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 Mcdonaldna (talk | contribs) at 01:25, 13 August 2019. 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


August 6

01:30:09, 6 August 2019 review of submission by 202.68.171.218

We have update in line with feedback.. 202.68.171.218 (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DavekickrOZ. Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals.
With regard to the draft, you may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:42:00, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Peter.R.Hill

I have added multiple references and added content.Peter.R.Hill (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter.R.Hill. If you wish to submit the draft for a second review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. If you believe the draft doesn't need a second review, then so long as you have no conflict of interest, you may instead WP:MOVE it to article space yourself, and let it take its chances there.
Before you do either, however, fix three things:
  1. It isn't clear what source "[Gordon, David. The Chevron Story]" is. Is it a book? If so, make sure you have the title correct (I couldn't find it in worldcat.org), add the publisher, the copyright year, the ISBN if it has one, and the page number(s) that support the content where cited.
  2. Add a page number to the citation of Elva: the cars, the people, the history. It's difficult to access because only five WorldCat libraries hold the book. So it would be helpful if you added a brief quotation of the source to the citation, as described at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional annotation.
  3. The draft states some opinions in Wikipedia's voice, such as "when the demands of managing his teams and business forced him to hang up his helmet" and "at pivotal times in their careers". That is not allowed. Attribute the statements inline, such as "when, according to so-and-so, the demands of ...", or remove them.
--Worldbruce (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:09, 6 August 2019 review of submission by 202.184.113.208


202.184.113.208 (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Volllllllllllllllllllllllllll Zoogs.

{subst:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by 202.184.113.208



I'm not sure what the above is supposed to mean, but the draft was rejected because despite several attempts, it didn't have suitable sourcing. The fact that it's rejected rather than declined is because it appears that notability CANNOT be met, even with further editing. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:44, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Marco8181


Marco8181 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:01:53, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Ras2066


Good Morning, I never received a response to my request to have a re-review. Can you please take a look at this revised article and let me know if it fits your requirements? Thank you!

Ras2066 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ras2066. No, it does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. The bulk of any article should be based on independent sources. The draft cites none. Do not be surprised that the draft was rejected, or if it is deleted as advertising, and be willing to adjust your approach. The reviewer summed it up well by saying you should STOP, and wait until someone else writes an article on the topic. You can encourage this by:
  1. On your user page, disclose your connection to Michelassi.
  2. Go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and find a category under which to list your request.
  3. Describe the very basics of who Michelassi is, no more than a couple of lines, and avoid puffery. Be up-front about your conflict of interest by mentioning it in the request.
  4. Find a number of independent reliable sources that have substantial information about the topic, and provide links to them in the request. His employer's material about him does not count as such a source.
  5. Optionally, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine post a link to your request, and make sure to mention your relationship to Michelassi so readers understands where the request is coming from.
The topic has promise, so a member of the WikiProject (or any editor that regularly responds to article requests) may start an article in article space based on your sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:41, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Manas.chafekar

Hello Team,

I have submitted an article for your review on July 7 2019. Can you let me know the tentative time when this article will be reviewed and provide comments? Manas.chafekar (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manas.chafekar. The current backlog is 21 weeks. That suggests it might be reviewed the first week in December. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:01, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Jayanagas


Hi all, The page for GrabOn, coupons and deals platform was created as the deals and coupons are really useful and attractive for any user. Before trying t create a page I checked wikipedia for similar global platforms. I found GroupOn to lead the pack and its Indian version GrabOn is no different and operates within the territory of India. I felt a wiki page would help Indian buyers looking for deals and coupons to be well informed before actually getting on to purchase. So, please review the page, objections and help me publish it. Thanking you all.

Jayanagas (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanagas It's already been reviewed and rejected. Wikipedia isn't your personal promotional vehicle, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean we have to have a page for everything else. Whispering(t) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:52, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Andremartinsc


Andremartinsc (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


16:12:22, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Tuwarg


Hi, With the draft, I've added my comment on discussion page. It seems to me reviewer have not looked at it. I've added there some information why I consider subject notable and how sources meet requirements. If that's not enough, still it would be nice to receive more detailed information why the topic is not considered notable. Could you provide more feedback or rereview the submission? Thanks.

