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 UrFathermaybeblind (talk | contribs) at 04:35, 11 March 2023 (→Why was my article declined: new section). 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


March 4

08:31:41, 4 March 2023 review of draft by Ali.saheb99


Ali.saheb99 (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:26:04, 4 March 2023 review of draft by 112.208.226.201


i am publishing AFC Submission i have sources 112.208.226.201 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:28, 4 March 2023 review of submission by SammyGWiki


Hello! I recently submitted my very first Wiki entry for Challenged Sailors San Diego. Unfortunately, my submission was rejected because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I thought I included 4 outside reliable and veriable sources in the Reference section of the new page I created. Challenged Sailors San Diego is a registered nonprofit giving people with disabilities the chance to sail. Thanks in advance for any advice on what I'm doing wrong with the References I used.

SammyGWiki (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SammyGWiki it has been declined again so I suggest reading through all the linked material in the decline message. What the organization says or wants to say about itself it not useful, nor are announcements about their events as neither is independent. Also, most of the content is unsourced so appears to based on your own knowledge, which is not allowed. Statements must be supported by published reliable sources to meet verifiability requirements. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:14:44, 4 March 2023 review of submission by Numioa in 22:14:44, 4 March 2023


Numioa (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

How do i find a more reliable source then the place itself

Hello, recently my draft was declined saying it needed for reliable source. Can anyone please help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:St_Charbel%27s_College,_Punchbowl Randomeditor123218 (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

== 07:43:27, 5 March 2023 review of submission by YollaHalal ==+

Hi, we at Manara University are requesting assistance in order to make our university page eligible and meets your conditions. YollaHalal (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

zero indication that the topic passes WP:NCORP and it is written like an advertisement. This is not a place to promote your university. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:25:24, 5 March 2023 review of submission by Ckamani

I have recently joined this company that has employees of over 200 in 4 countries. YoY revenue is ~$25 Million yearly. I never knew of this company before and personally I felt skeptical that this could be one of those scams to loot money which many of my colleagues had similar experience as we did not knew if this company is legit. Putting this up on Wiki would bring that trust that its not fake.

Here is the website: https://www.brickendon.com/ Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/company/brickendon-consulting?originalSubdomain=in

PS: I am not paid to do this, nor I have any monetary benefit from listing this on Wiki. Its for a greater good (which is what I feel wiki stands for) BUT if you look at my history I genuinely tried helping with edits but to my surprise everything I post gets rejected so maybe this is not for me to contribute.

Chintan Kamani 09:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Request on 10:47:20, 5 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by TrudiRose


Hello, I really need some assistance - I have been trying to do this for Colin for over a year. Can I ask for any specific tips and help? Can this draft go to someone else to finish please? I do want to admit defeat but I cannot do it. Thanks


TrudiRose (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, no evidence of passing WP:GNG and sources are not reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:00:54, 5 March 2023 review of draft by Catboy628


Hello, I have a problem here, it is about my article was being refused again. it says my sources are not reliable, but all the sources are coming from newspapers and even in many international film events, this film director even got many rewards in Hong Kong and in other countries, I am so confused and frustrated and don't know what to do next... is there anyone who can give me a hand on this, please? Much appreciated.

Catboy628 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First remove anything sourced to an interview, interviews are not reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,Theroadislong. I go try again tomorrow. Appreciate that. Catboy628 (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:45, 5 March 2023 review of draft by DoubleTimeDesire

Hello, I was making an article about the story of a man named Gleb Korablev, and it got declined because it does not qualify for a wikipedia article. I understand this decision but if its okay, can you specify what i specifically need to work on when it comes to improving the article and getting the backstory out there. There arent many references online without NSFW content so I believe i will work on getting more references. But besides that, what should i change about the article that will make it qualify?

