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 Michaelmonet44 (talk | contribs) at 09:41, 28 December 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


December 21

Request on 02:43:59, 21 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Arizonista


I would like to know why my very simple edit. I changed the line "Police found no evidence..." to Police SAID THEY found no evidence..." which of course is more careful and less declarative. This is elementary journalism. Please explain.


Arizonista (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arizonista, Howdy hello! This isn't the standard place to ask those sorts of questions, you should ask at the Teahouse in the future. But since you're here, I'll say: you made that edit 3+ years ago. Kind of late to ask that question. The reason your edit was undone has been lost to time. In fact, its possible that the phrasing was just changed in general. Articles change a lot in the course of years. If you want to make the change again, you ought ask on the talk page of the article in question. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:51:49, 21 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dinesh Gautam 1



Dinesh Gautam 1 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Gautam 1, Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself or people you know. It is also not for writing about minor news events. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:56, 21 December 2019 review of submission by 42.110.142.141

This subject is notable, Kumar Sen is a very rich business man. Requesting a re-review.

42.110.142.141 (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept articles with no sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:12, 21 December 2019 review of submission by 42.110.142.141

The subject is notable. He is a brilliant maths teacher, requesting a re-review

We do not accept articles with no sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:52, 21 December 2019 review of submission by Wkpobox


Wkpobox (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Please re-review, additional changes have been made. Thanks

Hi Wkpobox. The references are so incomplete that they are unverifiable. Content on discogs.com is user-generated, so that website is not a reliable source. The AllMusic url is a dead link. There is a relevant page on AllMusic, https://www.allmusic.com/artist/ira-ingber-mn0000098637/credits, but it doesn't support the claims about The Knight Before Christmas or Outlander. I suggest you spend some time studying Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia's best articles about musicians. Then build up experience by editing existing articles for a while. After that, if you still want to create a new article, choose a topic with which you do not have a conflict of interest.
Rejection 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 that problem. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:23, 21 December 2019 review of submission by AnuYog


I have made all the changes according to reviewer's suggestions & comments. Kindly have a look & approve this page.AnuYog (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AnuYog (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnuYog. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. With the current backlog, you can anticipate that will happen in the next 4-5 months. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:00:48, 21 December 2019 review of submission by Dr.Farrukh Khan


Dr.Farrukh Khan (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Why you have rejected my appeal?.If there is a mistake I kindly say can you please correct the wrong stuff and upload it please.[reply]

Hi Dr.Farrukh Khan. Rejection 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 that problem. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

12:16:37, 22 December 2019 review of draft by Vanrumbeke


Hello,

This article is not an advertisment. What can I change to make this article meet the requirements? I based the article on the Fanki piling system article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franki_piling_system Links and references to official institutions were also added.

Thank you

Vanrumbeke (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanrumbeke, I would recommend at least one more source, preferably more. You should also to make sure that the writing is neutral, and from an encyclopedic perspective. The Franki pile article is not particularly good. I'm afraid that I can't really hold up an example of a good pile article. But really you just need to make sure that the writing is not overly casual, and presents facts without trying to convince the reader of something. The main reason it looks like an ad is because the main source is from the company that created it, and it seems to be more of a fact sheet of numbers rather than an encyclopedia article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:14, 22 December 2019 review of draft by Brittvansloun


Brittvansloun (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brittvansloun, Not quite sure what your issue/question is? Could you perhaps elaborate on how we can help you? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:50:13, 22 December 2019 review of submission by TabBytes


Hello moderator, I have added more references to the article. please review it. Thanks TabBytes (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TabBytes, Of the three refs, two are from the company being covered. That means they are not independent. Please find at least 3, and preferably more, reliable and independent sources. Also, the draft is written like a promotional puff piece, or an advertisement. Write it from a neutral point of view. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


December 23

00:23:04, 23 December 2019 review of draft by Jeanbernard2019


I would like to get an unbiased review of this page as it seems I cannot get to the current reviewers. They aren't from the US and dont understand the notability of our senior US officials. I have also added dozens of articles including the cover of a business magazine https://issuu.com/businessreviewusa/docs/bc_usa_oct2019. He is literally on the cover. If this isn't notable then we should delete 50 percent of the articles on Wikipedia as most don't have such references. Please let me know what I need to do.

