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 95.251.55.231 (talk) at 12:10, 4 February 2020. 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


January 29

09:52:55, 29 January 2020 review of submission by Bethany m m


I have removed all external lonks as instructed please publish article.

@Bethany m m: Sorry for the confusion. The reviewer meant that you should not put external links in text just as direct inline links and not full citations. Another user edited the draft and converted the links to how they should positioned, although they still need to be cited properly (title, date, author, publication, etc.). You did not have to remove the links after this. Sources are the most important part of the article. I restored these for you and added basic citation info. I removed primary sources. I have not looked through the rest. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Hellknowz: Thank you for clarifying and getting back to me, if you could please instruct next steps I would love to get this project moved along. I greatly appreciate your help.

10:20:11, 29 January 2020 review of draft by Illusiongroupsindia


Illusiongroupsindia (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Please help and review this, so I can submit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illusiongroupsindia (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illusiongroupsindia, the article has not been submitted for review. Please use the "Submit this draft for review!" button to submit it.
However, first, the article is likely to be rejected in it's current state:
  • Biographies of Living People have stricter citation requirements, and the article really should have in line citations - see User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners for how to do this with the correct templates.
  • Secondly, it seems to have far too much information, such as the list of countries they've worked in.
  • Thirdly, the style is incorrect for an encyclopedia. For example, He was always a very ambitious kid and dreamed early about becoming a top athlete and he is a great singer, actor, host, master of ceremony, he also called as a jack of all entertaining elements - we are an encyclopedia that stores what independent sources say about a topic, not a place to promote a topic. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review it again, I just edited it many times and submitted it for review!

11:28:24, 29 January 2020 review of submission by ABRG72

Hello. I am wondering why this subject was deemed not worthy of a Wikipedia page. Dan Graziano is the only ESPN NFL analyst who is on multiple shows as both analyst and host and writes full-time for ESPN.com. No other ESPN NFL Insider writes for the website. Graziano has a large social media following (144K Twitter followers). Lastly, he is the only cast member of ESPN's NFL Live who does not have a Wikipedia page. Other ESPN personalities who are not regulars on any show have pages. Thank you for your consideration.

ABRG72 (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ABRG72: Please read our notability guideline for people. Being on a TV show, writing web articles or books, or having Twitter followers are not indications of notability in the Wikipedia sense. High quality, independent, reliable sources do. As far as other ESPN personalities having articles, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Wikipedia is a big place and many articles were created before the Articles for Creation process started. The subjects of those articles may have more independent coverage than Mr. Graziano, or maybe their articles should be deleted. shoy (reactions) 18:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:59:03, 29 January 2020 review of draft by Wortmead


Hello, having spent some time revising the first draft biography of a living person based on the reviewer's suggestions, I am almost ready to resubmit. But an alert message shows that an article already exists about this writer – this BLP (containing two factual errors) appeared while my draft biography was undergoing initial review. My concern is that the revised biography will not be accepted because of the pre-existing biography about this writer? Is this a valid concern? Thank you. Wortmead (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wortmead (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wortmead, You should merge the existing article and the draft. See WP:MERGETEXT for the instructions (ignore steps 3 to 7), but essentially you should copy the information that is in your draft but not the article, into the article itself - keep the best bits from each. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OxonAlex, Should I not resubmit the draft because it was initially refused? As a newcomer, I am unsure about getting straight into merging an existing article with a draft that was initially turned down... That seems a big ask. Thanks. Wortmead (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wortmead, you can resubmit declined drafts as many times as you want, as long as some changes have been made (although we can decline an article which only allows resubmission by a reviewer). However, it will be declined as an article already exists, and you will just be told to merge (the software wouldn't allow it to be accepted, as we can't have two articles with the same name).
I'd just follow WP:BOLD and merge it. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OxonAlex,Thank you for your advice; I will follow it and try for the best.Wortmead (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:15:36, 29 January 2020 review of submission by Mmizeasrm

I just want our new ASRM page published. I am the communications manager at ASRM. I am legit. Mmizeasrm (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Mmizeasrm#January 2020. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mmizearsm - There are at least two problems. First, you said, on my talk page, that you are not being paid directly or indirectly for the article. If you are receiving a salary from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, you are being paid and are required to make the declaration. The fact that your salary is not contingent on acceptance of the draft does not change your status as a paid editor. Second, we already have an article on the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. If you want changes made to it, you should discuss them at the article talk page, Talk:American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Articles for Creation is a procedure for the review of new articles, not for changes to or rewriting of existing articles. Please make the required declaration, and then discuss your requested changes at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:24:43, 29 January 2020 review of submission by John BG Johnson


John BG Johnson (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please assist me to finish this page. Thank you.