DoubleTimeDesire (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also, i removed all references from youtube as they claimed it is not a reliable source. the only references from youtube that i shared was the link to his performances and plays which have zero adult content in them whatsoever. me and my friends double checked every article to make sure that they didnt have any adult content in there either. i didnt want to mention it in the article because they said i should keep it neutral so my only option is to mention it here. its somewhat frustrating. also, since the incident happened in russia its extremely hard to find any solid evidence. there is alot of speculation behind what happened, and i made sure to mention that what i said is only speculation and may not be true, and i wanted to put as much detail into the article and information as possible. DoubleTimeDesire (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:41, 5 March 2023 review of submission by Tonyspumoni65


Tonyspumoni65 (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC) This is one of my friends and I think it would be funny for him to have a wiki page. Nobody else will ever see this page, so why does it matter if he isn't notable?[reply]

@Tonyspumoni65 I know this isn't what you will want to hear, but people need to be notable to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Saying "Nobody else will ever see this page, so why does it matter if he isn't notable" isn't a valid reason for inclusion. When they have ~3 reliable, independent and secondary sources proving notability, then maybe we can consider it. The draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further at this time.
Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OFFICIAL, 5 March 2023 review of submission by 120.21.82.104


120.21.82.104 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article has been established as not notable here. You haven't addressed the points brought up in any of the declines or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramiz King. I would strongly advise that you take the advice given by @PK650: I would strongly suggest against resubmitting. The AfD plus all the decline templates and comments should give you an indication that several editors have disagreed with you when it comes to the subject's notability. This would clearly not survive another deletion discussion. Please stop and try to understand why you keep getting this declined, and perhaps try again in a few years' time if he garners more coverage.
Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:28:21, 5 March 2023 review of submission by 2023JamesLeyInc.

I Want To Promote My Son's Website On Wikipedia 2023JamesLeyInc. (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is counterintuitive to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:07, 5 March 2023 review of submission by Jamiep1234


Jamiep1234 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been deleted and salted as blatant advertising or spam, meaning you will not be able to create it again. Do not attempt to recreate it under a new name. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

07:23:33, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Lets xplore


Added citation as the previous review.

Lets xplore (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lets xplore No new references have been added, you've just added <sup>[1]</sup> in a few places, so we will not be reviewing it again. Additionally, if you have been paid to edit in a promotional way or you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it on your userpage. See the notice I've left on your talk page for more information. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:34:23, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Jupi2

Hallo, I've read the linked pages on Manual of Style and Citing Sources, but I am still not sure why my article draft has been declined. Also taking into consideration that I'm not a native English speaker I'd be very grateful for more specific advise on how I should improve my draft. Thank you very much! Jupi2 (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jupi2, thanks for coming to the help desk! As far as I can see, the links to WP:MOS and WP:CS, and decline on the basis of NPOV by @Twinkle1990 seem... questionable. Twinkle, could you please explain the motivation behind this comment and decline? I see very little wrong with the citations and I see no major MOS issues here.
However, I wouldn't be prepared to accept just yet. I don't think this meets notability guidelines in it's current state. As anyone can place an obituary on www.legacy.com, it can't be considered reliable. Additionally, [1] is an interview, which typically can't be used to help notability. Finally, [2] seems to be non-independent, so it can't contribute towards notability. The other website appears to be offline (I'm getting a "This page is currently unavailable" error).
Overall, it's a well written draft, good job! If you can find some more reliable, independent and in-depth sources, go ahead and add them, and once you have ~3, click the resubmit button the top of the draft. If you have any questions, let me know or come back here to the help desk :). Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Pross is an issue for my see. And the referencing style is not per WP:CS. Hope it clears my take. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your short explanation @Twinkle1990. I don't believe there were enough NPOV issues to warrant a decline for that reason, but I respect your take. However, it would help if you could be more specific. I've checked a few of your recent reviews and many have a similar/identical comment. It makes it hard for people to understand what needs to be fixed. Remember, when we decline something, we do it because it needs improvement. How can it be improved if people don't know what needs improvement? The Manual of Style is ~25,000 words long, and WP:CS is ~10,000 words long. Please try and be more specific in the future. :)
@Jupi2, Twinkle1990 does bring up some points (although minor) which may need addressing, but wouldn't be a decline reason on their own. Bare URLs should typically be avoided, and there are some small issues with the prose. Phrases like He soon discovered his knack for technical and mechanical things aren't very encyclopedic, and should also be avoided, maybe with something like He soon developed an interest in technical and mechanical things. would work better. Again, these are minor things, they wouldn't warrant a decline by themselves and can be fixed in just a few minutes (if even that).
Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For @Jupi2's understanding, I have done a minor correction in referencing at this dif. Hope @Jupi2 will understand citing sources. References shouldn't be used within bracket, before . or before a comma. Twinkle1990 (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this reply doesn't really acknowledge what I've asked. We shouldn't be criticising newer users for these kind of mistakes. Maybe that kind of thing would matter at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, but this isn't what we should be asking new users to do, especially when there are more important notability issues. Even if we are giving feedback for this kind of thing, we should explicitly say it. Linking to just WP:MOS isn't particularly helpful when only 0.8% of the page covers this stuff. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the draft to pre-review stage. Hope this will resolve the issue. Some other reviewer will review. I won't. Thanks. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Twinkle1990 I just want to make sure you understand per WP:AFCR#General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission AfC reviewers should not be declining drafts based on MOS or other minor issues. You do not make it clear in your response so can you please confirm? S0091 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Will be careful on that. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Twinkle1990, have you made other decline comments based on minor CS/MOS issues? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly decline if the draft fails WP:THREE. I some, declines, failing notability, I commented where draft reads like essay or sourced without any accessible link given. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a quick note regarding drafts failing WP:THREE- it is an essay that asks editors to please consider it a request to post two or three, but no more, of what you consider to be the best sources for the page under discussion. It’s an excellent essay to ask draft creators to identify the best sources instead of inclusion of various clearly trivial/unreliable sources, but it isn’t really a standard that states three sources meeting GNG are required (see User:RoySmith/Three best sources/notes), so I’m not sure how it is “failed” necessarily. VickKiang (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft failed to prove notability per WP:RS. As you do, I too use to give note Please see WP:THREE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:31:12, 6 March 2023 review of submission by 77.125.175.231

