me to create this article. help me to how to put sources and guide me on my shared sources which are align with wiki and which not?

FrankoSayHi5 (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrankoSayHi5: slow down a bit, please. Before I had a chance to answer your previous question on my talk page, you've already posted here, and then on my talk page again. Asking just once is usually enough.
The sourcing on this draft needs to meet the WP:GNG standard, and by some margin, too (per WP:ORGCRIT); it currently falls far short. My personal advice, FWIW, is that you're probably flogging a dead horse here, but that's your prerogative, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry... my sincere apologies FrankoSayHi5 (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:13:53, 19 October 2022 review of draft by Louisent31


Hello! I would like to ask where I can get an image for Jolyne Cujoh since I'm pretty sure getting it in a fan wiki like JoJo's Bizarre Encyclopedia will cause copyright infridgement.

Louisent31 (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to ask if there's anything else I could get regarding how Jolyne was created as a response for Araki wanting to get justice for his female characters since I'm sure the rest of it that gets expanded on it like JOJOVELLER isn't translated to English and her reception section since I'm not familiar with any sources that can be considered as credible and noteworthy. Louisent31 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't, at least not in draft. (We allow fair-use images, subject to restrictions; one of those restrictions is that they cannot be used outside of main (article) space). We also accept non-English and print sources; have you looked for any reviews of Stone Ocean in any medium that discuss Jolyne as a character? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:56, 19 October 2022 review of submission by ZachLynde

This guy is very relevant on social media ZachLynde (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZachLynde: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly source written by identifiable authors and subject to rigourous fact-checking that explicitly confirms the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

01:43:08, 20 October 2022 review of submission by Gardenkur

Dear Team. This article meeting Wikipedia guidelines on new article is in queue for long time. Request your feedback to move it to main space. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: just to clarify, there is no queue; there is something more akin to a pool. And in any case this draft isn't in it, as it hasn't been submitted — you have to click that blue 'submit' button to request a review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing. Sorry for not publishing it for notice. Hope now its ok for review. Gardenkur (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a copy of the source evaluation I just added to the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 09:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source evaluation in the current version of the draft. Source 3 supports the claim that the programme is used in some schools, but it is not fully independent (and it is relevant to note that it was added here as soon as it had been published).
1 thenewsstrike; press release reporting on source 4. Previously removed, see [1], because source 5 was already in the draft
2 maximumpune; press release
3 Shinde et al.; journal article, the journal is peer reviewed but this study was commissioned by the Heartfulness Institute and the authors are practitioners. The article verifies the claim that the programme is used in some schools.
4 Khandelwal; journal article, author is affiliated with heartfulness
5 PNI; same press release as source 1, see that comment
6 HT School; advert for the programme. Previously removed, see [2]
7 ngobox; press release / advert, previously removed, see [3]
8 globalindianschool; press release
9 happyhealthysociety; a copy of source 4, previously removed, see edit summary.
10 boldoutline; same press release as source 1, previously removed, see [4].
11 businessnewsthisweek; same press release as source 1, previously removed, see [5].

06:00:56, 20 October 2022 review of submission by EricFishers11

This draft needs some feedback on if the citation issues have been addressed. Most have been updated to secondary sources. Could you point out any other issues? EricFishers11 (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EricFishers11:, the draft needs sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT which was told to you in the decline reason. It is not about quantity, but quality. As a paid editor, you will need to review that guideline and provide sources that meet such as Wikipedians are not likely to assist in finding them for you. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 The guidelines were reviewed in depth and discussed in the IRL Chat, the major confusion was Primary vs Secondary which was clarified. Most the citations have been revised and those not meeting requirements have been removed. The goal is to see if good progress has been made to be resubmitted. EricFishers11 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EricFishers11: The draft has been resubmitted, so you will get an assessment of the sources and any other issues when it is reviewed. --bonadea contributions talk 18:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better way of getting a pre-review instead of re-submitting? EricFishers11 (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EricFishers11 We don't really do pre-review reviews, as we volunteers have limited time. I see you declared a COI; if you work for EWL, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Thanks EricFishers11 (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:50:47, 20 October 2022 review of draft by Gobiwankenobi


Greetings fellow Wikipedians,

Please help out this young wikifledgling here. Based on helpful suggestions, I have made the following edits to Draft:Mario_Herrera:

1. Sieved content for instances that may appear to have UPE/COI issues. I am fully aware of Wiki's WP:NPOV, WP:UPE, and WP:COI guidelines and have no COI with the subject, whatsoever. This page has been a learning experience on many levels and I am grateful for all the help.