Tuwarg (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:08, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Crueldrama


Crueldrama (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:42, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Gineg80

Hello! This is my first Wiki page. I sent it for review over 3 months ago but nothing has happened yet. I just wanted to make sure I submitted it correctly. I couldn't find it listed in the pending articles, and not sure how to verify if review is in process, and when I should expect it. I created this page in celebration of this little known Costa Rican singer I met, who turned 100 last May. I wanted to give him this little international recognition as a birthday gift. It's now late for that, but I'd love it if he could see it sometime soon! Thank you all

Gineg80 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gineg80. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 21 weeks. About 550 drafts have been waiting longer than this one. You can monitor that number by checking how far the draft is from the top of this page. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

06:05:51, 7 August 2019 review of submission by Platipusica

Hi guys! Can anyone advise why was this page moved to Draft? Looks like the Reviewer (SamHolt6), advised that "the article is primary to WP:PRIMARY sources, and was declined by WP:AFC several times. Incubate." What does it mean Incubate? I see heaps of Web Frameworks approved even with less references, not sure what is the norm. One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottle_(web_framework), has less references (5), so why double standards? Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagare_(web_framework), or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webware_for_Python ???? Amassing. Not a single external reference for both! I do not understand this process, it's frustrating to say at least. I've collected 7 references, tried my best to present this info here, and did not receive any communication that the page was moved to Draft! Any communication at all. Nothing on Talk either, here is citation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts" "As a matter of good practice the editor moving a page to draft should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors." So what do I do now? Wait till December b/c someone decided that this is not good enough? And than another year if rejected again? Guys, if that is so, half of the Web Frameworks (free and Open source software) should be put back to Draft on the basis of notability. Like this I've mentioned above. Very disappointing for the first time Wikipedia contributor. You just lost me. Not worth my time, sorry. Gone surfing.... Platipusica (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really guys? So now the Reviewer (Theroadislong) is saying that "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." And previously other Reviewers (StraussInTheHouse‬, Mjs1991‬) did not have any criticism on that note, but they requested more References, which I've clearly provided. Looks like some articles can be published with no References and notability what so ever.

other crap exists is not a good argument for creating an article.The first sentence "primary goal is to allow development of database-driven business web applications easily and quickly, based on DRY principle, with emphasis on CRUD." seems like straight forward advertising speak to me? Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am with you. However, why no one advised me about this 6 months ago? How shall I write this in non advertising manner, which changes to implement if :other crap exists is not relevant at all? Thanks

08:30:32, 7 August 2019 review of draft by Yabirkaur31


Yabirkaur31 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:45:51, 7 August 2019 review of submission by 2409:4063:4E02:CBB:0:0:A7C8:6605


2409:4063:4E02:CBB:0:0:A7C8:6605 (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:30:01, 7 August 2019 review of submission by Kribondhar

Hi, Hope everything is fine with you. I have made every necessary changes to the article camping co but still there is issue with the notability of the subject as commented . I have attached two newspaper mentions as of now also few article mentions about the subject in various websites. Also i am in the search for more digital copies of news mentions. So it will be very helpful if you suggest and help me in publishing this article. As this will get a better educational visibility about such a venture idea which will eventually add values in the tourism sector of the northeast India

Thanks in advance with regards Krishanu Kribondhar (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected because the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm afraid Wikipedia has no interest in promoting the tourism sector of the northeast India or any where else for that matter. Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:13:51, 7 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by ErKaranArora


Hi i have draft an article oh Hemant Brijwasi, who was 2 times winner of Indian reality singing competition but still his article disapproved. i want to know the actual reason Karan Arora 12:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi ErKaranArora. The reason the draft was declined is that it fails to demonstrate that Brijwasi is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Proving notability requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. IMDb, Wikipedia, wikibio, rightbiography, and starsUnfolded are not reliable sources. The article in The Hindu is reliable, but is a primary source interview with little independent analysis by the interviewer. You may cite it, but it doesn't help demonstrate notability. While you look for better sources, keep in mind that singers who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:02:37, 7 August 2019 review of draft by Zaara khan(Firdous Bano)


Zaara khan (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing an article about upcoming Telugu actress Zaara khan, I have mentioned her film name and its link, can you please tell me what is the exact reason, why it is declined.