I'm requesting a review since I don't understand what the problem is with the draft article I submitted. The article respects Wikipedia's standards and I have been taking into account all of the reviews I received from previous reviewers. I, again, modified the draft article today to respect as much as possible the guidelines and policy of Wikiepdia and would appreciate that the article be published (or that at least I know why it's not...). Thank you in advance.

77.125.175.231 (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with this person? 331dot (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed, as stated explicitely :) 212.143.68.89 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47:39, 6 March 2023 review of submission by 2402:4000:11C0:7EC8:C807:A504:4872:1553


2402:4000:11C0:7EC8:C807:A504:4872:1553 (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC) i want to publish my article. i don't know why you guys rejecting.[reply]

There are two major reasons. First is that there are *no* references in the article, and the second is that it isn't written like an encyclopedia article, it is written like a travel advertisement. Both may be fixable, but it would have to be completely rewritten.Naraht (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:46, 6 March 2023 review of draft by Contemporary asian artist


Contemporary asian artist (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have included enough materials in my draft: Ajay Sharma. Still its unaccepted. please guide me how to rephrase the article. Also I am unable to insert photographs in my article. How do I do this?

15:44:09, 6 March 2023 review of submission by 122.52.89.168


done im publish my AFC Submission122.52.89.168 (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to resubmit your submission, please click the "Resubmit" button at the top of the draft. echidnaLives - talk - edits 22:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EchidnaLives ok 112.208.242.116 (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:34, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Websterpile

My article was declined because it's only about a politician and therefore, presumably hasn't had significant press mention to be notable. However, that's completely not the case. I have asked the reviewer to please take another look. Taken from same guidelines, it further says: The following are presumed to be notable: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Manny Santos has received substantial press coverage, as mayor and as candidate for U.S. Congress, including winning a major Connecticut Supreme Court case. This coverage has not only been locally, but also significant national and international, some of which has been cited in the article. If he is not notable, there should be fewer individuals listed in Wikipedia. Someone, please review and give me your take. Thanks! Websterpile (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove/replace www.facebook.com and linkedin.com sources, they are NOT reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs)

March 7

02:59:29, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Jwilbiz


I'm having trouble getting a company page for Let's Go Learn, Inc., approved. I've tried several times. It's a 20+ year old company, all of our competitors have Wikipedia pages, and the stated reason (not enough legitimate article sources) for declining approval of our page seem suspicious, since we have provided several already. What specifically is preventing our page from being approved? It was recently deleted by a bot, but I have requested the page to be reinstated.

