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 02:36, 14 March 2023. 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 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 ([1]). 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]

Hi @Hyccc20 the draft was rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered. You are welcome are reach out to the editor who rejected it and provide them with WP:THREE to see if they will reconsider but you need to address your potential conflict of interest first. I left you some additional information on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was still a bit lot on what I should working on, and this will help me out so much.
I will reflect on the suggestion and reach out to the editor, and provide them with new sources I found about the draft.
Thank you for the help! Hyccc20 (talk) 01:55, 13 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]

Hi @Healey100, first be mindful of WP:REFBOMB. Generally, only on source is needed to support a fact. I looked through a handful of the sources and they are mostly what the company says about itself (interviews, their comments, etc.) which are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and should only be used sparingly to support content. Also, Express is not a reliable source so should not be used. S0091 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Thanks for the feedback. I will update as you suggest. Healey100 (talk) 17:47, 11 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]
@Walnuthillstreet OK, good. David10244 (talk) 12:06, 11 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]

Hi @Mooretwin the criteria you linked is an essay, not the guideline. See WP:NSPORTS#Organizations, venues and games notability for the guidelines. Also, I the only thing I could find on the book Up The Limbs is a Facebook post so it is unclear if it is a reliable source and no page numbers are provided for A Hundred Years of Irish Football. S0091 (talk) 17:26, 11 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]

Hi @Xkalponik it also states Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Standard coverage about campaigns is generally considered trivial and what a subject says is not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 17:00, 11 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]

What is your question, @Sahupankaj? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 11 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]
Sources 1-3 are just stats and directory listings; source 4, while arguably the best of the lot, is little more than a passing mention; and 5-6 are routine business reporting. None of these provides the sort of significant coverage required to establish notability (and even if 4 did, which IMO it doesn't, it alone isn't enough, as we need multiple sources). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 11 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]
Hi, thank you for the reply and for helping clarify the submission requirements. I really appreciate it :) Mspendl828 (talk) 16:30, 11 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]

See below. S0091 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

Hi @Jackcohenkm72 in order to meet notability, sources need to meet all four requirements: reliable, secondary, independent and cover the subject in-depth. The current sources are either primary and/or not independent. Press releases, interviews or comments by the subject are not useful. Also, it appears the sources are about the company rather than Zano so does not provide in-depth coverage about him. The draft has now been rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 16:51, 11 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

 Courtesy link: Draft:Good Party

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

@UrFathermaybeblind: it was declined for the reasons stated in the decline notice, specifically inside the two grey boxes within the large pink box; to wit, lack of evidence of notability, and promotional nature of the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cubic Castles

I'm posting this message in regards to the decline of my draft on the 2014 indie game Cubic Castles. Draft:Cubic Castles The decline message said I did not use reliable sources even though the sources I was using was from the official secondary wiki for the game. I apologize if I got anything wrong and if you can direct me on the requirements to get it published. Thanks! - Slug9k — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slug9k (talk • contribs) 10:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slug9k We don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia draft or article, simply place the title of the target page in double brackets like this [[Joe Biden]] displays as Joe Biden. I've fixed this for you here.
Wiki type sources are not considered reliable sources as they are user-editable(just as Wikipedia is not a reliable source). An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the game. For games, that is typically independent reviews/assessments of the game. If you have no independent sources, the game would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if this is wrong, but the wiki is made by the Cosmic Cow, (the developers of the game) and they have made it to where editing cannot be accessed by others. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear before. Slug9k (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case then it is a primary source and still not does not count towards the inclusion criteria. We need to see others have taken the time right about the subject on their own accord and had it published by a reliable source. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:37:06, 11 March 2023 review of submission by Swiss Rhone Ranger

Thanks for reaching out. I'm not an editor nor do I wish to become one. We are wine growers in the northern Rhone in Switzerland. We are the Swiss Rhone Rangers. It's a not for profit organisation based in Switzerland founded 2 years ago. There are no other references to the Swiss Rhone Rangers as it's a new association. There are however Rhone Rangers ie. wine makers producing Rhone type wines in the US (California) in Austrialia and South Africa. In other words Swiss Rhone Rangers are simply Swiss wine growers growing Rhone wine. I find no references to this and I've searched wikipedia and found no references to the Swiss Rhone Rangers. We are Swiss. We are Rhone based and are Rangers. Any and all help appreciated. MTIA Swiss Rhone Ranger (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't write articles about yourself. I think you would have more success in getting listed at https://www.winetourism.com/wineries-in-rhone-wine-region/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Cannon

Today I translated the Dutch article about Dolores Cannon to English. Soon a draft was made of it. I translated the text and sources literally, so I wonder why it was not approved? In my opinion, it is just a decent article. S. Perquin (talk) (discover the power of thankfulness!) – 17:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @S. Perquin each Wikipedia language is its own project with its own policies and guidelines. Generally, the English Wikipedia is more strict as far as notability guidelines. Please read through the linked documentation in the decline message which outlines the notability criteria. If you have additional questions, you can ask here or at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:10:37, 11 March 2023 review of submission by Andrewsmith12345


Andrewsmith12345 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewsmith12345 you are wasting your time more importantly the time of Wikipedia's volunteers . See also the deletion log. S0091 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My time is just as important how can you work out that volunteers time is more important than mine Andrewsmith12345 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are likely a sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Drug Addicts Anonymous so I will be filing an investigation. Best you just go away and save everyone time. S0091 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File your investigation and get a kick out of being a keyboard warrior. Andrewsmith12345 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No help whatsoever on here about as much use as a chocolate teapot Andrewsmith12345 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

03:29:45, 12 March 2023 review of submission by Treepak411


Treepak411 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a brief article about my artistry and my own work and it was denied but I am an emerging talent who is trying very hard to get himself out there — I am on Spotify as a verified artist and on Soundcloud as well with a family is semi-famous. Please reconsider this article —I would so genuinely appreciate it.