Jeanbernard2019 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeanbernard2019. It's a mistake to add "dozens of articles" when a draft needs only three to demonstrate notability. Quality is far more important than quantity. Business Chief, the "business magazine" you link to, employs creatives, producers, and directors, and describes itself as "delivering world-class creative, video, PR and social media content." So no, being on the cover of it (or its sister publication Gigabit Magazine) is not notable. It only demonstrates an embarrassing desperation to promote him. What you need to do first is disclose your conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:08:10, 23 December 2019 review of submission by Editor940


There have been hundreds of news articles on prominent news sites like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette regarding this situation. For it to be rejected on the basis of it not being a big enough thing is nonsense.

Editor940 (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor940. If there have been hundreds of news articles about it in reliable sources, then cite three of them, instead of citing three copies of a press release. Don't make any statement about a living person without citing a reliable published source that supports it. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:11:32, 23 December 2019 review of submission by Madhunilav


Madhunilav (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Hi. How can I make my article notable? Should references be added for my content?[reply]

Hi Madhunilav. All content must be supported by reliable published sources. Most businesses are not notable. Do you have a connection to Preethi Vijay or Piwocart gallery? If so, you might be able to make the business notable by forgetting about Wikipedia and concentrating on making the business highly successful. That might eventually result in independent sources writing about it and/or its founder in depth.
Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not presently notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem. There is no option to re-submit Draft:Piwocart by Preethi Vijay because volunteers do not intend to review it again in the near future. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SEO

09:10:47, 23 December 2019 review of submission by Splaybeats007


Need to index an approved page. Page ShareChat was approved and it's been more than 90 days. How do I index it?

Splaybeats007 (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Splaybeats007#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:43:32, 23 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Yaniv unger


Hi There I was trying to create an article about a new startup named BOOKAWAY. The main reason my article was decline is because I don't have enough substantial truly independent sources and citations as written to remain published. My problem is that I added all the credible, independent, secondary reference sources detailing information about significant milestones and events in the history of this company I have. and it's not enough...

I double-checked my self, I went and checked other pages in the same niche... They also don't have those substantial independent references you require now. we all using the same template, the same structure but still... my article was declined. and I wonder why? What else should I do? paying NYT and HTB to quote me?

Secondly, the article was worded as a promotional article or web page. I don't get it. nothing related to promotion. all are facts.

I would be extremely grateful if you could find the time to assist me in ensuring that I can make the necessary edits to secure approval for this submission.

Regards and thanks. Yaniv Yaniv unger (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starters this is just blatant advertising…“Realizing there isn’t a simple way to book transport tickets online, Noam created an online landing page that offers one route – Manila to Banaue, operated by Bookaway’s first supplier - local travel agency.” Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:08, 23 December 2019 review of submission by AnuYog

I have made all the changes according to the reviewer's suggestions & comments. Kindly have a look & approve this page. AnuYog (talk)

Can anyone help? AnuYog (talk)

15:12:47, 23 December 2019 review of draft by Andy Halper


Andy Halper (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble submitting my article for review. I've corrected my references several times and they're as good as they're going to be without more help. I think the article itself is fine. What do I need to do to submit my article for review? Thanks.