Jwilbiz (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwilbiz Hello, welcome to the help desk!
First of all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Our articles exist because they're notable, not because companies have created them themselves or because companies have paid for them.
Second, we highly discourage people with a conflict-of-interest from creating articles or editing articles related to them, because it's very hard to stay neutral.
Now, the article was draftified, meaning it was moved to the draft area as it was not suitable for mainspace. This is because the subject of the article does not appear to be neutral, and notability seems unlikely. Notability is generally established with 3 reliable, independent and in-depth sources. This means paid articles, company websites, interviews and the like won't work. This is absolutely crucial to any article.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this will happen for Let's Go Learn. I know this isn't what you'll want to hear, but notability and neutrality are 2 of our core concepts. Please do not recreate the article in the mainspace, it will just be deleted or draftified. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad EchidnaLives! I realize all this. Let's Go Learn *invented* an entire new category of sophisticated, online, AI-driven, adaptive assessments for children in math and reading, years before other companies dipped their toes into this area tepidly. These assessments continue to this day to be some of the only ways teachers can accurately diagnose super-specific math and reading problems in children. The algorithms for these assessments were developed over the course of about 25 years by the Chair of the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley (at the time). So in other words, while the company is not the largest edtech company by a long shot, I believe it's empirically very notable. You are not the first editor at Wikipedia to question whether the company is notable, nor the first to imply that the article is less than objective. Yet nobody will tell me any basis for why they believe this to be true? If something is not 100% objective in the article, please point it out! Please explain how the company is not notable? I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but I am; I do not understand how so many less-notable companies can have wonderful, detailed pages in Wikipedia, while our draft page continues to be the subject of straw-man arguments which have no basis? I think I can improve the 3 needed sources, which will help. But geez. Thanks. Jwilbiz (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jwilbiz.The second through fifth sentences of your comment above are overtly promotional, marketing-style language that read like they are taken straight from an advertising brochure. Rather than improving your chances of getting your draft accepted, such comments reduce your chances, since promotional, marketing and advertising content is forbidden from Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and compliance with it is mandatory. You are representing what you claim to be a prestigious educational organization but are trying to edit the #7 website in the world in an uneducated and uninformed fashion. Please do the basic work to educate yourself about how Wikipedia actually works, and conduct yourself accordingly going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The references in your draft utterly fail to establish that this topic is notable. High quality references are golden, and yours are more like zinc. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic are required. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable", as Wikipedia defines it, does not mean "large", "innovative", or even "popular". You say above that nobody has explained why the draft doesn't show notability for Let's Go Learn, but that's not actually true. The draft itself, and your user talk page, contains the following information box:
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 (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
None of the sources in the draft meets these criteria; they are primary and/or non-independent and/or passing mentions of the company. --bonadea contributions talk 12:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwilbiz In case you weren't aware, all of the blue (or purple) words or phrases in Bonadea's answer above are clickable links that will give you a lot more information. David10244 (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:44, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Evoqe.digital

{{Lafc|username=Evoqe.digital|ts=07:04:44, 7 March 2023|page=

Evoqe.digital (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@evoqe.digital: sorry, but Draft:Jubran Siddique has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:44, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Srvban


Hello, I'm usually on the German Wikipedia. I also wanted to publish one of my articles in English. Unfortunately it was rejected and to be honest I don't understand the reason for the rejection.

"This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter."

Unfamiliar with the subject? He was a painter who is named and mentioned in the usual catalogs of painters. Since he was a German-speaking painter, it is only usual that the corresponding sources are in German, of course. Is that the reason for the rejection? A painter listed in Thieme-Becker is directly relevant in the German-language Wikipedia ([3]). But I can't just rely on English-language sources, although some exist and are indicated in the article. It is difficult to obtain more information about the painter, as the reference works often only contain the biographical data of well-known but not famous painters. I need your help and would very thankfully if you can explain me my fault.

