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 Lao-ke (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 12 February 2023 (→‎14:42:11, 7 February 2023 review of draft by Lao-ke: Reply). 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


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]
Hello again. I really appreciated your feedback. I've done some further research into the subject and have discovered he stood as a candidate in multiple elections and caused news during this period. I've added some of those articles as citations and also added/removed some others. I hope it's an improvement - let's see if it makes it... thanks again. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 12:49, 8 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 (talk • contribs) 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]
Hello VickKiang, first and foremost, thanks for the quick explanation. However, this brings to my next question.
I compared to Apache Jena a lot when I made the draft for Apache AGE. In Jena's page also states "Jena was integrated as a project under the umbrella of The Apache Software Foundation..." and the type of references from the foundation seemed to be fine for the editors back then. The question I'd like to ask is why is it okay for Jena to use the foundation as reference and not AGE?
And in Neo4j, the references used in that pages are almost all from their own blogs and websites. According to the general notability guideline, these are not independent sources. I'm not asking this to demean neo4j and persuade you to take their page down. What I'm wondering is why it is okay for them to use their own blogs and websites for sources, when it is not even okay for me to use references from the Apache Software Foundation for an Apache software.
As for the proposal, I'll take note and find other reference. Thanks. Softwarecookies (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there is difference between what references are acceptable to use in articles and what demonstrate notability. It is acceptable to use some non-independent self-published sources under uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF, but an article has to be mainly sourced from independent reliable references. In addition, your draft requires 2+ reliable independent non-trivial sources to demonstrate a passing of WP:NWEB#1 or WP:GNG. Regarding the Neo4j article, it is not in great shape, but at Wikipedia the best way of dealing with other non-notable topics is to nominate them for deletion via WP:AFD or tag for cleanup, and evaluate notability of new drafts under policies and guidelines, instead of comparing the notability of one article with another. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:17, 8 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]
See below as well. For User:Theroadislong to respond to a complaint where they are involved is a clear undisclosed conflict of interest. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it absolutely is NOT a conflict of interest! You have posted on a help desk and I have responded with a suggestion. Your complaints below are not based on any Wikipedia guidelines and do not belong here in any case. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 10 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]

Lao-ke You slightly misunderstand what we are looking for in terms of independent reliable sources. Publications from the Institution itself would not be an independent source. We want to know what others wholly unconnected with the orgnaization say about its history, not what it says is its own history(or what those associated with it say). 331dot (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, which now makes complete sense. I've added some extra links to three websites, but will try to find more sources that I can use as references in the next month or two. There's very little information on-line about the Institution, which is what motivated me to write a Wikipedia article about it.
Thanks again. Lao-ke (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:16, 7 February 2023 review of draft by Ldm1954


Further to my complaint about the rejection of the draft I am requesting that the reviewer be banned for confirmational bias. There are clear indications of this, with objections being constantly changed, never any acknowledgement that they have been answered.

The latest is a deletion of my refutation. There has to be a level playing field.

I will add that the very person I have complained about has responded to my first complaint -- with yet again a different set of arguments. Classic confirmational bias, and also classic COI (which is not disclosed).

As an illustration, since their position is untenable they now suddenly claim "The sources should not need to require a reviewer to search for them." In fact there is nothing to this effect in the Wikipedia Reliable Sources page, and the information about how to reach them is included in all cases.

Classic confirmational bias and conflict of interest.

Ldm1954 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add a list of major problems:
  • User:Theroadislong claims that there are no citations for the career section. Now they are, but the comment has not been removed.
  • User:Theroadislong claims that there are no citations that support the content. There are now independent sources even for the evacuation of Marks and her school. The comment has not been removed.
  • Claim is made that their are no reliable sources. For instance, a claim that the "History of England Blog" is inappropriate, although a bit more searching would indicate that this was setup by the 1983 Heritage Act. Again, no acknowledgement of fault.
  • Claim is made that a list of what is in a charity archive in the UK (Advertising History Trust) is not reliable. No attempt was made to check what is in their archive, or to ask them. User:Theroadislong persists in ignoring this.
  • When directly challenged on any of this, User:Theroadislong never responds and finds something else (new) to criticize.
  • User:Theroadislong claims that birthdates require validation, but more recently states they are not relevant.
  • User:Theroadislong claimed that her career is why she received an MBE, did not look at the citation (charity work). People who volunteer their time at Wikipedia should be sensitive to disparaging someone else who volunteered major time over 30 years.
  • Implicity established archives such as the British Library do not count.
  • As indicated above, new and incorrect statements are made, for instance that citations should be readily available which is not true, they just need to be properly indicated.
  • User:Theroadislong selectively deletes comments that indicate problems with their statements. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ldm1954 Grievances about user behavior are not handled here, they are handled at WP:ANI. That said, I would highly advise you against going there as I don't think it would go the way you want. If you want to discuss the validity of sources and what a reliable source is, you may do that here. I can say that blogs are generally not considered reliable sources as they usually do not have fact checking and editorial control. A blog being authorized by law is immaterial. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one mentioned does have fact checking and editorial control. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, comments are not removed even if the problem is subsequently addressed. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • 18:35:19, 7 February 2023 review of draft by 98.150.164.97