You need to click the large blue button which reads "Submit draft for review" looks like you didn't read WP:REFB as advised though? Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:58, 23 December 2019 review of submission by 122.176.208.146


122.176.208.146 (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:48:07, 23 December 2019 review of submission by Manojtaliyan2002

This is very important page, wikipedia should have information about all thing, if somebody want information about Chhur on wiki" How he find without this article?". It is big Village and very useful information are in this article. Manojtaliyan2002 (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manojtaliyan2002, we are an encyclopedia, not a repository of all knowledge. In order to have an article, we require significant coverage in reliable independent sources, in order to ensure the article is based of information that is likely to be correct. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:20, 23 December 2019 review of submission by Andy Halper


Andy Halper (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help but I give up. The article is neutral and only repeats what is said in the sources cited (some of which are published). This is a frustrating process. I know you need to have rules but rejecting an article about a notable person (more accomplished than others who have articles in Wikipedia) seems counter productive to what you are trying to achieve as an encyclopedia. Thanks anyway.

Your draft Draft:Vivian Wang has not been rejected? You have not even submitted it for review yet! ALL sources need to be published and I'm not finding any so far that are independent. As regards "more accomplished than others who have articles in Wikipedia" please see other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:38, 23 December 2019 review of submission by 2605:E000:1C02:812E:554D:A2D3:8110:796B


What are you talking about? Click "expand credits" on the left, and you'll see:

NES producer Teddy Walton producer Swiff D producer Gravez producer Skyz Muzik producer WondaGurl producer FrancisGotHeat producer Hollywood Hot Sauce producer J-Louis producer Rob Holladay additional producer Wow Jones additional producer, producer, keyboard Boi-1da producer Allen Ritter co-producer Ayo producer Xeryus producer Keyz co-producer Pro Logic producer Mahxie producer Illmind producer IAMNOBODI producer Soundz producer T-Minus producer Frank Dukes producer Fingazz talk box




2605:E000:1C02:812E:554D:A2D3:8110:796B (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A single tiny mention does not meet our standards. Articles need at least 3 reliable and independent sources with significant coverage (think several paragraphs) of the subject. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:45:58, 23 December 2019 review of draft by Zipster969


May I ask for specific suggestions about how to make it less like a marketing brochure?

→ The first draft was declined, with the feedback: "Remove PR language from the lead section". I removed the entire lead section in order to fully comply. I also removed some other sections (to help ensure the article would have a neutral point of view).

→ Despite making the suggested change, the article was declined a second time for the same reason. This time, though, there were no specifics (about how to make it less like a marketing brochure), and I'm not sure what else to do. Can you help? I'm probably too close to the subject as it does seem pretty neutral to me. The article also "has a range of independent, reliable, published sources", and zero "materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed".

I'd appreciate any assistance.

Zipster969 (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zipster969, Hi! To me, the most promotional sections are the Rescue and Client sections. These sections seem more like what you would find on the service dog website, telling people how it works there. If you could include more information about the organization with broader strokes - that would be best! Wikipedia is not the "end all catch-all" of information - we are only a stepping stone for people in terms of information. Let us know if you have any other questions. Happy Editing. :) Snowycats (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

08:37:58, 24 December 2019 review of submission by 140Macpherson


140Macpherson (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


We have refurbished the Etere article with more references and the sources. As Etere is a long standing company that is present at techonolgy shows, conferences, and news articles throughout the world, it is a liable topic to require a wikipedia page.

Hi 140Macpherson. Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:07, 24 December 2019 review of draft by Ronmun


I have been revising the Draft:The ROADEX Project page in my Sandbox and wonder if there is a way to update the present Draft version to the Sandbox version. Any help that you can give will be appreciated. With best regards Ron

Ronmun (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronmun. You are welcome to edit Draft:The Roadex Project and make it (below the comment "EDIT BELOW THIS LINE") as much like your sandbox as you care to. Editing the first draft really would have been the best thing to do in the first place. When editors create copies or second drafts under different names it frequently leads to confusion. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your guidance Worldbruce. I have moved the update from the Sandbox into the Draft page and will continue to work solely on the Draft page. Ronmun (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:32:50, 24 December 2019 review of submission by Moodmechanic96