Srvban (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srvban: Hmmm. Usually when another reviewer has declined a draft I can understand why, but I can't quite see that there is any context missing in this draft, nor any other obvious reason to decline it. I'll ping the reviewer: @Praseodymium-141:, do you recall why you declined this draft? --bonadea contributions talk 20:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Srvban, of your five references, one is a database entry and the other four are auction house listings. On the English Wikipedia, what is required are references to published, reliable sources that are independent of the topic, and devote significant coverage to the topic. References in German are fine. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:54, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Anstil


I'm wondering how to interpret the policy that editors like myself who have been on Wikimedia projects for over a year, though just dipping in to it now and then, are blocked from creating articles? I'm not a newbie, so I was surprised that there seems no way for me to work on new articles about the Codex Sassoon in advance of the upcoming auction, where one of the codices is expected to be sold for the highest price of any manuscript ($50 million), but the other manuscripts I've been interested in reading up on, have no article despite being considered just as notable if not on sale.

What are the current criteria for being sufficiently trusted to write a Wikipedia article? I'm feeling I'd have more impact from editing a different project, or just giving up on creating articles as it's so demoralizing.

Anstil (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anstil I am not sure what this has to with AfC specifically but as far as I can tell you are not blocked and are WP:autoconfirmed so you can move the draft directly into mainspace (see WP:MOVE). Just be sure to clean up any of templates and that sort of thing after moving it. S0091 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @User:S0091 for confirming what the policy should be. However, every time I try to create a new article, I get forcibly redirected to Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page with no option to proceed to create. If the policy is as you say, and I should be free to create an article, what am I doing wrong? --Anstil (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading the policy, I think I'm falling under the long unconfirmed period of 90 days which is a technical restriction and nothing to do with my competence as an article creator.
As I'm not allowed to move articles or create them, probably until May 2023, could you please consider moving these two articles to main space where they can be worked on collegially? Time is relevant due to the May auction which will create a lot of public interest in the 'Sassoon codices'.
* Draft:Codex_Sassoon_823
* Draft:Farhi Bible
--Anstil (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anstil I'm afraid you seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Time is of no relevance at all WP:NODEADLINE, Wikipedia is not interested in being used to promote an auction WP:PROMO. The reviews of the drafts will happen when interested reviewers get around to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no 'promo' to this, apart from being an academic, I have no possible connection to the S1 codex either. It's just a question of when there will obviously be a surge of interest in the codices, not just the one that happens to be up for auction. It would be a shame if all that journalists and the public get to see on Google when they look for Codex Sassoon is the auction website, rather than being educated about the thousands of other historic manuscripts from this collection.
Note that the two draft articles that I've worked on here, are not about the S1 manuscript, in fact nobody can even see the Farhi Bible as it's permanently locked away in a vault, and MS 823 can never be put up for sale as it's permanently in the University of Pennsylvania Library collections.
I guess what I'm interested in is the exact opposite of 'promo', in fact the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia of sharing knowledge for the love of it. --Anstil (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anstil according to xtools you are autoconfirmed so I am not sure why you are being directed to the New user landing page. Even so, you should have the ability to move pages from Draft to Article. Did you try using the instructions at WP:MOVE#How to move a page? If you still have issues, I suggest reaching out to the Teahouse as it has a broader base of editors than the AfC help desk. You can reference this conversation here by linking to WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#17:05:54, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Anstil. S0091 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. I'll try the teahouse for advice to see if this is a glitch. I did follow the MOVE instructions. --Anstil (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

04:03:43, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Ghostofdarrenseals


Ghostofdarrenseals (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)It is important to consider that there are many articles on Wikipedia about other TEDx events, such as TEDx SantaCruz or TEDx Lagos, which share many similarities with TEDxScotlandville. Therefore, it would be unfair and biased to single out TEDxScotlandville for deletion without considering these other articles.[reply]

Additionally, the TEDxScotlandville article is well-sourced and provides valuable information about the event, including its significance in being the first TEDx event in the state of Louisiana that a Mayor-President of a City-Parish and the Chief of Police has spoken at, and its commitment to promoting diverse perspectives and voices.

It is important to evaluate articles based on their own merits and adherence to Wikipedia's criteria for notability and encyclopedic reference, rather than any perceived bias. Therefore, deleting the TEDxScotlandville article solely based on its similarities with other articles would not be appropriate.

08:20:26, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Hyccc20


Hello, I recently revised the old draft I used to edit in the past since there has been more press coverage for the game I've been waiting for. If anyone could review the draft page, it would be great! Hyccc20 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:42:37, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Healey100


Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can help me with my draft. It has just had its first rejection on the grounds "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia".