Thanks in advance.

Hi Zaara khan(Firdous Bano). The draft has been deleted for being unambiguous advertising. Before that, it was declined three times for failing to demonstrate that Zaara Khan is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). It would be extremely unusual for the encyclopedia to have an article about an actor who has had one supporting role in a run-of-the-mill film released last month. An actor is expected to be considerably further along in their career, with multiple significant roles (think top, lead, starring) in notable films, before their biography is published here. Now is WP:TOOSOON for Zaara Khan. Revisit the topic in a year or two, by which time more may have been written about her. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:03, 7 August 2019 review of submission by Manjeet.baranwal

While adding an article about Allround Automations, it needs to be linked to page PL/SQL Developer, where slight information about Allround Automations is already mentioned but not in details. So when we visit PL/SQL Developer article on wikipedia, when someone want to refer about Allround Automations, it can be easily referred. Its just about putting the information, like we have for many companies in wikipedia. Manjeet.baranwal (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manjeet.baranwal. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. Most businesses are not notable. The guidelines for inclusion were tightened last year, so even many companies currently in Wikipedia no longer merit a stand alone article. They are being deleted or merged. The draft was declined because it failed to show that the company is notable and because it was more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. It was then deleted for being unambiguous advertising. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:30:17, 7 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jnthibeault


I am trying to get some constructive feedback on this draft article. It was rejected by an editor on July 10 for "undefined." If I can get a review with some feedback, that would be super appreciated.


Jnthibeault (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Dan arndt, the reviewer. The draft should not have been rejected without comment, and it should not have been nominated for deletion as copyright infringement when only small portions of the draft were copied from another page (and it this case, since they were copied from a patent, which generally isn't copyrighted, it shouldn't have been nominated at all). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:28, 7 August 2019 review of submission by 8aularodriguez


Need direction, if this is not acceptable, this is information found on the web link, I provided.

8aularodriguez (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 8aularodriguez. The rejection of the draft it is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix the problem. You may wish to explore alternative outlets with different inclusion criteria. Wikipedia may not be used for advocacy, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:21:35, 7 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ronnyjowe


Hi my article didn't get approved because it didn't have enough references to make it notable. Please can you advise me on how i can use the below links to verify notability?

https://themassifcentral.blog/2014/06/25/portrait-of-the-cycling-podcast/ https://www.rapha.cc/gb/en/stories/the-cycling-podcast-rapha https://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph-cycling-podcast/ https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/latestnews/pez-chat-richard-moore/ https://road.cc/content/review/239095-cycling-podcast-journey-through-cycling-year https://inrng.com/2018/07/tour-podcast-reviews/

In particular, this DCMS select committee report https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/366/36606.htm


Ronnyjowe (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

05:36:33, 8 August 2019 review of submission by Nrahimian


Thanks for reviewing. Please give me some advice how I can improve it. John Luxton has done a lot for education system of Australia's music . Nrahimian (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrahimian: As the reviewers noted, the article needs sources. These have to be multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. This cannot be a university profile or article (since that wouldn't be independent, if they studied/taught there). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:55:13, 8 August 2019 review of draft by 2405:204:21A4:5325:19E:3436:628:2D1F


Hi there, it has been more 7 weeks since the Draft:Foundation Holdings hasn't been yet reviewed. I would really appreciate it if everyone here reviews this draft. Thanks in advance.

2405:204:21A4:5325:19E:3436:628:2D1F (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2405:204:21A4:5325:19E:3436:628:2D1F: - due to a major flux of applications in the last few months, we have drafts that have been unreviewed for 16 weeks, so a further wait is likely. A list of all the entries can be seen here. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information @Nosebagbear:. I would be grateful to you if you could review it to ensure everything is good. Thank you. 2405:204:21A4:5325:C81E:AE80:9152:6B27 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:20:47, 8 August 2019 review of draft by ErKaranArora


Dear, I didn't understand why this article is not published. I have mentioned proper references and even Shehnaz akhtar won singing competition at 2nd place.