    98.150.164.97 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC) ALOHA: What is the average cost for an 'experienced Wilipedian' to work on the draft, and get it approved? I received an email from someone who said: I am an experienced Wikipedian. I will do online research and rewrite the content in an encyclopedic tone, format the draft according to Wikipedia guidelines and get it approved, I will forward the final draft for you to review before submitting it.[reply]

    Kindly reply for more details.

    Best regards, Laura Thank you, Dr.Marsha Diane Akau Wellein

    Third parties monitor the draft space and attempt to offer their editing services. These are not endorsed by Wikipedia in any way. They have varying reputability, and many are scams. There is no way to know if the person is "an experienced Wikipedian" or not, and they cannot make any guarantees. Paid editors are required by the Terms of Use to declare that they are being paid. Do not hand over any money to anyone until you see the final product, if you decide to go that route. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    20:13:11, 7 February 2023 review of submission by Ерден Карсыбеков

    I created an article with one ref, and 10 days later I added three more refs; but the draft had not been accepted. Could you please explain why? Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not clear how the person passes the criteria at WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    21:06:03, 7 February 2023 review of submission by Mksalama

    The article is rewritten after consideration of Wikipedia tips. Mksalama (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rejection usually means that the draft will not be considered again, but if you feel you have improved the draft substantially, then the advice is to approach the original reviewer again. Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    21:58:45, 7 February 2023 review of submission by Dharmesh14

    I have worked hard 13year, i have updated the details and started a company i want to take this forward and help people and i have given free education software for government. Please tell me why you rejecting me.... I have linked what all i have done, in one rejection said too many external links i have removed that and resubmitted. I have given my achievements links not fake one... I don't understand why it got rejected.

    Dharmesh14 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not..."Wikipedia is not a place to promote things or publish your thoughts, and is not a website for personal communication, a freely licensed media repository, or a censored publication."


    February 8

    00:39:05, 8 February 2023 review of submission by Billyjoebobsimon


    Billyjoebobsimon (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)00:39:05, 8 February 2023 review of submission by Billyjoebobsimon[reply]

    op blocked for vandalism. lettherebedarklight晚安 01:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    10:59:40, 8 February 2023 review of draft by STolliver2


    Hi! This article was rejected for publication and the reason given was a lack of references. The article did have four. Are these not enough? Are they not seen as valid? Thank you for any guidance you can offer!

    STolliver2 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    STolliver2 That's not exactly why it was rejected; the sources offered are announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish that the company meets our special definition of a notable company. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely documenting the activities of the company, and go into detail about what is significant or influential about the company. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    14:08:45, 8 February 2023 review of draft by B3green22


    Hi there! My draft was rejected because there aren't enough sources linked in the History section. While I do understand the concern, I'd like to get suggestions on how to move forward with the page given that we do not have links for that section. That's just the history of how the company was founded.

    Thank you!

    B3green22 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite simply, if there are no sources then the content can't be on Wikipedia. Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" (see WP:42). Theroadislong (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    B3green22 To add to that, Wikipedia is not interested in what a company considers to be its own history, Wikipedia is interested in what others unaffiliated with the company say is its history. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Request on 16:23:10, 8 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Dewit62



    Dewit62 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your draft Draft:Dewit62 has no content so there is nothing to review? Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    21:25:35, 8 February 2023 review of submission by Paulkleen

    I submitted a page on sales network monetization, and the article was rejected almost immediately. I wasn't given any reason. Can you help me understand why it was rejected? Paulkleen (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:NOTGUIDE. Theroadislong (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Request on 22:01:59, 8 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Rafird

    {{SAFESUBST:Void| How come my new page wasn’t accepted? How absurd.