I've tried to be as independent and neutral as I can, and all the sources and links are independent articles. If I left any information I have added out, I think it would be removing important historical information, and I've included both good, bad, and neutral information about the company. I have also tried to add minimal information that is not independently verifiable.

Would someone be able to have a look over my article and give me some more specific things to work on / edit / remove. I've looked at quite a few other company pages and the main difference I see is that, in general, they include more information that is not independently verifiable. I am not sure that is the answer, as the guidelines state they want independently verifiable information - but maybe there is a balance that I have not met?

If anyone can point to some good examples I can try and follow or any other tips then that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.


Healey100 (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:01:23, 8 March 2023 review of submission by 122.53.41.214


cilck Resubmit and moved in the article space ok 122.53.41.214 (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your draft has been submitted and will be reviewed after some time. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:21:14, 8 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonas.usa


Hello I need a help from an experienced Wikipedian to help with wikipedia guidelines and to rewrite and improve the article content maybe someone can help. Thanks in advance

Jonas.usa (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@jonas.usa: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:01, 8 March 2023 review of draft by Walnuthillstreet

I thought that I made the necessary changes based on feedback from reviewers to get this topic approved but am still being told i have unverified sources. Since i believe that i have the minimum of verifiable sources should i just remove any information that doesn't fit that criteria OR is there something else that is incorrect? I greatly appreciate your help with this!

Walnuthillstreet (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Walnuthillstreet To make it easy for you I will tag every unsourced claim, then you can find sources or remove the claims. When you add a reference remember to remove the corresponding tag that I've added. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks so much Roger i really appreciate your taking the time to review this i will make the adjustments you suggested and hopefully get it right this time. thanks again Walnuthillstreet (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walnuthillstreet Where the draft says "he has produced credits", do you mean "producer credits"? David10244 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes David thanks for noticing will also edit Walnuthillstreet (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:53:36, 8 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by CP Bhambhu


First AfC, created by me, has been declined. What to do next?

These are the reasons to decline AfC -

1. This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

2. This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Help me to get AfC published. Thanks

CP Bhambhu (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CP Bhambhu Phrases like "The story of Preeti Chandra is quite motivating. She comes from a humble jat family" are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Unless, of course, you can provide a reference where someone states that her story is motivating. You would also need a reference where someone says that she came from a humble family. Wikipedia articles are written from what the published sources say. An article shouldn't read like you are praising her. First, find the reliable, independent sources, where other people have written about her as described in WP:YFA, and then write the draft based on what those sources say. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank CP Bhambhu (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:12:34, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Mambomo

am asking for a re review of the articles because unlike the last person who tried created it i saw that he never kept the references of the artist proof and there were some aspects where he had no adequate info of the figure or entity hope you review it with care for i believe i have provided some good reference and right information. Mambomo (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was rejected because it has no reliable independent sources, you have re-submitted it with zero improvement. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate lettherebedarklight晚安 00:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

19:37:17, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Mambomo

Minor error changed i entered the knowledge panel link Mambomo (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:07, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Mooretwin

I don't understand why this article has been rejected. First, it meets the Wikipedia Football Project WikiProject Football/NotabilityAnotability criteria for football clubs, i.e. teams that have played in the national cup. Second, I have provided two sources (Brodie and Brewster) that are both in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable secondary, and independent of the subject. Grateful for further explanation/advice.

Mooretwin (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

Request on 02:40:40, 9 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by MaMingRoberto



MaMingRoberto (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My article was declined because:

"Almost all of the content in this BLP article is uncited. Work needs to be done to add reliable, independent sources with significant coverage that establish notability."

All the information in the article is verified in the press that is listed in the third paragraph under press mentions and citied in the "external links" section. If I move those press citations up to the body of the article as footnotes would that fix the problem?

Thank you

Hello, MaMingRoberto. Wikipedia articles summarize the significant coverage that reliable, independent sources devote to the topic and references to those sources are used inline in the body of the article. Your draft only has one reference, to an academic journal article about something different. That's bizarre. Can you explain that? You have a lot of external links. Those in the body of the article should be removed. If any of them are of value and are useful as references, then they need to be properly formatted as references, and placed in the proper places in the body of the draft. External links are not references. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaMingRoberto Please click on WP:REFB. David10244 (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:12:35, 9 March 2023 review of draft by Eddy Oliveira Designer


I wanted help to be able to publish this page in English version, since this page would be a variation of the original one in Portuguese. I couldn't understand which reliable sources were mentioned in the refusal of the page.