21:46:20, 29 January 2020 review of submission by Lil young06

why cant i just put this on there for gods sake theres a guy on here just talking about his day fishing ad i cant put a actual thing on here just please my my life and let me have this Lil young06 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lil young06, We only write about things that are notable and meet our policies. Your article seemed to be pure promotion, and was thus deleted. If you think it really should be included, leave a note on my talk page with at least 5 reliable sources that discuss the subject, and we can talk.
If there is an article about some guy fishing, show me where and I'll take care of it. But 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. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:41:32, 29 January 2020 review of draft by Cflannigan1


How do I change the name of a page? There is a spelling error on the page name. Thank you. Cflannigan1 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cflannigan1. On Wikipedia, one renames a page by moving it to a new name. To be able to move pages yourself, you must have made at least ten edits in article space. So far your only edits have been in the user space, draft space, and here at the help desk. If the page you want moved is a draft, don't worry about it. If a reviewer accepts the draft, they'll move it as part of the publication process. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

January 30

2020 Big 12 football season

Well The 2020 Big 12 Football season article should be an article by now because they are 2 references i created this article last week. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@68.103.78.155:, you created a draft and submitted to AfC, which will review it and it will either be accepted to become an article or declined. As the yellow box at the bottom indicates, there is a major backlog and it will take some time to review it. As the season doesn't start for another 7 months or so, there will be plenty of time.
The delay will also reduce concerns about "crystal ball" issues, where we limit articles about events occurring in the future, as unexpected events can change the status (a team going bankrupt, for example). For example we don't run articles on presidential elections too far into the future. However, the concerns will be significantly reduced when under 6 months. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:26, 30 January 2020 review of submission by Geographyinitiative

Draft:Extreme points of Tajikistan Issue:

@CASSIOPEIA: When I was a young child, there were books telling us the northernmost, westernmost, etc. points of countries, states of the USA etc. I am attempting to recreate that kind of "pure fact" kind of thing for Wikipedia concerning the Extreme points of Tajikistan and Extreme points of Afghanistan. However, there may be almost no one who directly broaches these subjects in the English language as far as I know (and I don't know very "far"!). I don't think Cassiopeia is wrong in delaying the draft of this article, but I do think that, using the maps I have linked on the page, we can see clearly where the extreme points of Tajikistan are at. If Google Maps concurs with that "eyeball analysis", I think that we can have a very solid foundation for saying where the extreme points of these countries are at. Plus, the articles List of countries by easternmost point, List of countries by westernmost point, List of countries by northernmost point, and List of countries by southernmost point already have most of this information and in a much less well-documented fashion than what I have created.

Request/Goal:

I would like to request help and potentially request special lenience for use of Google Maps, Bing Maps, etc in the creation of this special type of page. I am quite sure that the northernmost, westernmost etc points of a country are inherently noteworthy and are defined in a way similar to the answer to a mathematical equation: just as no "outside source" is needed for 2+2=4, northernmost is northernmost, and if northernmost can be shown on a map, then it is what it is. Also, I provided some sources that mention the northernmost point etc in passing, and I think regardless of whatever policies there may be about other articles, that's legitimate and worthwhile in the realm of finding the extreme points of a country, and bolsters instead of damages the case for inclusion of the Tajikistan page.

Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]