    Hello, Rafird. Not at all absurd. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes the significant coverage that published independent reliable sources devote to the topic, and those sources need to be included in the draft article as references. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, your only reference is of little use, and your draft therefore violates the core content policies of Verifiability and No original research. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Rafird. This seems like a really interesting article, which I've now added to my watchlist after having across this review request. It's quite clear to me that the article needs referencing, but if references can be found for much of the article, and especially her opposition to the American occupation, then it should be fairly easy to prove WP:GNG and WP:V. If you don't know how to reference an article, but can help me find the Spanish-language references, perhaps you can post the links on the talk page of the draft, and then I can add the references for you. _MB190417_ (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    23:07:21, 8 February 2023 review of submission by 39.32.67.83


    What can be add? 39.32.67.83 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    February 9

    Request on 16:42:13, 9 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by امیررضا شریفی کلاکی



    امیررضا شریفی کلاکی (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    18:18:25, 9 February 2023 review of submission by BenTuck34

    I would like to have a wiki article. I took the paper about me signing the decloration of independence. :-( BenTuck34 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    BenTuck34 You would only merit a Wikipedia article if independent reliable sources choose on their own to give you significant coverage, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. This isn't social media where existence permits you an article. If you do merit an article, you or your associates shouldn't be the one to write it, please read the autobiography policy. Please also read about the good reasons that an article is not desirable. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    18:39:40, 9 February 2023 review of draft by 2405:201:3002:A025:1CED:ADEB:26EE:8FAF


    2405:201:3002:A025:1CED:ADEB:26EE:8FAF (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't ask a question, so it's difficult to help you. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    19:16:51, 9 February 2023 review of submission by ZacSifron

    Hello! I wrote up this article specifically for Wikipedia, and I also supplied the text to the Association of Jewish Libraries, who put it on their website before my draft was approved. The first draft was deleted for copyright infringement, so I had the AJL send a release of copyright according to the instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. I recreated the draft and put

    in the talk page. The submission was then declined due to the same copyright issues before the permissions were assessed. Am I missing something?

    ZacSifron (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The template you show indicates that the volunteer response team has not yet assessed the email. When they do the template will be replaced with a permission notice. Until then, the material is STILL a copyright violation. Also a straight copy of an organization's website is not usually appropriate for an encyclopedia article. They are publicizing the collection. An encyclopedia article should be neutral information about the museum. Leave out most of the stuff about the collection - do a brief summary. Add the history, rewriting it in your own words. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    February 10

    Request on 01:09:11, 10 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jerdwyer


    Hello, thanks to Greenman you for the review of my Layser cave submission. I found additional sources, including a US forest services page which describes the cave as "one of the most significant archaeological sites in western Washington."<https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/giffordpinchot/recarea/?recid=31348>

    But information on the cave is scarce. The forest service page says barely more than that and all the other pages only repeat what is on the interpretive signs at the cave itself. Would that move it into the notable category?

    After reading the notability requirements, I figured maybe it belonged as part of another article, so I added it to the list of notable places in the <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot_National_Forest#Points_of_interest> entry.

    Jerdwyer (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    04:21:16, 10 February 2023 review of submission by Qnique


    Qnique (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC) all is ok but they decline the post said just give relible sources , i use most of references from govermets but .....they decline multiple time[reply]

    12:09:13, 10 February 2023 review of submission by Stefani94

    UPE, among other issues. Editor is now blocked.

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



    Please I would like to have an opinion if there is any chance to make this post happen. This is all the valid reference I got. Sir is a well known Australian filmmaker but not a lot of articles was written about him. I would strongly appreciate help or any pointers on how make this work, because I tried everything. Thank you Stefani94 (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Please if there is anyway that references can be accepted. I would need help with any possible solution for this 13:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Stefani94 (talk)[reply]

    Stefani94, Remove all material not supported by a source. You are ignoring the comments by reviewers which have told you that you have far too much information that show no citation and can not be verified. A short well-sourced article is far more likely to be accepted. Also, f you know the subject, see WP:COI about declaring relationships, WP:AUTO about why biographies can be bad, and WP:PAID if you are receiving compensation. Also check out this guide for further information on editing. Slywriter (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey! Would you be kind enough and view my article Draft:Michael Nicholson#cite note-2 one more time and give me a feedback if this is better! Thanks! Stefani94 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop soliciting multiple offers to review your draft. That can take place on the article's talk, or your own, where it already is. If the rejection is removed, you can submit it again.
    cc @JCMLuis @Timtrent @Theroadislong
    Note, thank you for making appropriate paid disclosures @Stefani94. Star Mississippi 18:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems the invoice is not getting paid. Or, if the editor is employed, the employer has an unreasonable expectation. I have now been asked multiple times on my own talk page to re-review. It is not going to happen 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User is now blocked. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    13:33:13, 10 February 2023 review of submission by Razer2115