Karan Arora 07:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi ErKaranArora. Proper references? Wikibiopharm, starsunfolded, and IMDb are in no way, shape, or form reliable sources, and should not be cited. APB and Zee are promoting their shows, so they are not independent. Gaana is not significant coverage. Nothing about the references or the accomplishments claimed in the draft suggests that the topic is notable, so I don't understand why you would think Wikipedia would ever publish the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:34:54, 8 August 2019 review of submission by Bekobenhavn


Bekobenhavn (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:44:31, 8 August 2019 review of draft by Gellerman


Gellerman (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gellerman: As the reviewer noted there is no "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources". There are no sources like this in the article. It is likely WP:TOOSOON for this article until and if it receives reviews. The reviewer before that already said this too. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:28:01, 8 August 2019 review of submission by Frogger11.mr

My submission was a new idea entirely. One that I think is a valid creation. I was hoping the Wikipedia crowd could tell me where I am right or wrong. It was my goal to lend this idea to the world wether or not it was valid or just a pipe dream. I have read up on Magnetoception and it is a valid field of science in which my idea rests. Please reconsider the decision to post my article, if on anything the chance the right person get ahold of it and it become a reality. At lest be tested properly as I haven't the means financially or resource wise to do so.

Frogger11.mr (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Frogger11.mr: Wikipedia does not publish original research. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you!

15:04:10, 8 August 2019 review of submission by Surya ganguly


The reviewer notes in his rejection Wiki is not a community resource. The original article attempts to define a category of data which falls within Wikipedia's core mission of chronicling the world. The fact that this definition is a community resource is a subjective definition that would apply to Wikipedia pages about solar panels, composting toilets, mobile hotspots - anything that a group of people would find useful.

Surya (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surya ganguly: Perhaps the reviewer worded this somewhat ambiguously. But in the end Wikipedia has specific policies about what content is accepted. Sources are required to cover the topic itself, not just parts of it. Grouping things like the article does is original research and synthesis and is not accepted for articles. In other words, the introductory sentences in your article should already be backed up by multiple reliable independent in-depth sources before it even gets to the list. From your other article examples, we can easily find sources that talk about the subject of the article. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:25, 8 August 2019 review of submission by JeremyBrandt76


Hello, I am creating a page for an author that I believe has enough of a following to have a Wikipedia page. My submission was rejected because some of my citations were not from "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I believe the reviewer is referring to my references for the subject's biographical information, which I pulled from his website.

If I revise the biographical data so that I am pulling from independent sources, is my article more likely to be accepted? Could someone give me their opinion on 1) the subject's notability and 2) the quality of my independent sources in the "selected interviews and speaking engagements" and "awards and honors" sections?

Thank you!

Hi JeremyBrandt76. The draft was declined because none of the draft's 17 sources are independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. Capsule speaker's bios are not the result of scholarship or journalistic investigation, they are supplied by the speaker, so are not independent. Awards mentioned only by the awarding organization and the awardee are not worth mentioning. The draft describes him as a CEO and the author of a book. That strongly suggests he is not notable. Certainly the draft does nothing to show that he is. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


August 9

02:08:37, 9 August 2019 review of submission by Lexa.Dixon

Unsure why this is constantly being declined and comments say seems more like a promotional editorial. No one that I have spoken to see's it this way, and they see this page written up like any other artist (ie Villainy, Shihad etc)

Lexa.Dixon (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lexa.Dixon: - content such as "Lead vocalist Rory McDonald injects spit and grit on the track, with a vocal quality invoking the energy of artists including Mike Patton and Marilyn Manson, the latter being an inspiration for the band’s name. Channelling emotion into the lyrics, ultimately matching the rage and passion of the music, is an element of Lucifer Gunne’s flourishing artistry that has attracted many fans - ‘Energenetic’ is a perfect example of this talent operating at full pelt.[10] " and an "interesting facts/tours" section that includes likes on facebook et al, don't indicate a neutral writing of an article. Encyclopedic tone also means being in the 3rd person and not breaking the 4th wall Nosebagbear (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:19, 9 August 2019 review of draft by IntPolNerd


I think my submission has been rejected out of hand. I was referred to the page on Hate Crime. Identity-based violence includes instances of violence that aren't illegal - in many jurisdictions, there is no hate crime law. And yet, violence on the basis of identity still occurs. Hate crime therefore doesn't capture identity-based violence.