2. Have also added relevant Wikipedia:Wikiproject tags so that this page finds its way home.

Please take a moment to review this page for any scope of further improvement.

Listening and learning,

Gobiwankenobi (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gobiwankenobi If you would like a review, please submit it for one- asking for a pre-review review duplicates effort. If the reviewer has concerns with your draft, they will tell you in a message declining the draft. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:19, 20 October 2022 review of draft by Louisent31


Hello, I was citing a Youtube Interview known as Interview With Fairouz Ai | JoJo's Bizarre Adventure STONE OCEAN | Netflix Anime but there are vertical bars in the title and they are what is needed in order for citations to work and so, because of this, an error occurs. Can you guys help me what to do to fix this? Louisent31 (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisent31 Youtube is deprecated as a reference. You need a very strong justification to seek to deploy it as one. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was an actual Netflix interview with the official Japanese voice actress explaining her love of the character and her thoughts of how different Jolyne is compared to everyone else and I thought that I should put it there for the Creation and Development section. Louisent31 (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is it alright to use an Anime News Network Article to also add to the Creation and Development section? I wanted to use the part where Araki explained why he wanted to create Jolyne as shown in JOJOVELLER, three sets of books that has Araki explained the process of creating the series and showcasing his artwork. but the thing is, it's never released in Japan and I never own it. One of the fan wikis translate the interview about why Araki made her a woman, but it didn't tell me what the page number is, so I thought using a news article on an anime news website is the best thing to use as a source. Louisent31 (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Louisent31 Your sources, references, must comply with WP:42, which is a digestible précis of the requirements. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:22, 20 October 2022 review of submission by TomisinAraoye

Made some edits based on the initial review but that was denied as well. Would love to get a clear direction on what bit is salesy and which of the references aren't of good quality. Would love to get some feedback so I can update accordingly

 Courtesy link: Draft:Moniepoint

TomisinAraoye (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TomisinAraoye: on a quick read, it's marketing blurb, buzzword salad and general puffery pretty much throughout, and sounds like something out of the bank's marketing department. Expressions like "leveraging technology", "payment solutions", "transition", "pivot", etc. have no place in an encyclopaedia, and need to be rewritten in a neutral, formal and concise tone. Which could be borderline impossible for you to do, if you have any sort of relationship with the organisation in question — on which point, I've posted a message on your talk page about conflicts-of-interest (COI), what they mean and how to manage them; please read and action as applicable. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:40, 20 October 2022 review of submission by Jepwashere

Hi MaxnaCarta,

It's true that previous version of this draft was rejected before due to lack of notability and that reference articles only mentioned the subject in passing. However, this is not the case this time. Can you give me some pointers as to what notability means from your point of view?

Jepwashere (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jepwashere For any topic, except living operons, where the requirements are tougher still, we require excellence of referencing. Notability per se is complex to define. You may find it useful to read WP:GNG
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:58:12, 20 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Aydesmond


Because after reading and following all Wiki's policy on writing article, my article submission was still declined.

Aydesmond (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydesmond: that's not a question. But just to clarify, your draft was not only declined, it was speedily deleted. To avoid this in the future, you may wish to revise the guidelines on WP:PROMO and WP:ADS. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:06, 20 October 2022 review of submission by Mattnbenson


Hello- thank you for reviewing the article, I appreciate the feedback. However, I believe the topic is sufficiently notable, as it has been covered extensively for over a year. There is a currently published article for Republic, the company that Everyrealm spun out from. Everyrealm has a fair amount of objective news coverage by reputable sources and I believe this warrant notability. Republic (fintech) I don't see any major difference in notability between Everyrealm and Republic, so I'm confused why one is eligible for publishing but the other isn't.

I have read through the documentation and respectfully disagree that it is not a notable topic. Furthermore, the initial rejection in September specifically cited a lack of objective sources, and I have added many citations to 3rd party journalism about the company. I also pruned any potentially promotional sounding language and made it 100% factual as verified by cited sources.

I would love to hear in more detail why specifically this topic isn't up to your standards of notability so I can learn how to be a better article writer and editor.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mattnbenson (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnbenson Please read other stuff exists. It could be that other articles you have seen are also inappropriate, but simply not addressed yet. If you want to use other articles as an example or model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. I see some of the same problems in the article you reference, and will mark it as such. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:03:12, 20 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Jadenwilla48291


Hello, I recently just completed an article, and after citing my sources, it was still rejected. I find the information correct and well sited. May I please get some clarifaction?


