Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lao-ke (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 7 February 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
ShowcaseParticipants
ApplyBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

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


February 1

06:01:10, 1 February 2023 review of draft by AlbertSJTan


I would like to know why the reviewer has mentioned that a range of independent sources are needed and which specific ones he feels are not suitable. Most of the sources are trusted mainstream media companies in Singapore, Australia and Morocco. Also, what are the areas of improvement I can make to the formatting or the "peacock terms" he has identified.

More importantly, the reviewer has said he is on a break till March. Can this article be reassigned to a new reviewer?

AlbertSJTan (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:52, 1 February 2023 review of draft by De Facto Image Building


Hi! I was wondering if you can be specific about the references that are not reliable. Could you tell me which ones so I can adjust accordingly?

Thank you

De Facto Image Building (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:24:49, 1 February 2023 review of submission by Al Amin Sabbir

Draft:Shahjahan_Shamrat


I'm working on Bangladeshi actor "Shahjahan Shamrat". I researched about him and found him. And I also interviewed him to learn about him. I got several links to popular newspapers and news portals writing him. So, I started writing about him. I completed short info about him, wrote a description, and then submitted it for review. I'm planning will complete the rest of the article after reviewing it. But I got rejected. I follow their instructions in the comments. But again, rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Amin Sabbir (talkcontribs) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Amin Sabbir The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that resubmission would not be possible. "Declined" means resubmission is possible, but you must review the comments left by reviewers and address their concerns, or it will eventually be rejected. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Amin Sabbir In addition to the comments that are in the draft, I see "His role in the movie Chironjeeb Mujib is also worth mentioning". Why is it worth mentioning? The draft doesn't say. That could be worded better. David10244 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:26:32, 1 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Patrick21london


Between November and December 2022, I made significant improvements to my draft article about the low budget science film, Dune Drifter. Can you advise me on what else I need to do to get my article accepted for publication on Wikipedia? From Patrick Lee, United Kingdom, 1 February 2023.

Patrick21london Rejection typically means that a draft won't be considered further. If you added new information that the last reviewer did not have, you should first ask them to reconsider. It appears that the sources you used aren't appropriate for establishing notability; Eye for Film seem to post paid-for reviews, meaning it is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:28:09, 1 February 2023 review of draft by Bostonfan1198


Hello I got inspiration for writing this article for King County Medical Society after seeing the simple Washington State Medical Association Wiki page. Linked here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Medical_Association. I am wondering if a page as simple as that one can be public, why can't mine? I believe that King County Medical society is associated with WSMA. Would it me helpful to mention that?

Bostonfan1198 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bostonfan1198. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes the significant coverage that reliable, independent sources devote to the topic. The group's own website is not independent. An article that mentions the group in passing is not significant coverage. Without providing references to such significant coverage, and summarizing them, it is simply not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:08, 1 February 2023 review of draft by 2001:718:1E02:9112:B100:C036:AD90:416B


I have a question. You say official books and ecncyclopedias are not reliable sources in Wikipedia (for example, this article is denied for this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alexander_Gumilevsky), than what are reliable sources? What is the difference then between Wiki and street Yellow pages? I am just curious about it.


2001:718:1E02:9112:B100:C036:AD90:416B (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Some books are reliable sources and other books are completely unreliable drivel. Some encyclopedias are reliable, and others are unreliable. Each source needs to be evaluated separately. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue doesn't seem to be that the sources are unreliable, but that some of the text has no citations. It would probably be accepted if a citation was at the end of each paragraph. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

Request on 02:54:17, 2 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Sutakku 1