Geographyinitiative Good day. A factual info (the existence) such as subject is shown in maps is not the WP:GNG (GNG) criteria and we dont place external links in body texts. The subject needs to be notable (worthy to be noted) to pass GNG where we need draft article's content to be supported by significant coverage of independent, reliable source (at least 3-5) for verification. Sources can be in digital / print and can be in any languages. If you cant find them then I suggest the content be merged to Tajikistan. Other reviewers are welcome to comment. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: Ok, let me try another way of justification: as we know, every human settlement is noteworthy for the purpose of Wikipedia- there can be no deletion of a minor geography page (Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)). I think that this doctrine should apply to extreme points too. Tajikistan is a UN member state like all the others. Just because no one has written down the extreme points of that nation in English in a systematic way doesn't mean that they don't exist. They do, and they are inherently noteworthy, just like the Extreme points of China or List of extreme points of the United States. All these points can be shown on a map. They are already mentioned on Wikipedia on other pages (List of countries by easternmost point, List of countries by westernmost point, List of countries by northernmost point, and List of countries by southernmost point). I say that this is a category of artificial geographical feature which is inherently noteworthy. Do I need to request a Wikipedia policy change in this area? I think my request will be successful. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative Hi, Each article is note worthy of itself and is WP:NOTINHERIT because it exists or related to other notable subject. The two extreme points articles do have multiple sources which your draft article lacks (need few more sources). If you want to propose Wikipedia guidelines changes then you need to go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an extreme point that is mentioned directly in the sources and have therefore resubmitted the draft (after hiding the maps). Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative The point is your draft needs more sources to support the content claimed for verification. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: I agree more sources are needed. That is true. But which claim needs further proof to move this from draft to mainspace? I'm just trying to move the page out of the path of the "can be deleted in six months" issue. (According to what I read somewhere, draft pages can be deleted after six months.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have hidden the coordinates. The maps that show the extreme points are hidden. 'What evidence would you have beyond that of your own senses?' Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative Geographyinitiative, you need to ping me so I would receive a notification. Draft article will remain in the draft space for 6 month before it is nominated for deletion WP:G13 if it has not been edited during the time frame. If it has been deleted and you would like to retrieve it you can request it from the admin who deleted the draft - see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. My comment/decline of the draft is not based on my own senses but on Wikipedia guidelines. What we need is additional sources (total 3-5 independent, reliable sources) that the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth which support the content claimed for verification. Just find a few more sources and then resubmit the draft. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: To require something of this page that does not exist on the China, USA or other affiliated pages is to look down on small nations. The China and USA extreme points pages not have the level of citation you want. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative If you think the two pages do not pass the notability requirements, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion. The sources do not need to be in English, any languages are welcome, so if you would find source in Tajik, Persian, Russian or any languages then please add them in. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: I would like to ask a direct and specific question to which I would like a yes/no answer (if possible): Are you saying that List of countries by easternmost point, List of countries by westernmost point, List of countries by northernmost point, and List of countries by southernmost point should be deleted / put into draft stage? Thanks if you can help me with that question. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: It's a tough question for me to answer, but if your interpretation of the rules of Wikipedia is that these four pages I mention in my question should be put into draft and/or deleted, then I think I will have to change my mind and agree with you about the validity of the older versions of my Extreme points of Tajikistan page. (BTW: I have made an update on that page that cuts it down to the bare essentials: take a look if you like.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative I just saw your draft page has been accepted by a reviewer. The way it works in English Wikipedia is that, an article that is not notable in regardless how long/how many years it has existed in Wikipedia could be nominated for deletion (AfD). The same article would be renominated or deletion even the previous AfD was voted a keep (That is no limit to AfD of an article) and only arrticles that are truly meet the notable requirements stay in Wikipedia mainspace for good. (sorry could not answer you yes or no on this one). We have 6 million articles in English Wikipedia with estimating of 1/6 to 1/5 are in bad quality. Many of the pages remains in mainspace is because no interested editors either improve the page where by the subject is notable or to AfD them as all of us are volunteers. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: I have marked those articles as original research. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any of these extreme point pages pass WP:GNG. This is all indiscriminate information. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

help

Request on 06:17:47, 30 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Hello2India



 06:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

09:35:05, 30 January 2020 review of submission by Bethany m m

Hi, please can some-one advise next steps? Thanks. Bethany m m (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany m m, Next step: edit something else. This subject is not notable. I recommend you turn your energies towards existing pages, or make sure to ask here before starting articles from scratch to ensure they are first notable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:13, 30 January 2020 review of submission by Jonashgs


Hello

I am creating a page called John Poysti Classic Ping Pong Tournament It keeps saying it's a local school tournament and that's why it cant be published.

It is not a school tournament, it is a tournament for everyone

I just takes place at a school

Please publish the page

Thank you


Jonashgs (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonashgs, you have to demonstrate the event meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, by sourcing the article with significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic - wp:42. These standards exist so that all articles can be verified against good sources. If they didn't exist, there would be many articles for which we have no way of reliably knowing if the content is actually true. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

So 'significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic'

I have 2 tournament planners and a manager/scorekeeper who is in charge of the tournament.