Identity-based violence also covers rather broader issues than hate crime. Almost no-one would describe a genocide as a hate crime - it's something rather different. I'm happy to have a longer conversation about this with someone if necessary.

IntPolNerd (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IntPolNerd: Articles have to show independent sources that talk about the subject of the article, in this case the concept of "identity-based violence". All sources except one do not have "identity-based violence" as the subject, but rather a broader or tangential topics and only mention this concept without much detail. We need sources that talk specifically about the term, its meaning, its use, etc. The one source that does talk about it is arguably not independent -- it is an organization directly involved with the issues and thus is a primary source. Wikipedia requires secondary sources that are independent of the subject and only report on it rather than speak "on behalf of it", for the lack of better wording. We also cannot aggregate different sources and group them under a subject, because that would be synthesis of material improper for Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:12, 9 August 2019 review of submission by 202.51.76.37


202.51.76.37 (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@202.51.76.37: Articles require multiple independent in-depth sources about the subject. There are no sources like this about the subject in the article. Sources cannot be related to the subject, like their company. They also have to be in-depth, so no business listings and profiles. It does not look like this company has been covered by any sources to this extent, thus it is (currently) not suitable for Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:42, 9 August 2019 review of submission by 103.227.96.32


103.227.96.32 (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:46, 9 August 2019 review of draft by Mldickens


I'd like guidance on what citations I may add, and/or formatting changes I could make to give me a higher likelihood of having my entry published to Wiki.

I plan on removing all of my external links (except for our official website address in our infobox). I just wanted to make sure I'm doing my due diligence prior to resubmitting for review.

I appreciate any insight and/or guidance you can provide.

Thanks,

Mike D. Mldickens (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mldickens you can begin by following the advice the first reviewer posted to the page, I see you have not yet responded to the review. It includes links to various pages of advice and instructions. if you get stuck with something you know where to find us again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

01:15:01, 10 August 2019 review of submission by KendallDH


KendallDH (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC) My article was declined recently and now I understand why my article was declined, I wanted to know if I can still edit my article after it's been declined and if so, how would I be able to edit the article?KendallDH (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KendallDH: You can theoretically continue editing the same page like you did before (click "edit" next to the page name above, for example). However, it is very unlikely that this article will be accepted, because there are no sources, so editing will likely be for nothing. Wikipedia needs multiple in-depth independent sources about the topic itself for an article to be considered for inclusion. This seems like a very small niche topic for which such sources do not exist. Of course, I might be wrong. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KendallDH (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC) I see that some articles that are rejected end up going to a page called "EverybodyWiki". Will the articles stay there for only a certain amount of time or does a copy of the article stay there forever?KendallDH (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KendallDH: EverybodyWiki is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the parent organization WMF. They automatically copy rejected biography draft articles. As per our disclaimer "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". So if EverybodyWiki wants to use this content, they are free to do so and barring legal issues they can do whatever they want. You can see their FAQ, but Wikipedia or WMF has no say over it. We don't know how long the content will stay there, it's up to them. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:40, 10 August 2019 review of submission by Ishkhan Gharibyan


Ishkhan Gharibyan (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Ishkhan Gharibyan is Armenian famous actor and he need a wikipedia page. Please re-review this article[reply]

@Ishkhan Gharibyan: Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is having multiple in-depth sources about a person. Things like "famous" are subjective, so we can't use such claims. Similarly, no one really "needs" a Wikipedia page as this is an encyclopedia rather than just a collection of information; so we create artcles based on the mentioned criteria. For people, there are some exceptions, like being in multiple notable productions or receiving a well-known awards. It seems that neither criteria is satisfied here -- only one production appears notable (that is, with an article) and the award appears to be a local national one. In the end, there simply aren't any in-depth sources about the person. I think it is possible that at some point the person will have sufficient source coverage or notable production appearances, but it doesn't look so at this time. Also, please follow WP:DISCLOSE as was advised to you on your talk page. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:03:05, 10 August 2019 review of submission by Pavlor