I made a draft for an article titled 'Sutakku', I admit its about me (I'm a musician who's released an album physically including on vinyl and have 30,000 streams on spotify) but all the information I put in it is relevant to the headings in question, all of it is accurate with references. For example when I talk about when I was played on a radio I give the exact quotes the radio host said in regards to the song and I attached the original live radio recording as a reference. When I talk about the competition I won I attached a reference including the guardian article covering it. I gave a reference with the facebook link to a page discussing indie music which showed pictures of my album as vinyl copies in a record store. I don't talk about myself arrogantly or anything I tried to remain as neutral and factual as possible; occasionally I said things like 'his music is arguably outsider music' and justified why. Is there anything you can do to help? Thanks :) Sutakku 1 (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sutakku. Your draft completely fails to make the case that you meet the notability standards described at WP:MUSICBIO, and you are therefore not eligible for an encyclopedia article. Your references are exceptionally poor. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, and I suggest that you focus on trying to make some hit music instead of trying to write a Wikipedia biography. Frankly, you are wasting your time at this point in your career. Cullen328 (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutakku 1 That was a bit harsh, but accurate. You shouldn't expect to use Wikipedia to help bring more listeners to your music. Once you have enough independent publications writing about you and your music, an article will be warranted. David10244 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fair enough I apologise. I think the draft has been deleted, I don't know if you're the right person to ask about this but is there a way I can recover it? Not to resubmit it or anything just for personal use Sutakku 1 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutakku 1 You can ask at Refund. David10244 (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:44:02, 2 February 2023 review of submission by CerebrumNonHabeo


CerebrumNonHabeo (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CerebrumNonHabeo (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CerebrumNonHabeo We prefer the term "article", not "page" to refer to the content of the encyclopedia. It may not sound like it but there is a distinction there.
I think "great great grandson" is sufficiently distant to not be a COI, unless there is some additional factor involved like(for example) you having written books about him, or run a museum about him, or something besides just being related to him. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:50:13, 2 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jasim Al Senaidi



Jasim Al Senaidi (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:19:09, 2 February 2023 review of submission by Guroadrunner


Guroadrunner (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Q: Why was Draft:Bob Whitcomb Racing initially declined? As one example reason, there is a specific request to split Bob Whitcomb Racing off from its predecessor DiGard Motorsports. It also meets WP: Notability because of its notability of being the team that won the 1990 Daytona 500. What do other editors see on the sourcing, references, material and/or contents which I might not be seeing? 08:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the references now in the draft support the notability of Derrike Cope far more than "Bob Whitcomb Racing". Perhaps the best outcome would be a redirect from Bob Whitcomb Racing to Derrike Cope. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:37:36, 2 February 2023 review of submission by 174.141.164.166


174.141.164.166 (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:10:07, 2 February 2023 review of submission by MikeTimesONE

I have a question, since this draft was rejected, what do I do with it? I've already merged some of it into the appropriate article, should I delete it?

MikeTimesONE 23:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MikeTimesONE You don't need to do anything, as drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity, but you can mark it for an author request speedy deletion with {{db-author}}. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


February 3

Request on 00:12:00, 3 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Golfer22tp


My request to create a page Larry Kennedy (baseball pitcher) was rejected by a Wikipedia reviewer. The subject was said by the reviewer not to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I wanted Larry Kennedy included in the catgory:Baseball Players from Nebraska. there are many names included in that category that are less notable than Larry Kennedy. James Bonnici is a baseball player included in Wikipedia. He is no more notable than Larry Kennedy. There are many more examples under the category baseball players from Nebraska. That Larry Kennedy as a boy living in an orphanage (Boys Town - Father Flanagan's Home for Boys) should come to the attention of a major league baseball team in the United States of America, be drafted by them, and be signed to play professional baseball by them in 1938 would certainly be considered notable by many people who are baseball fans. Please accept my article for inclusion in Wikipedia.


Golfer22tp (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golfer22tp The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It does not summarize what multiple independent reliable sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:17:14, 3 February 2023 review of submission by 98Tigerius

The reviewer declined the first submission as it was WP:TOOSOON but now there's new added reliable sources and the show premiered yesterday. 98Tigerius (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 98Tigerius. It is way too soon in my opinion since this show just premiered. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:58:03, 3 February 2023 review of submission by Thomas Elsy


Thomas Elsy (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My article got declined, saying "Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." I have already shared url on the news about the same. Can you please help me to understand what else I need to submit?