Jadenwilla48291 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jadenwilla48291: if you check the pink "declined" box on the draft, you'll see a bit of info about the kind of sources that are needed. Click the blue-linked words, to get a longer explanation of the terms "in-depth", "reliable", "secondary", and "strictly independent of the subject". None of the sources in the draft meet those requirements. --bonadea contributions talk 17:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am unable to use sources provided by the company even though they are reliable? I have specifically chosen to leave out any marketing or bias towards the company in response to the new article rules. I do not find the company sources to be biased and opinionated and that should be up to the reader to decide bias and other factors that contribute to this. I am still confused, I apologize for the troubles as I am new. Jadenwilla48291 (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadenwilla48291: the sources you cited are the company's own website (multiple times), and a PDF brochure of theirs, neither of which contributes towards notability. Primary sources like that can be used to verify simple facts which are not contentious (say, the company's current senior management, or the location of their HQ), but nothing beyond that, and as I said they don't help to establish notability per WP:GNG.
And yes, the company's own marketing materials are by definition "biased and opinionated", very much so.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20 October 2022 review of Draft:ArcadeDB

I am wondering why my article submission is declined.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.67.4 (talk • contribs)

The draft was declined for the reasons enumerated in the decline notice (see that grey box inside the large pink box) and the reviewer's comments below it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were told twice to make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Instead, your only citation is to a blogpost of the company that runs the project, which is less than totally useless for the creation of an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.67.4 (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

03:18:58, 21 October 2022 review of submission by Bannana2018


Bannana2018 (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bannana2018: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly source written by identifiable authors and subject to rigourous fact-checking that explicitly confirms the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. This draft is also blatantly promotional, and I am going to tag it for summary deletion as such. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:52:39, 21 October 2022 review of draft by Inga Bajelidze


Hello,

I have disclosed that I am employee of the company founded by David Zilpimiani - the man I am writing the article about. therefore I disclosed that I am payed for it. Is it enough? or is there anything I should keep in my mind before submitting the article?

Inga Bajelidze (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inga Bajelidze: from the COI / paid editing perspective, you're probably okay. However, I have to tell you this draft will not be accepted, as it currently stands. Firstly, it is entirely unreferenced (yes, there are a couple of sources listed at the end, but they are not cited, and don't seem to support anything in the draft). As I already explained, pretty much everything needs to be clearly supported by reliable published sources, and in the case of an article on a living person, this must be done by way of inline citations. See WP:REFB, WP:ILC and WP:BLP for advice.
Secondly, this sort of chronological bullet point approach doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article, it reads like a CV. You can certainly use bulleted lists, but they shouldn't be the only content there is. Please consider writing at least some of that in prose form. Also, we don't need to see everything someone has done or produced, Wikipedia is not a comprehensive catalogue of someone entire output; please focus only on the most notable aspects of his career. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:12:00, 21 October 2022 review of submission by Jepwashere

Hi MaxnaCarta,

I've added a new section about the controversies the subject was involved in. Please let me know what you think.

Jepwashere (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now been improved and company appears notable. Adding a dedicated controversies section seems WP:UNDUE and seems to be just to satisfy reviewers, so info has been restructured. Best sources [6], [7] and [8]. @MaxnaCarta: TechnoTalk (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:36, 21 October 2022 review of submission by Sidneylii

need to know if it follows all wikipedia guidelines, so that it will not be deleted Sidneylii (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sidneylii: whether or not it will get deleted isn't really what the AfC process is here to determine; we're mostly interested in whether it can be accepted for publication. And that's what you find out when you submit the draft for a review.
Having said which, I don't see anything in there which would make this person notable per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or any other notability standard that readily comes to mind. Therefore, if I were to review this, as it's currently written, I would most likely decline it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:20, 21 October 2022 review of submission by Sianxtdc


Sianxtdc (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Bostandjiev is a Bulgarian racing driver born in 2004 in London, United Kingdom.

He began his career in karting in 2019 with Project One Racing, alongside his academic endeavors. He joined Overdrive Racing, the first Bulgarian racing team, in December 2020.

In 2021 Stefan Bostandjiev entered his first professional racing season alongside teammate Pavel Lefterov in the ADAC GT4 Germany. The duo finished in 2nd place in the Junior class and 6th place оverall of ADAC GT4 Germany 2021 (without attending Round 3 due to getting COVID-19).

Stefan Bostandjiev has remained in the ADAC GT4 Germany with Overdrive Racing for 2022.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1117406021"