I am a music producer so i want to publish my article Moodmechanic96 (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moodmechanic96. You may use your user page to say a few words about yourself and your Wikipedia editing, but Wikipedia is not for advertising, public relations, or self-promotion. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:37, 24 December 2019 review of submission by Payalsingh0135

I was adding the reference of subject due to this all things are required

Payalsingh0135 (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Payalsingh0135, This is a nonsensical question, perhaps some of it got cut off? Could you clarify? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Payalsingh0135, I took a look at your draft, and it seems to be about yourself or a non-notable person. Wikipedia only covers those who have been covered in reliable sources. We also strongly discourage autobiographies. WIkiepdia is also not a resume site. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:33:31, 24 December 2019 review of submission by Aureliojohn


Aureliojohn (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the Phemex Wikipedia page at my sandbox please let me know why it's not approved and what can I do for the approvall. I believe the page is important because its about a bitcoin futures and cryptocurrency derivatives trading platform.

Hi Aureliojohn. As stated at Draft:Phemex, it was declined because it fails to show that it is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Considering Wikipedia's general sanctions on blockchain and cryptocurrency-related articles, you may wish to explore alternative outlets for anything you write on the subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:33:46, 24 December 2019 review of submission by Pritesh Lunkad

Can I please know the reason for rejection of article and how can i make the necessary changes to republish this article. Pritesh Lunkad (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


22:33:58, 24 December 2019 review of submission by Thanoscar21


Thanoscar21 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC) But aren't users supposed to have their page...?[reply]

Thanoscar21 You can start your user page here User:Thanoscar21 you do not need to submit a draft version for review. Theroadislong (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you!

December 25

01:31:29, 25 December 2019 review of submission by 173.70.134.32

So I found this draft page. It doesn't seem like it was reviewed, or has anyone found it besides a couple of me. (I found it because I'm a fan of Battle For Dream Island) 173.70.134.32 (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted it for review under the Articles for Creation process. A reviewer should get to it in an average of 8 weeks. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:24:10, 25 December 2019 review of submission by TabBytes

Hello moderator , I have edited the article and added valid references . I have removed some paragraphs ( that has linkedin sources ) . I have added only media references. please review it. Thanks TabBytes (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14:27:22, 25 December 2019 review of draft by AnuYog

Greetings! Kindly have a look & approve this page. AnuYog (talk)

AnuYog There are 3k+ drafts waiting to be reviewed it could take up to 6+ months for your article to be reviewed please be patient. Thank you. Whispering(t) 19:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:59, 25 December 2019 review of draft by CSIing


I am South Korean. I just want to know many global MMA fans want to know Da Un Jung. Therefore, I made an article about him with accurate information and references. What's the problem? What should I do to post Da Un Jung's article one more time? Hope get the answer ASAP.

CSIing (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CSIing. The deleting admin, Orangemike, noted: "Subject fails WP:MMABIO notability guidelines where by subject has only secure 2 fights under top tier promoter instead of 3." If and when you can document with reliable sources a third fight for a top tier promoter, you may attempt to create the article again. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:02:13, 25 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nitishsinha17



Nitishsinha17 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nitishsinha17 Your draft Draft:MicroPedia India Services got deleted because it was copied from elsewhere and consisted of advertising for the business. I suggest starting over, without copying their website also if you are being paid to create a Wikipedia page for the company you need to disclose that as well. Whispering(t) 19:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:19, 25 December 2019 review of submission by CheatCodes4ever


CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I’m trying to show the fact that Tom Thum’s single “1955” charted, so the artist will have a charting single that will get it a page. What can I do? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't notable. There is nothing you can do. A musician charting (and in this case, contributing to a charting song) isn't particularly notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:48, 25 December 2019 review of submission by SteaminThomasTheTrain32

it Needs Nia, I Gave Criedit

SteaminThomasTheTrain32 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SteaminThomasTheTrain32, the copyright isn't the problem here, as that wiki is licensed under CC BY-SA. (the attribution details are wrong, but that's not our main problem here)
The problem is that the article is completely unsourced (see WP:Verifiability), and that there is far too much detail for an encyclopedia.
Characters like this are nearly always included in a list of all characters in a series, as already occurs at List of Thomas & Friends railway engines. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