08:03:36, 3 February 2023 review of draft by Soonuu


Soonuu (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anyone here can help and guide me

Hello, Soonuu. Whenever I see an extraordinary claim like Krishna is a musical prodigy, I expect to see a citation to an extraordinarily high quality source. Instead the reference is mediocre and unconvincing. That pretty much summarizes the entire draft. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sir, will change it. Thanks for your guidance Soonuu (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:10:46, 3 February 2023 review of draft by Bear1375


So this is my first Wikipedia article and I have chosen an afghan writer to write about. I have used Persian, English, and german sources for most of articles. I have also used author books too (made sure they are not self-published) but the article was declined because it is not adequately supported by reliable sources. so I would be thankful if someone here could help me. thanks. Bear1375 (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bear1375 Based on reading it, it will probably be easier to focus on his ambassador work in terms of demonstrating notability, as current/former government officials are usually notable and have sources about them to summarize. You've listed his writing works but you have no sources that summarize how he is important or significant as a writer(see WP:NWRITER) or academic(WP:NACADEMIC). 331dot (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your reply. most sources about his work as an ambassador are just interviews about the routine issues of Afghanistan and Tajikistan (nothing too serious), which I thought were not really notable. the only one I noticed was the opening of the embassy building.
I think I need to remove some parts about his imprisonment and living in Iran since I can't find a source. as for his significant as a writer, I have found a written source form Afghanistan foreign ministry in which the former Afghanistan president has said (work of this writer will be praised for the next 400 years), does that count as a how important he is ?
do you have any other advice so it could get approved ?
thanks Bear1375 (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:52:34, 3 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Tdepp00111111


Hi, it appears my page was flagged for copyright and was not published. However, I don't feel that is an accurate assessment for the following reasons. 1. I was told the page was flagged because I took information from the following places: https://statemag.lab.prod.getusinfo.com/2021/05/0521feat01/, https://www.state.gov/antiterrorism-assistance-program/, https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/ESP-19-06.pdf It says that the information was copyrighted, yet I cited all three links over the appropriate information. Secondly, two of the three links are government websites or reports. This information falls under public domain/fair use. The first link (State Magazine) was only used, because the Wiki creation page states that references should be drawn from multiple locations. The information posted in State Magazine can also be found in other GAO reports (USG entity and therefore fair use).

2. The review also stated "...copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure." The rough draft of this submission was written by myself and another intern for the ATA separate from Wikipedia. The submission was then modified to a more effective/presentable format for Wikipedia.

Ultimately, I am unclear how to proceed to make this submission acceptable for publishing. The information used mostly falls under fair use, because it is published by the US Government -- and the information that is more "murky" has been cited appropriately. How should I then proceed? Is there the possibility of a third opinion review type situation?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from wikipedia!

Kind Regards, Tdepp

Tdepp00111111 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:00:38, 3 February 2023 review of submission by Alnsp

Hello, this person is very famous for her work. You can check the verified accounts on social media sites and the references Alnsp (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alnsp The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Fame is not the same as notability. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:24, 3 February 2023 review of draft by Rohit3648


Rohit3648 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit3648 You don't ask a question, so it is difficult for us to help you. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 4

05:07:40, 4 February 2023 review of submission by Rohit3648


He was a side actor previously but now he has been working on major projects . And he requested to create a wiki page so that people can know him . And on further publicing of the movies everone gets to know him easyly

Rohit3648 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please let me try one more time .what to publis or edit in his profile so that it gets approved. i am in a very critical situation if its not got accepted he willbe going to miss sob essential projetcs in his life . what more edits are required for his profile to get accepted please tell me i will try to add the details . many more supporting actors article r also there in Wikipedia. if they can have why not him . he also have a major role in the movie batti gul meter chalu indian movie .i will attach the movie details just one more chance

Rohit3648 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit3648 Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles. As you were told on my user talk page, it will not be accepted at this time. It doesn't sounds like you are just a fan- are you his representative, responsible for his publicity efforts? 331dot (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rohit3648 He is an actor, and he will miss some essential projects if Wikipedia doesn't have an article about him? I thought actors got their parts by the strength of their auditions, not the presence of an encyclopedia article. David10244 (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:51:00, 4 February 2023 review of submission by Akash Akay


Akash Akay (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Akay You don't ask a question. I would advise you to read the autobiography policy. Your draft would not be accepted as it is now, as it does not summarize what independent reliable sources say about you- it has no sources at all. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:07, 4 February 2023 review of submission by Manofyola


Manofyola (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:35, 4 February 2023 review of submission by 212.70.109.65


Actor has done sufficient work in the industry so this page must be published into a real wikipedia page. It shouldn't be a draft anymore.

212.70.109.65 (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, typically meaning it won't be considered further. If you have new information establishing that this man meets WP:NACTOR that reviewers did not have when they reviewed it, you should first attempt to contact the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:15:19, 4 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by WGTuttleFan


W. G. TUTTLE must have some "notability" since the reviewer admitted: [The comment the reviewer left was: not clear how they pass WP:NWRITER?] Seems W. G. TUTTLE would need unusual/non-typical publishing success to rate a Wikipedia Page?