@Treepak411: notability cannot be inherited from your family. I don't see how you meet the notability guide for musicians either. Also, please be aware of Wikipedia's autobiography policy. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok…well can you at least write one about my family '' like Steven Spolansky or Jodi Smith (née Spolansky) —I really need reach but I could really appreciate this potential opportunity Treepak411 (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Treepak411 that is counterintuitive to the purpose of Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia on topics which are already considered notable by our standards. It is not meant to be an avenue of promotion or extending anyone's "reach" . Your time would be better spent elsewhere if this is your goal. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:02, 12 March 2023 review of submission by EstezaRemmy


Hi everyone on this help page, My first page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Iconic_Kent_Kris was declined for passing as a Wikipedia Article, and I am stuck on where I did not satisfy the requirements.

If any one here can be of help and assistance to have the page approved, I will be grateful.

Thanks in advance!

EstezaRemmy (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EstezaRemmy: the draft was declined for lack of notability; the sources cited are interviews and publicity pieces, whereas we need to see what independent and reliable sources have said about him, on their own initiative.
There is also unreferenced content in the draft, eg. the entire 'Career' section hasn't a single citation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:58:43, 12 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by DanielChutzpah


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. I am by the way associated with the subject of the article, as stated explicitely.


DanielChutzpah (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielChutzpah: this draft has been rejected, which means it won't be considered further. If you wish to challenge that, you need to do so directly with the reviewer who rejected it, and you need to have substantive grounds for doing so.
I should probably add that if I were reviewing this now, I would be declining it for insufficient referencing, as quite a lot of the content is either unreferenced or referenced using inadequate sources. There are also many other issues with this. Which is to say, the draft would need quite a lot of work to bring it up to required standards, so don't expect it to be simply waved trough as-is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing and thanks for your reply and explanation.
Do you mind expanding a little on the referencing? Which parts are not referenced adequately according to you? Because as it is, everything looks very solid to me.
Please feel free to answer me in private if this forum is not appropriate.
Thank you in advance.
?
? 2A0D:6FC2:5FB2:B400:C9A3:A3A1:1F33:81A2 (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too much into it, as this has been rejected and as such is not viable content, but:
  • Sources like Amazon, Baidu, PRNewsWire and YouTube are generally not considered reliable.
  • Forbes' editorial content is usually reliable, but their contributors are often not independent, and their writings are not subject to editorial oversight; see WP:FORBESCON.
  • Anything written by Arieli herself needs to be corroborated by an independent source. For example, the statement that she served as a Lieutenant in Unit 8200 is referenced only by an article she wrote.
  • Per WP:BLP, all material statements, anything potentially contentious, and private personal details such as DOB, educational achievements and family members all need to be backed up by clearly citing reliable published sources.
My hunch is, you've written what your client or employer wanted you to write, and then cited some sources to support some of it. What you should do instead is summarise what reliable published sources have said about her, no more, no less, citing the sources as you go. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. DanielChutzpah (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:51, 12 March 2023 review of submission by 2600:4040:937B:1B00:8D0F:1F63:EB74:6FE4


2600:4040:937B:1B00:8D0F:1F63:EB74:6FE4 (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this draft has been rejected.
Secondly, this is just a copy of an existing article, as pointed out in the review comments, as well as on this page two days ago.
And thirdly, you don't ask a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:22, 12 March 2023 review of draft by WriterGP


Query about which citation form to use.

I am quoting from an article accessed via the British Newspaper Archive. Is this the correct way of citing?

[1]

Another citation for an article, accessed the same way, refers to an article with no title. How should I cite this?

Many thanks.

References

  1. ^ Christmas, Linda (1969-03-07). "It's all a dream to Irene Evans..." Middlesex County Times. Retrieved 2023-03-08.

WriterGP (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:55, 12 March 2023 review of draft by Antivoid


I tried to submit an earlier version of this draft, but it was rejected due to lacking sources. The original article had no sources so I had to look for some. I found two of them, but I'm not sure if I'll need to add more sources.

Antivoid (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Antivoid: the draft has only two sources, which isn't really enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. Moreover, it has only three citations, leaving the vast majority of the content unsupported, begging the obvious question – where is all this information coming from? So yes, you will need to add more sources, and cite them throughout the text, so that it is clear which source supports what content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:39:58, 12 March 2023 review of submission by PIRINATION

Hello! My article was denied and I'm curious as to why. Thanks!

PIRINATION (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PIRINATION Welcome to the Teahouse. The reasons why are given in the big gray box in the draft, after the words "Submission declined". In that explanation, the words or phrases in blue (or possibly purple) are clickable links. Clicking those links, and reading all of the information given, should answer your question.
Writing a new article is hard until you are familiar with all of the rules and guidelines. I'll give a partial answer to your question: several sections in your draft have no citations. For example, where did the information in the "Early life" section come from? Where did you learn all of that? The assertions in that section (and throughout the draft) must be backed with references showing the sources of the info. David10244 (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


March 14

Request on 01:28:27, 14 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by UrFathermaybeblind


I want to know what was the reason for the decline and how could i get it published


UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:36:00, 14 March 2023 review of submission by UrFathermaybeblind

Can you please tell me how can i get this published all the things are provided the references the website what is the problem then can you advise me to get it published


UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1144501495"