How are these sources not reliable? What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonashgs (talk • contribs) 23:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonashgs, Sources mean published documents, not people. We can use things like newspapers, books, and websites, but not people; that would be original research which we don't allow. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:54, 30 January 2020 review of draft by Abbieatgrade


Abbieatgrade (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally created a draft page last week for my artist Shygirl, and then began a sandbox today so i could review for publish - my review was declined because of this draft page but now im not sure how to have the draft page reviewed to be published?

You refer to "my artist". Please read the conflict of interest policy. If you are representing a client or being paid by an artist, you must make a declaration, as described in more detail in the policy. If you want to have the current draft deleted so that the sandbox can be reviewed, you can request that it be deleted by tagging it with {{db-g7}}. However, you will also need to make any required declaration. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:42, 30 January 2020 review of draft by Grlucas


I had a student accidentally submit this draft for review a bit too early. Is there a way to cancel this request? Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grlucas (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grlucas - I have declined the draft in order to withdraw it from review as per your request. However, my first thought is that it looks like it should be accepted. It appears to be of reasonably good quality. Of course, if you and your students improve it further, it will probably be better. It can be resubmitted at any time, and I see no reason not to resubmit it. It can be improved both while it is waiting for review and after it has been accepted, or after it has been declined again. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Yes, I thought the same thing, but I want it to be in the best shape possible before submission. We have FA intentions. Thanks for your help. —Grlucas (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


January 31

00:13:36, 31 January 2020 review of submission by Jelenaelek


Hello. My article was denied because of 'not relevant enough' references. I edited the references since them, is that problem solved? The first two times my article got reviewed in 1 or 2 days, now it's taking months. Is something else an issue?

Jelenaelek (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jelenaelek: hi. Your draft was declined twice for failing to meet NCORP's criteria for notable companies; this means the two reviewers (one of which was myself) felt that your draft did not cite sufficient sources to meet NCORP's criteria. I recommend you read NCORP thoroughly and attempt to find more sources to add to your draft before resubmitting, as I am guessing it would be declined a third time. In addition, please note Wikipedia takes a strong stance against conflict of interest editing and as such you should read WP:COI and WP:PAID if you have a connection to the topic. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:28:31, 31 January 2020 review of submission by NickL1771

I have seen other Wikipedia pages in the same industry cite sources from the below media (Anandtech and YouTube). Are the below coverage considered reliable sources independent of the subject? If not, why not? https://www.anandtech.com/show/13943/akasa-turing-passively-cooled-chassis-for-intel-bean-canyon-nuc https://www.anandtech.com/show/14259/he-asrock-a320tm-itx-motherboard-thin-itx-for-amd-apus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUUP8K3RqAo&t=18s NickL1771 (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:34:41, 31 January 2020 review of submission by Sugangopal


The article i am currently writing or trying get publish is about the online news portal i.e NepalNews. It's not just the online news portal, it's the first one in Nepal and also in the South-asia. People here are unaware about this fact and this information should reach to all the people out there. There were many rumours about this company in the past. So, i would like to clarify all the people who are connected to the Nepalnews.

So, therefore, i am requesting a review for this article. Thank you.

Sugangopal (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sugangopal, The subject does not appear notable, and thus we cannot cover it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 06:59:21, 31 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sejelsinore


I was left a message by a Wiki-reviewer that is non-constructively critical stating my original work is translated from a piece in another language. Im a professional writer with English as a first language. May I please have a review from another editor?


Sejelsinore (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sejelsinore, The reviewer has a point. The article isn't terrible, but it could use some cleanup. In 1925, Mr. Barkschat in partnership with Henry Cleveland Schultz and Abe Corlinsky founded the Clevelin Construction Corporation, funded by MarbeliteTM capital is not our usual writing style here; the italics are out of place, the TM is unnecessary. a municipality lantern construct what does that even mean? "Crown jewel" is distinctly un-encyclopedic. The larger problem is with the sources: please follow the advice of the inline templates which ask for complete citations, and ensure that every claim has a citation. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:31:49, 31 January 2020 review of draft by The Supermind


I have modified my draft adding 3 sources as HELLKNOWZ mention. However I need the draft to review in-depth, the sources should be reviewed to determine whether they are qualify Wikipedia standards or must discarded from the draft. My draft has remained no reviewer for a month. I understand that the non-English Wikipedia may take longer time to review. But why? If the sole reason of taking longer duration is improper sourcing, I will remove unwanted sources okay. Secondly, Most users create articles by themselves and in instant manner. An example of this is "current ongoing events". They do not take up to four months or more. How do their create these articles by themselves without draft?