WGTuttleFan (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must have misunderstood the comment – the reviewer did not see any notability, and asked how Tuttle meets any of the relevant notability criteria. Looking at User:WGTuttleFan/sandbox, I notice that there are no independent or secondary sources; four press releases and Tuttle's books are listed as references, that's all.
In addition, the tone of the draft is entirely promotional, and if sources are found that do show notability, the text would have to be completely rewritten. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, @WGTuttleFan:, your draft is a copy of Draft:W. G. Tuttle – please do not create multiple drafts about the same topic. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 13:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:00:32, 4 February 2023 review of submission by Masakafrances


February 5

01:37:55, 5 February 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:8310:21D0:C0AD:B74B:9D12:A3D9


2600:1700:8310:21D0:C0AD:B74B:9D12:A3D9 (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC) I WAS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP YOU GUYS[reply]

01:41:57, 5 February 2023 review of submission by LILSNVRK

Hundreds of thousands of people all over the world (not just Americans) know who I am. I think I deserve the article. I definitely have notablilty. I really don't understand why I got rejected. I worked with Kanye as well. Please give advice or fix this altogether. Thanks LILSNVRK (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LILSNVRK The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offer no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you, showing how you mean the definition of a notable musician, a a notable producer, or the broader definition of a notable person. Twitter does not establish notability. Notability is not inherited by association.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy, as well as an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. I suggest that you go on about your career and eventually an independent editor will take note of your career in reliable sources and choose to write about you, which is how most articles are written. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:00:38, 5 February 2023 review of submission by 2601:600:4200:6F20:B8C2:5A01:C4D4:C746

I would like a question answered.

2601:600:4200:6F20:B8C2:5A01:C4D4:C746 (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? 331dot (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


19:27:56, 5 February 2023 review of submission by Jsylvester333

Hello, I will like a confirmation for my account and know why Draft: Jacob Sylvester (1997-) was declined.Jsylvester333 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jsylvester333 I've fixed the formatting of your comment. I'm not sure what "confirmation" you are seeking. If you mean "autoconfirmed", your account must be four days old with 10 edits or more.
The reason your draft was declined was given by the reviewer. Please read their message, as well as the policies linked to therein. Please also read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, but to summarize what independent reliable sources say about them on their own. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Also, can you let Draft: Jacob Sylvester (1997-) stay without being reviewed? Jsylvester333 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jsylvester333 The draft will only be deleted after six months of no edits(and even if deleted, can easily be restored via WP:REFUND); you may take all the time you need to work on it. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See if you can keep it. Jsylvester333 (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you or another person accept Draft: Jacob Sylvester (1997-)? I will send it now. Jsylvester333 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just sent it Jsylvester333 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jsylvester333 It's not going to be accepted until you can summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you and why you are important/significant/influential. That's usually very difficult for people to do about themselves, as it requires you setting aside everything you know about yourself. This is part of the reason why it is highly recommended that you not attempt to write about yourself. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion please… Jsylvester333 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

06:04:01, 6 February 2023 review of submission by CastJared

Hi, this draft needs more notable content for parts of this article's creation. CastJared (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:33, 6 February 2023 review of draft by Maormer


This draft was rejected again, this time the reason is the lack of reliable sources. I would like to clarify what exactly is the problem - is it that not all the facts are confirmed by references to sources, or are the sources unreliable from the point of view of Wikipedia? In both cases, I will try to fix it - I will add links if there are not enough of them, or I will look for more reliable sources. Or both. Thank you in advance. Sorry for some clumsy English, it is not my native language. Sorry to write again, but I would like to get at least some answer. If you think the question is inappropriate, I won't ask it anymore, but please don't ignore me.