Eddy Oliveira Designer (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:32:42, 9 March 2023 review of submission by Xkalponik

The page has been rejected, and I've been suggested to see WP:NPOL. I did, and it states, Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are notable". The draft's subject is a major politician, he's a presidium member of the main opposition and one of the biggest political parties of the nation. He's been subject to numerous press coverage throughout his career. Would a reviewer reconsider this? Thanks. X (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:04:39, 9 March 2023 review of submission by Mambomo

tried editing some references, of the artist Mambomo (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mambomo Unfortunately, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. (The external links you provided are not inline references as described in WP:REFB). Please do not resubmit it. David10244 (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:14:34, 9 March 2023 review of draft by Sahupankaj


Trying to create wiki page but not able to understand which section of the content to be removed or edited.

Sahupankaj (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:38:19, 9 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Sahupankaj



Sahupankaj (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:53:11, 9 March 2023 review of submission by Markjiang8


Hi teachers, I wrote an article about a company, but that company doesn't have any English references, What can I do for choose those references and improve article quality? Thanks for your help.

Markjiang8 (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Markjiang8: I'm no teacher, but I'll reply while waiting for one... Sources don't need to be in English, but they do need to be reliable and independent, and to provide significant coverage of the subject. The reviewer is contending that the sources cited are insufficient to establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT.
I would add that the draft is quite promotional and peacocky in nature, veering into the ADMASQ territory.
I've also posted a COI query on your user page, please read and action that as your next step. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:11, 9 March 2023 review of submission by Verflix7

Hey! I wanted to create a wikipedia article about Railsponsible. Railsponsible is a sustainability initiative of the railway industry, and it exists already since 2015. Also Wikipedia articles on comparable initiatives exist (e.g. Together for Sustainability), so I was wondering why my submission got declined. What do I have to change? Thank you in advance! Verflix7 (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Verflix7: did you read the decline notice? For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. The draft currently only cites the organisation's own website, and one other source which may or may not meet the GNG criteria but in any case is alone not enough. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:17, 9 March 2023 review of submission by GMorris419


I need help understanding how my article (Sugar Valley Rural Charter School) is not meeting the qualifications to become an article.

GMorris419 (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GMorris419: because, as was repeatedly pointed out by the reviewers, notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, and none of ones cited meets this standard. In any case, this draft has now been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that my citations do not meet this standard, but I do not understand how they do not meet this standard. It seems the sources I used are impartial, non-biased, reliable, and secondary. GMorris419 (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:46:45, 9 March 2023 review of submission by Mspendl828


Hello, could someone please help me with this submission?

It has been declined for not being supported by reliable sources, I have cited five different sources for the information in the article, including the BBC, NME and the Guardian newspaper.

I don't believe there's anything in the article which isn't taken from the sources referred in the article.

I'd really appreciate if someone can let me know what I'm doing wrong.

Thank you!

Mspendl828 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mspendl828: it is true that you have cited five sources, of which some, but not all, can certainly be considered reliable. You may wish to ask the declining reviewer directly what they found lacking in that respect.
Personally, I would still decline this, albeit for a different reason, namely lack of notability. The sources are all about the single event, of Arkin being signed up to a record label, and aren't IMO sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. As for WP:MUSICBIO notability, a single album with no particular list, certification, etc. merits isn't enough to meet this notability standard, either. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:39, 9 March 2023 review of submission by Catherineailsamacintosh


Catherineailsamacintosh (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Catherineailsamacintosh (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)I have been advised that my submission "Bob Giles architect" does not comply with requirements because "fails the first non-free content criterion." I take this to be because 2 of the images are marked "copyright Bob Giles" and the third is marked "copyright Simon Kennedy". Both these individuals have agreed to waive their copyright. Should I therefore simply remove the note on the origins of those images?15:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Catherineailsamacintosh (talk)[reply]