05:00:39, 26 December 2019 review of submission by Sarasota6

I would like to ask for assistance in writing an article about Sari Greene. Sari Greene is an information security practitioner, author, and entrepreneur. In 2003, Sari founded one of the first dedicated cybersecurity consultancies. She is notable for this reason. I took her online class so I dont know if that is a conflict or not Sarasota6 (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Sarasota6 (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasota6, If you can find reliable and independent sources that discuss her, she may be notable enough to have an article about her. Usually, at least three, and ideally more, sources are needed. Think coverage in newspapers, magazines, news sources. Her own websites and materials do not count. In terms of a conflict of interest, you are probably fine. If you wish to declare a COI, that would be fine, but I don't think you have to in this situation. Now if you know Greene personally, or have some other sort of relationship, or have been paid by her in anyway, then yes you would need to disclose. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:13:12, 26 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Krishnachandra,india



Krishnachandra,india (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnachandra,india, This article needs inline citations, please see referencing for beginners. Also, since the film has yet to come out, this article may be premature. Please ensure you have enough reliable sources that cover the topic. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:28:01, 26 December 2019 review of submission by Mohsinmusta97


Mohsinmusta97 (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsinmusta97, for a musician to have an article here, they have to meet any one of the following criteria:
  1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works. (See the self-published sources policy for details about the reliability of such sources, and the conflict of interest policy for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see – someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, social networking site or music networking site, etc., does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries. What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad except for the following:
      • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist.
      • Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
      • Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
  2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
  3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
  4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
  5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
  6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
  7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
  8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
  9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
  10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.
  11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
  12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
You haven't demonstrated the subject of your article meets any of these criteria, thus it has been declined. At this point, it seems unlikely the subject meets these criteria. Please read Wikipedia:Too soon. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that these criteria outline additional considerations for GNG, not that meeting any of them automatically makes the topic notable. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:12:44, 26 December 2019 review of submission by Cgerdeskcts9


Hello, I work for Cascade Public Media, the PBS affiliate for the Seattle area. Cascade Public Media owns KCTS 9, the local PBS televisions station, and Crosscut, a Seattle public media news website. Both of these brands have Wikipedia pages and are a popular part of the Seattle community. We are trying to show the relationship between companies and, as a nonprofit, we are trying to be as transparent as possible with our donors with our naming and relationships, which is why we are working to create a Cascade Public Media Wikipedia page that better connects our brands. We want to make sure information about Cascade Public Media, Crosscut and KCTS 9 is easy to find online. I have had the Cascade Public Media page turned down multiple times, and have edited it several times in the process. I am hoping to get some insight on what we can to do to publish this page.

Thank you, Caroline

Cgerdeskcts9 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cgerdeskcts9, Hi Caroline! I would suggest merging the information that you have into KCTS-TV as previously mentioned. You can always make a new WP:SECTION on that page to help separate the information. Please let us know if you have any more questions. Happy Editing! Snowycats (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


December 27

00:34:39, 27 December 2019 review of draft by 86Bitt


Hi, it seems I don’t understand how to cite my sources using footnotes. I’ve tried twice. Could you please help me?

86Bitt (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

86Bitt, Hi! I would recommend reading WP:FOOTNOTES and using the Visual Editor option for additional help with adding footnotes. Happy editing! Snowycats (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:13:17, 27 December 2019 review of submission by 2601:14A:4502:1460:C1F4:23B7:2D87:8B8B

I made the changes asked

2601:14A:4502:1460:C1F4:23B7:2D87:8B8B (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this subject is not independently notable. No matter what changes are made, this draft will not become an article. Any useful content should instead be added to the suggested page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:00:34, 27 December 2019 review of submission by Streetmilitia