Maormer (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maormer I removed your duplicate posting above; it's only necessary to post once, eventually a volunteer will get to it, but sometimes patience is required as people do what they can when they can here. You are not necessarily being ignored.
Regarding your draft, the sources seem to be unreliable- IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable.
Your English is pretty good from where I'm sitting. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for prompt response. Sorry again for being too persistent. I didn't have any experience working in Wikipedia before, and I don't quite understand how everything works here. I received a message that I may have misinterpreted (Yandex Translator, maybe) as the fact that my message has gone into the archive and will not be read. In the future, I will keep in mind what you said. Thanks.
As for the links, I will remove IMDB and the Kinoafisha from the list of sources - these are about the same sites with information about movies. I referred to them only because of the premiere date and the cast. Would a link to Kinopoisk be a good alternative? This is a Russian-language site, similar in purpose to IMDB, but it is managed by a professional team, third-party users can only leave reviews for movies.
For the rest, I referred either to articles from professional Russian-language online publications, or, where it is a question of having a certain opinion in society, a example of it is given. If it necessary, I can describe in more detail all the sources, except those I wrote about above.
Thank you in advance. Maormer (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:33, 6 February 2023 review of submission by Wuywuyuwy


Wuywuyuwy (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wuywuyuwy You don't ask a question, but your draft was wholly inappropriate as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:27:07, 6 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by JoinFluffy250


Hi there. I’m new to page creation, so would be very grateful for any tips and advice to make me a better editor. I’ve edited a few pages of businesspeople and politicians but tried to make my first page recently in Leon Emirali - a political commentator and TV PR consultant.

The page was rejected for not using independent sources. I used articles written by the author for third-party media outlets to show that he had written for said media outlets (The Times and other UK national newspapers) and believe this may be the issue? I’ve now removed them in latest draft. Another editor also said I have a conflict of interest, which I do not - but am finding it hard to disprove. He said it’s “obvious”, but I’m not sure how as I have never met the subject (I did see him giving a live TV interview once and took a photo - which was my inspiration to create a page when I saw he didn’t have one, but do not know the subject at all beyond that).

I’m struggling with it, but certainly don’t want to give up on creating my first page! I wonder if I should abandon this subject and take on another one? Or is there merit in pursuing Leon Emirali? There’s quite a lot of material when Googled.

Either way, grateful for your thoughts. I will get there eventually and complete my first page creation - hopefully with the help of fellow Wiki editors 😊

Thanks so much. Look forward to hearing from you all.



JoinFluffy250 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoinFluffy250 "Rejected for not using independent sources" is not entirely accurate, to quote the notice, "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The sources themselves are third party, but they are not acceptable for establishing notability, for the following reasons:
  1. an announcement of Mr. Emirali's appoitment to a position, a routine activity; the piece does not give him significant coverage
  2. is account-walled but seems to be an annoucement of Mr. Emirali opening a business, a routine activity
  3. is a TV interview with him; by definition interviews are not independent
  4. a brief interview with him
  5. another interview with him
  6. a piece which is account-walled but seems to contain his views on a particular topic and isn't coverage of him
You have done a nice job documenting what he has done- the trouble is, that's not what we are looking for. Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling us about who he is or his activities, and goes into detail about his significance or influence as the source(s) see it, not as he himself might see it. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) That’s incredibly helpful feedback thanks. I will take on board these comments and maybe have one last go of drafting this subject’s page before moving onto someone/thing new. Looks like there might be some additional sources that fit the bill. Thanks again for the feedback - appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoinFluffy250 (talkcontribs) 21:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:33, 6 February 2023 review of submission by Jsylvester333


Jsylvester333 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:31:21, 6 February 2023 review of submission by Saeedulllahsafi


Saeedulllahsafi (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

05:33:20, 7 February 2023 review of submission by Yhyhyhyhy


Yhyhyhyhy (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:27:46, 7 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by LordVoldemort728

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


@User:Dan arndt declined my submission and said "Fails WP:ANYBIO -being the first lady of the president of Pakistan does not make her automatically notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Requires significant coverage, not mentions in passing or confirmation that she is the wife of Musharraf, in multiple independent secondary sources." but he is 100% wrong. Draft:Sehba Musharraf passes Wikipedia:Notability (politics) which says that "The person is the monogamous spouse or life partner of a national head of state in any country.". Please review this decline and for your information I am also a WP:AfC reviewer. I also know about notability. Please see this.