Hi @Catherineailsamacintosh: the notice on your talk page refers specifically to the File:Bob Giles, architect.pdf only, which isn't even referenced in the draft, and therefore has nothing to do with why the draft was declined. The reason it was declined is because it is insufficiently referenced, with many paragraphs and even entire sections without a single citation. This would be a problem in any article, and especially so in articles on living people. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:33, 9 March 2023 review of submission by PhoenixBrmnzo


PhoenixBrmnzo (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Hello, I'd like to ask why a draft article was declined. May I know the reason(s)? Thanks.[reply]

Hello, you have not specified what article you are inquiring on. Please review the instructions under the "Click here to ask a new question." link above and edit your inquiry accordingly. nf utvol (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added it now. PhoenixBrmnzo (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link Draft:Treatment of prisoners of war in the Greco-Italian War. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding it. PhoenixBrmnzo (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My message was also that this topic/subject needs more research. PhoenixBrmnzo‬ (talk) I understand that it needs more citations. It's all good. Thank you.

17:53:44, 9 March 2023 review of submission by 83.32.100.28


Hello, thanks for your feedback. I am trying to include as many reliable sources from Internet in English and Hebrew. Snir Zano is a well-known entrepreneur in Israel. I ask you to please reconsider the decision of declining this article and letting me know what I can do to amend it.

83.32.100.28 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:12, 9 March 2023 review of submission by Jackcohenkm72


Jackcohenkm72 (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

01:34:47, 10 March 2023 review of submission by Airborne84


After two declined submissions for this article, it is unclear to me why it is not considered notable. I'm requesting a more detailed rationale. Clarification will enable me and other editors to address those specific shortfalls. There are currently three in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent sources on this topic. There is a three-page article in Paper Mayhem magazine, a nearly full-page review in Space Gamer, and another 351-word stand-alone review in Gaming Universal—all magazines used as sources in many other play-by-mail game articles. What am I missing? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that all three publications are independent of the subject, and to my understanding are reliable sources for game-related topics. BOZ (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted it, since it seems you have found additional sources that weren't in the AfD discussion. If I'm not missing something it should be perfectly fine to directly create/move your own draft to mainspace since you have found additional sources since the AfD discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and much appreciated! I for one am more comfortable to have someone review a draft in that case who can be more objective than myself. :) BOZ (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Can someone help me create this page and let me know what the problem is With it not being accepted for publishing..? Many thanks 2A02:3032:D:EEB6:6479:56F:4242:A2F4 (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell us which 'page' you're referring to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:53:06, 10 March 2023 review of submission by 2600:4040:937B:1B00:7D56:1A56:4D46:D1C5


2600:4040:937B:1B00:7D56:1A56:4D46:D1C5 (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is just a copy of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:31:21, 10 March 2023 review of draft by Roosra


I would like some advice how to make this an accepted page. I understand Management 3.0 is a niche, and not as big as Scrum. Still, almost 18.000 people attended the workshops, 485 trainers, and active in 155 countries. Only. this is only published on their own website. I wanted to start small with this article, and it can grow in the future.

Roosra (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roosra: we need to see what multiple independent and reliable sources have, purely of their own volition, said or written about the topic. This is called in the Wikipedia world 'notability', and is a core requirement for any article to be published, regardless of its size. Your draft currently cites no such sources, as all the references lead to Jurgen Appelo, therefore notability is not established, and there is no evidence that this term is being widely discussed rather than being merely a neologism. Please add sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria before resubmitting. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:50, 10 March 2023 review of draft by Devin Bender


Devin Bender (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:50, 10 March 2023 review of submission by Devin Bender



I recently attempted to create a Wikipedia page on the "August Wilson Journal." Already there is a Wikipedia page on August Wilson, however, my goal was to create a new page that was more focused on the journal. When I went to submit it I was told about my sources. I went ahead and revised my current sources (making sure the citation was correct) and added some more to back up my page. I am confused about if this is what needed to be fixed and just looking for a bit more clarification on this. Thank you, Devin Bender (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Devin Bender yes, sources are required not only support the claims made for verifiability but also to prove the subject is notable. Simply existing is not enough and notability is not inherited so its connection to August Wilson matters not. You may find this essay about establishing the notability for journals helpful. S0091 (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

Why was my article declined

My article was declined and i dont know why UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1143989004"