    I came across this on NPP.I found that the article has failed an AFD more than 2 years back and was subsequently rejected as AFC. Digging deeper I found a lots of confusion regarding the subject and notability among the reviewing editors and administrator. I will try to clear the points

    • The Person was a somewhat famous police officer who joined BJP - Which is the current ruling party of India. The original article was created at that time and was subsequently deleted through AFD.
    • However since then, He has risen to be the state chief of tamil nadu for the BJP and has been receiving significant media coverage.
    • Now the confusing part - There is already an article named - K. Annamalai . Who is a former MLA of Tamil Nadu state assembly and since then has retried from public life.
    • The numerous attempts to hijack that article to this and the numerous attempts to create an article for this person is not due to some nefarious reason, but because he has been receiving significant media coverage for the last 2 years. If you will search K Annamalai on google, You will find thousands and thousands of news stories about this guy. I am sure readers are googling this guy, Landing up on K. Annamalai and trying to change it or creating new articles.
    • I mean , its absurd to me that the guy doesn't have a Wikipedia page, Anyone remotely following Indian politics will know that he passes WP:GNG and WP:NPOL . Its akin to GOP Chair for Texas state committee not having a wikipedia article.

    Razer(talk) 13:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Thing I forgot to mention is that the person is more commonly known as " K. Annamalai " and not Annamalai Kuppusamy. Googling K. Annamalai will fetch far more accurate results. Razer(talk) 13:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Razer2115 Not every regional head of a political party merits a Wikipedia article. The head of the Maine Republican Party typically does not unless they already held elected office. It depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources. Most sources about such people describe their activities, or quotes from them articulating the positions of the party or endorsing candidates- all routine coverage that does not establish notability. Sources need to describe his significance or influence, either as a party head or as a police officer. Did he establish a new policy of some kind? Move his party in a particular direction due to his influence? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The preferred term is "article", not "page", which has a broader meaning than article. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the majority of the news article will be obviously be routine in nature due to him being in the public sphere. Tamil Nadu is one of the largest state in India and BJP is currently the largest party in India. Apart for the usual politics stuff. there are numerous another special coverages like - Him being the youngest state president ever - 1 , In depth policy articles - 2 , him being the only BJP state president to invited for president dinner - 3 . Razer(talk) 14:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from that, I am sure the head of Maine republican party is not subject to extensive media coverage where almost a dozen article is being written about him daily. Razer(talk) 14:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dozen articles written daily about them? Or daily passing mentions and policy quotes? There's a significant difference and such a hyperbolic statement implies that numerous in-depth sources discussing the subject exist, so please provide them as this should be a no-brainer then. Slywriter (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I fully understand what kind of coverage you are referring to but here are few links I could find from a cursory search ( Apart from the one mentioned above . - 1 , 2, 3 , 4 , 5 . Its also worth seeing the google trends for the term "K Annamalai" 6. I have compared it to the maine republican chief just as a reference point for the Non Indian editors and not to start a straw argument. Razer(talk) 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the term "K Annamalai Wikipedia" has a fairly high google trend score - 1 and may explain the persistent creation of articles for this topic. Razer(talk) 14:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more in depth coverage - 1, 2 , 3 Razer(talk) 15:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That he was given a security detail isn't significant coverage of him. Nor is his having dinner with the Prime Minister. There is one piece which says he has attracted young people to the party because he is young, but that doesn't speak to any particular influence on his part(any young person might have done that). 331dot (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Request on 13:35:52, 10 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by 182.54.155.36



    182.54.155.36 (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    14:08:41, 10 February 2023 review of draft by LeGoldenBoots


    Hello, I'm having trouble finding some other sources for this song draft and other things to write about that are associated with the song. But mainly sources, as most of the sources that are covered on this topic are 3rd party.

    LeGoldenBoots (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    LeGoldenBoots Most of the sources seem to just document the availability of the song, and are not significant coverage of it(like an unsolicited critical review). You write that it's known for being used in a video game, but have no sources documenting that. If you do not have independent sources with significant coverage, the song would not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    14:14:59, 10 February 2023 review of draft by 112.206.193.27


    pls accept
    1. creating page (disambiguation)
    2. accept reviewer
    112.206.193.27 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    accept (disambiguation) page SM Mall 112.208.236.28 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    16:07:47, 10 February 2023 review of draft by GMorris419


    I need help understanding what needs to be updated on my submission (Sugar Valley Rural Charter School) before it can be submitted as an article. I'm not sure what specific criteria I'm not meeting.