I adopted this draft and will move it in the article mainspace myself. There are still language issues ("Czenglish"), but in my experience good people here will rewrite most offending parts in few days. As this draft was a declined AfC submission, I leave here this courtesy note. Pavlor (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Pavlor (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:55:24, 10 August 2019 review of submission by Mavdog2020

because Mavdog2020 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mavdog2020: This topic has no sources and is clearly not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:11:53, 10 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mavdog2020

because my artical got denied


Mavdog2020 (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia requires high quality sourcing (reliable, independent, in-depth and secondary) - if it was felt that there might be some potential sources elsewhere (that just hadn't been added to the article) then it would have been declined. However, the reviewer correctly rejected it because there is no way it can satisfy the requirements for Notability.
If you want it to have a wikipedia article work to get some secondary coverage and someone else will eventually choose to write about it if you become sufficiently notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:17:29, 10 August 2019 review of submission by Mavdog2020

because i have no idea why my artical was denied Mavdog2020 (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mavdog2020: - please see above Nosebagbear (talk)

23:20:22, 10 August 2019 review of draft by MSchnitzler2000


Last night, I wrote the new article about the film. It was declined because of missing reference. I must admit that I'm not familiar with the guidelines of the en-wiki, because the German Wikipedia is my homebase. In the German Wikipedia I wrote several articles about films and always used IMDb as the source for the actors and other information. It was never a problem. My article here about Blood,_Sweat,_and_Lies only has the infobox information and the plot. The infobox is sourced with IMDb and the plot is derived from the film itself. So, I don't understand at all why my article is not accepted. MSchnitzler2000 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MSchnitzler2000: - hi there, and welcome to en-wiki. 2 key things - imdb is specifically not counted as a reliable source on en-wiki (we judge it as equivalent to citing to wikipedia), so sourcing to it doesn't help. WP:NFILM is our film notability guideline, which in general terms requires 2 high quality reviews to demonstrate notability (there are other criteria, but that's the normal one). ImDB has a few external reviews, but I don't know if they are sufficiently reliable/independent, but it's a good first looking place.
Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page if you'd like me to take another look Nosebagbear (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Nosebagbear, now we have to completely different explanations. So what is the problem - missing reference or the reviews? Furthermore, "high quality reviews" is very vague and POV. Which of the reviews linked here is sufficient? I don't want to work on the article anymore if my work is immediately destroyed on the basis of dubious criteria. --MSchnitzler2000 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MSchnitzler2000: - so either would have sufficed as a decline reason - I would have got for the film notability/review issue, since if you satisfy that one, you've automatically satisfied the general sourcing one. "high quality reviews" was just a short hand phrasing I used - it's got the usual "independent/reliable/significant coverage/secondary" criteria that any source proving notability needs, plus the NACTOR criterion for "nationally known" (the only reviews I've ever seen disqualified under this requirement, and not any of the others, are local newspaper sources).
In terms of the five external reviews listed, the first 3 (marcfusion, best darn girls & movie scene) aren't sufficiently reliable as there's no editorial control - they're in effect 1 person blogs. I can't find any "about" details on through the shattered lens, so I can't tell. For Geeks Media, it all comes down to whether they review the contributor's content (all of which is sort of freelancing on the site) - if it is, then it's probably a good source, but it wasn't immediately clear on the site. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

08:27:54, 11 August 2019 review of submission by Usama00722


Usama00722 (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usama00722: - you state that the individual has played in first-class cricket but that does not appear to be the case - it has a very strict definition that playing for his organisation's team wouldn't appear to satisfy. To warrant an article he needs to play for a game at one of the levels set out in Cricket Notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:07:48, 11 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Wordcobbler


On April 12, Clarityfiend commented that my article, "Joseph Harriss," would be approved if I added citations from reputable publication concerning my four books. I have done so, and given the name of each publication. So why is the article not approved?