​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 07:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LordVoldemort728, I agree with the declines by Dan arndt and KylieTastic. The subject may pass WP:NBASIC (or other NBIO criteria), and per WP:NEXIST notable topics are kept at AfD. However, WP:AFCR states If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason, so given that your draft does not show NBASIC/NBIO being passed a decline isn't entirely wrong. Do you understand that your linked page, Wikipedia:Notability (politics), is not part of WP:NBIO but instead is a proposal? The banner clearly states that: The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Overall, WP:NBASIC or other WP:NBIO guideline needs to be passed on its own. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC); edited 10:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:05:40, 7 February 2023 review of draft by Softwarecookies


I made a few attempts to submit a page regarding Apache AGE that Apache Software Foundation owns. Unlike my previous attempt at AgensGraph, which is a company-owned product, this is an open-source product I'm interested to get words out. The main reason for the rejection I've been getting is a lack of notability in reference. Even when I benchmarked other Apache-related software (Apache Jena) or other graph databases (Neo4j) and applied the type of references they used, the same notability guideline rejected my submission. It made me wonder why other Apache software or graph databases are fine with using their own blogs, websites, or third-person-controlled Apache Software Foundation resources as their references, whereas the page I've been working on isn't qualified. I read the notability guideline, but I see so many other software pages getting away with that guideline. What can I do to improve the references I used?

Softwarecookies (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Softwarecookies. The draft has been tagged and declined as failing the general notability guideline or the web notability guideline. The former and criteria 1 of NWEB require significant/non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources (other NWEB criteria are also failed). Three of your four sources are from The Apache Software Foundation, but your draft states AGE was integrated as a project under The Apache Software Foundation... so the foundation is not an independent source in this case. The other reference is a proposal that is also not an independent source (the bottom of the page states Powered by a free Atlassian Confluence Open Source Project License granted to Apache Software Foundation. Evaluate Confluence today.). So please add reliable, independent sources that constitute of significant coverage. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:15, 7 February 2023 review of submission by 108.21.240.171

Hi. If anyone reads this my question has to do with an "article" I randomly decided to write about a music company called MVBEMG. The company signed the first openly Gay artist in New York state, is currently working with Brazil's next star who is dubbed the "Alicia keys of Brasil", and is well recognized all over the internet.

I decided to write about this company because I'm a part of the LGBTQ community in New York, and I was blown away when I learned that MVBEMG signed the first openly Gay Rapper in the state, amongst other notable accolades, that I'm now discovering.

Any advice or clarification on why this article was deleted would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 108.21.240.171 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not deleted. It has no independent reliable sources to support its content; an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable company. Signing an openly gay artist may make the company notable, but there must be coverage of that point in independent reliable sources. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.240.171 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:59:22, 7 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Ldm1954


The first draft was rejected for reasons I understand. The second draft had extensive references: primary, secondary, archival as well as hard evidence such as LSE admission records. Many of these are to UK trade newspapers and some are extensive. However, to check these would require work/research, for instance search the UK Newspaper archives, the British Library, the History of Advertising Trust. I have done this, plus I have a few other copies. It took weeks.

However, the rejection took 5 minutes. There is no possible way that the reviewer could possibly have validated their statement that it does not show significant sourced material, it is impossible to do this in 5 minutes.

Ldm1954 (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would help reviewers if you listed the three best sources, which cover your mother in significant detail. LSE admission records, passing mentions, listings, FreeBMD and Findmypast are not useful sources for establishing any notability. The sources should not need to require a reviewer to search for them. You have written all that you know about your mother and then tried to verify it with sources. We work the other way around, we collect all the sources that contain significant coverage of the topic and then report on what they say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:11, 7 February 2023 review of draft by Lao-ke


My submission on "The Institution of Locomotive Engineers" has been rejected because "it is not adequately supported by reliable sources".

However, the two main sources that I have quoted were written by H. Holcroft, who was editor of the "Journal of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers" from 1919 to 1929, and E.S. Cox who was President of the Institution in 1957. These two papers describe in detail the history of the Institution from 1911 to 1960. Both papers were published by the Institution itself.

I've based my submission almost entirely on the information contained in these papers, however they provide no information about the last years of the Institution from 1961 to 1969. I'm hoping that other Wikipedia contributors might be able to fill in the blanks.

Since receiving the rejection notice, I have added some extra website links that help to verify the basic facts that I've stated, but I doubt that they'll qualify as more reliable sources than the two papers that I refer to above.

Given the eminence of the authors of these papers, and the fact that they were published by the Institution itself, I cannot imagine being able to offer any more reliable sources than these.

Can you suggest what other steps I might take to meet your requirements?

Lao-ke (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]