    GMorris419 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For instance, Wikipedia has zero interest in your mission statement, that is just promotion, articles should be based on what reliable independent sources say about your school. Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    16:43:07, 10 February 2023 review of draft by Yhyhyhyhy


    Yhyhyhyhy (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    February 11

    00:12:31, 11 February 2023 review of submission by DarkKingLuffy


    DarkKingLuffy (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Why did my draft get declined[reply]

    01:36:03, 11 February 2023 review of submission by Rajmohanaushik


    Rajmohanaushik (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajmohanaushik, provide sources in the article as the previous reviewers have requested. As it stands there are zero. Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    09:43:08, 11 February 2023 review of draft by Scribes52


    Scribes52 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My original draft contained a paragraph where I unwittingly let personal emotion through with the wording "Sadly, ...". I have now changed that into an entirely factual account. I have also read through the entire draft to try to ensure that everything is factual, unemotional, and supported by numerous references. If it is felt that anything still needs attention I would be pleased to do that and would appreciate specific pointers to the paragraphs concerned.

    16:10:37, 11 February 2023 review of submission by Örverpi

    Hello, I see you declined my draft for this page stating that 3 sources are from the same website. This shows that you didn't actually check the sources. Yes 3 sources I referenced are from the same website and it's because it's an archive for old newspapers in Iceland. They are all different if you actually check the link. The 4th source is an open report from the Icelandic safety transportation board with help from the NTSB and Sikorsky aircraft. Kind Regards. Örverpi (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Örverpi I'm fairly sure the reviewer looked at the sources. Instead of citing the website which hosts the newspaper articles, you should cite the articles themselves, just as if you found them in a physical library(you wouldn't cite the library, you would cite the newspaper. It's the same with an online archive). 331dot (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    16:42:09, 11 February 2023 review of draft by Mlsmith1962


    Hello - I have made edits to the article based on feedback received in the initial review. I have seen references to adding audio materials, and found an interview between the songwriter and one of the artists who has covered the song on youtube, that provides additional information on the writing of the song. I have two questions. Can I include the interview as a link in the interest of including audio information about the song? Or would it be preferable to create a background section citing the interview as a reference? Thank you! Mlsmith1962 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mlsmith1962 Note that interviews do not establish notability, which is mainly what this process is concerned with, because it is the person speaking about themselves or their own work, and Wikipedia is primarily interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic. You can certainly include an interview, but it doesn't contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    18:23:16, 11 February 2023 review of submission by GXRG


    GXRG (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    GXRG You edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor only. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. If you still want to attempt it, please use WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    20:48:19, 11 February 2023 review of submission by 66.119.24.210

    I just don't get why you would ever deny my religion like that. What's the reason?

    66.119.24.210 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No one is denying your religion, but for it to merit a Wikipedia article, independent reliable sources must choose on their own to write about it, establishing that it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Once you have a few million followers and the news takes note of your religion, then come back. I suggest you use social media to tell the world about your religion. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    February 12

    03:18:50, 12 February 2023 review of submission by RobertB71


    The page describes a band with thousands of views on Youtube, with extensive coverage on Google, see search results here: https://www.google.com/search?q=thr%C3%B6nn

    The band is genuine, has released an EP - with verifiable sources provided on the Wikipedia page.

    I don't understand why it has been marked NOT notable.

    Please re-review. Thanks.

    RobertB71 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, a new paragraph has been added about the innovative approach to christian music that the band perceives as somewhat stereotyped.
    Their biggest influence is Polyphia - which also started as a christian band.
    Have you even tried to listen to their music? It's a progressive EDM combined with metal.
    This is no ordinary "church band" and it most certainly deserves to be on Wikipedia. RobertB71 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    RobertB71 The only sources you offer just serve to document the availability of their music, which is completely irrelevant to if they merit an article or not. Anyone can post music to the internet these days. A Wikipedia article about a band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Please read Your First Article. If the band meets at least one aspect of the notability criteria, a re review may be possible if you start from scratch(you may simply blank the draft and start over), summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the band. If you have no such sources, or the band does not meet the criteria, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    12:42:23, 12 February 2023 review of submission by 2A02:CB80:4226:2047:EDC1:D69E:51C6:5DB


    2A02:CB80:4226:2047:EDC1:D69E:51C6:5DB (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't ask a question, but two weblinks will never be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1138970549"