Wordcobbler (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wordcobbler Your autobiography has not been submitted for review so is not in the queue to be considered. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:29:30, 11 August 2019 review of submission by 119.152.133.82


119.152.133.82 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@119.152.133.82: - the draft was deleted for being unambigously promotional - if you choose to recreate it then you need to write it in a neutral, sourced manner. If you work (or were hired) for them please register an account and disclose your paid editing (this will also make it easier to make the article). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

10:01:56, 12 August 2019 review of submission by Nitajk

It was mentioned that I should quote credible sources. I have done so. Most of the citations are of major newspapers in India (national) and also an Indian government site. I have cited "independent, reliable, published" sources. Therefore I do not understand the reason for the rejection. The article is neutral. I am not connected in any way with the PILF. I know that an article on the PILF was rejected the first time it was put up but I have neither read that article nor know whoever put it up. I came to Wikipedia to add an entry as a concerned Pune citizen and it was promptly deleted, much to my surprise. I am wondering why a literary festival of an important city like Pune is not represented in the wikipedia. I feel the review is unfair, considering the other literary festivals that had been mentioned. I want to know, does Wikipedia think of Pune as an unimportant city, is that why the article is rejected? Or is there a limit on the number of literary festivals from a particular state? Or do you consider that national newspapers of India are not reliable sources? If it is any or all of the above, then the rejection seems logical, but I need a reason. Please give me a specific reason. I think I am entitled to it.

Nitajk (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nitajk. The draft was declined for not being written from a neutral point of view. From your question, it appears that you may have strong feelings about the topic, which could hamper your ability to write about it dispassionately.
Newspapers can be reliable sources, but are not automatically so. The publication (The Times of India, Hindustan Times, etc.) is only one of three aspects to consider, the others being the writer and the article itself. The draft cites several sources ([1], [2], [3], and [4]) that are examples of churnalism , the publication of press releases masquerading as original journalism. Taking such independence-lacking sources at face value, believing that they are objective reporting of what is important about a topic, is a mistake that can lead to a non-neutral draft. The bulk of any article should be based on arms length sources, not the festival, its partners, or its press releases. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:17, 12 August 2019 review of submission by Filmfannn13

I am wondering why it got rejected. Filmfannn13 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:00:29, 12 August 2019 review of submission by Filmfannn13

I have added notability/sources. If there needs to be more sources, I can find some. Filmfannn13 (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


01:10:58, 13 August 2019 review of submission by SophiaMMY

I'd like to answer the question left by the reviewer - there are plenty of linguists who speak both Mandrin and English, so why is he notable? One prominent reason for my submission is that he is the only one from China's mainland who has been awarded Fellowship by the Chartered Institute of Linguists. Fellowship, as is declared by the CIOL, is its highest professional membership and embodies the 'highest professional standing'. And the official website (I provided as an external link as ref in the draft, or please check here: https://www.ciol.org.uk/teacher-tutor?items_per_page=25&from=31&order=membership_type&sort=desc) shows that there are no more than 20 fellows worldwide in the field of English education.

If we take into account that Mr. Cai is also a Chartered Linguist and a Member of Institute of Interpreting and Translation (in the category of conference interpreting), I have to say that I find the combination of professional recognition at such high levels is quite rare indeed. According to my initial research, I'm afraid there are NOT lots of linguists like that at all.

Meanwhile, before he established his own business Flipped English, he was National Education Director of Web Education (2011-2016). It is hard to say that Web Education has any international influence, but it might help if we know that Web Education is one of the biggest English training insitutions in China, with over 150 schools nationwide covering 62 cities (ref: http://www.webi.com.cn/). Being National Education Director means that he was already at the top of the industry in China as early as in 2011.

I hope they are sufficient to support my claim that he is among the top linguists both in China and the world as a whole and he deserves a place in wikipedia. Thank you!


SophiaMMY (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:25:44, 13 August 2019 review of submission by Mcdonaldna


There is more relevant new information about this fintech. Mcdonaldna (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=910578206"