Please refer to the below report, if the other module companies (i.e. Gemalto, Sierra Wireless, SIMCom, Telit, etc.) are allowed for the Wikipedia paga creation, Fibocom & Quectel should also have their place in Wikipedia.

http://globalnewsreports24.com/9517/global-cellular-modules-market-insights-2019-fibocom-gemalto-quectel-sierra-wireless-simcom-telit-communications/

Streetmilitia (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Streetmilitia, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Looking at the linked articles, 3 are poorly written, promotional, and lack sources. SIMCom shouldn't even have an article. Gemalto is the only halfway decent one, but clearly has had some COI editing.
What I don't see is how this organization meets the company notability guidelines. Of your 8 sources, none are good enough to show notability. You would need more and better sources. But I doubt such sources exist, which is why the article has been rejected as not notable. You are likely better off improving existing articles about topics you enjoy, and getting a feel for how to edit and how our policies work.
One last note: if you have paid by Fibocom in any way, are an employee, or otherwise receive compensation from the company, you must disclose that fact by following the guidelines at WP:PAID. Not doing so is a violation of the terms of service. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:02:18, 27 December 2019 review of submission by 27.5.128.137


27.5.128.137 (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted, so we cannot help you. Sorry. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 12:06:11, 27 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 49.207.50.66



49.207.50.66 (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs better sourcing. You do not have enough reliable and independent sources. Think coverage from quality newspapers, news outlets, books, etc. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:43, 27 December 2019 review of submission by TickForTack


TickForTack (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TickForTack, As I told an IP above, this article is not notable. It will not become a standalone article. Any useful content should be instead added to NBA 2k20. If you would like me to clarify about why it is not notable, ask on my talk page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


the changes suggested were made.

14:38:47, 27 December 2019 review of submission by Evan Tobias Tanoni

please re-review this article. I did followed the guidelines and already get rid of the promotional and the possible advertisement content. Evan Tobias Tanoni (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Tobias Tanoni, The draft has been deleted, so we cannot help you. Sorry. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

03:49:18, 28 December 2019 review of submission by Wantok Author


I have now had two photographs that I own the copyright to taken down because some random decided that I didn't own the copyright. I'm getting heartily sick of this. How on earth does anyone actually upload photos? How on earth do you prove to some random stranger that this is your photo? I asked permission of the subject in both cases and they provided the photo to me for the purposes of the entry. This is surely far preferable to me taking a photo of them without their permission or knowledge but uploading it successfully because I took the photo myself.

I'd be grateful for a discussion and reversion of this because it is making Wikipedia feel like a white male stronghold of bias and disdain.


Wantok Author (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wantok Author, Howdy hello! I understand that the photo process can be somewhat annoying. Any photo whose copyright status is suspect is usually taken down quickly, as there are serious legal implications if we host copyrighted material that is not properly licensed. So to help me help you, I wanna clarify the origin of the image. Did you take it, with your own camera? If not, who took it? If it is another person, you must have them email permission to use the photo to Wikipedia. I see that you have a talk page notice of an image deleted under fair use. Be aware that fair use, while broad in some countries, is quite narrow on Wikipedia, and usually does not cover photos of living people. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK - who do I email to? I did not take the photo but know the person who did and can get them to email wikipedia so I can reinstate the photo. Although I note that official photographs are paid for by the person in question and they then hold the copyright - I know both people so can get either to email permission. If someone can point me to where the email should go I can get this sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wantok Author (talk • contribs) 06:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wantok Author, You ought read [1], and then email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. It's not the easiest information to find. Help appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wantok Author (talk • contribs) 07:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:36, 28 December 2019 review of draft by Michaelmonet44


I was given feedback in October and and made the necessary edits at the top of November but am still waiting to receive feedback or approval. So I am not sure if my last edit has ever been reviewed. Please let me know if I did not submit it correctly or if there is anything else I need to do. Thank you. Michaelmonet44 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelmonet44 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=932809026"