The Supermind (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think your article needs special treatment? Everyone here is a volunteer and there are 4000 pending drafts. Most drafts take many months to be reviewed, especially with borderline or non-English sourcing. As you were told at the Help desk, Wikipedia has no deadlines and draft process is incredibly backlogged. Your article was reviewed after you made a request here bypassing the queue. I did not see you add any new sources that satisfy WP:GNG. I personally do not want to reject the same article more than 3 times. Someone else will eventually review it for a second opinion. You can of course ask here to bypass the queue again, but it's completely up to the (other) reviewers whether they wish to do so.
And yes, you can now create an article yourself directly or move the draft. If the article fails GNG, it will just get deleted. Because users that create articles are normally knowledgeable about what constitutes acceptable sources for GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:14, 31 January 2020 review of submission by SteinarFosbackB

My article for the business where I work was rejected. I have followed the guidelines and stated that I have a conflict of interest to be as transparent as possible. The article does not promote the business, it only states public facts about the company. Can someone please give me concrete feedback on why this submission was rejected, and what changes I can do to get the article published?

Thank you so much for your time! SteinarFosbackB (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starters it is not written in English. But if you translate, it will need multiple in-depth sources which cover the company in detail. You also need to declare your conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:17, 31 January 2020 review of submission by Vishal dev (Director)


Vishal dev (Director) (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal dev (Director), You seem to be writing about yourself, which we strongly discourage. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:38, 31 January 2020 review of submission by 113.170.45.196

14:12:38, 31 January 2020 review of submission by 113.170.45.196


113.170.45.196 (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]



16:41:12, 31 January 2020 review of draft by Nishnik1114


Hello, I am Nishnik1114. I am a new user on wikipedia. I have been working on an feature length film since last year and its finally completed. I need to create a wikipedia page about the movie, I have drafted and submitted the page for review but unfortunately wikicommons is not allowing me to use the movie poster as the picture. Can somebody advice or help me to be able to add the movie poster in the page I have submitted for review? Thanks

Nishnik1114 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting your new film! Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:45, 31 January 2020 review of submission by Gusgolftour


Added rich content by many experts demonstrating the significance of this professional's contribution, impact and legacy to the design profession.

Gusgolftour (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I resubmitted it for you, since there's a bunch of sources now and it would need a new re-review. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:50, 31 January 2020 review of draft by DougHill


Regarding user:Apathetizer's submission: The reviewer states "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". Yet every claim on the page is referenced with an independent and reliable source. What are we missing? DougHill (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DougHill, The task here is complicated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Estrin. If an article was previously deleted, recreating it can be quite hard. However, I would say the NYTimes article, combined with being PragerU's producer, might make him notable. @Bkissin: Your thoughts, as you were the last reviewer? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care CaptainEek. If you'd like to re-review it, you are more than welcome. (Apologies for the tone, I am completely sincere in that offer) I was basing that off the lack of SIGCOV of the subject, our own reliability issues with PragerU as a source in general, and the previous deletion discussion. Additionally, who is this "we" that the editor speaks of? Is there a COI or PAID going on here? Bkissin (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just a general tendency to use "we" instead of "I" after a while on Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When a draft is rejected, the actual reasons should be posted. By User:Bkissin's admission, that was not done here. This reviewer has some objections to PragerU, but they are not at issue here. User:Apathetizer and I and other editors have made good faith edits and submissions, so that the draft deserves to be evaluated on its own merits. In particular, the article should be reevaluated by a different reviewer, who can do this.

I am not able to see the version that was deleted. To judge from earlier versions of the draft that I can see, I suspect that the earlier editors did not really know how to create an article or cite sources. Again, I request that the current draft be judged on its own merits by an impartial reviewer. If that is not possible, then the draft should not have been allowed, or it should have been flagged with a notice to this effect.

FYI, we had a discussion about the subject's notability at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_December_11#22:05:14,_11_December_2019_review_of_submission_by_DougHill. Based on that discussion, the December draft seemed about halfway to establishing the subject's notability. Improvements to the article where made since then based on that discussion. Thanks to User:DESiegel for his helpful criticism and suggestions. I (and I'm sure the other editors) are open to further constructive criticism.

And for the record, "we" are the editors of the draft. I am not paid to edit, nor do I have a conflict. I cannot speak for any other editor. DougHill (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to leave a comment here saying that I'm basically in agreement with user:DougHill in regards to all of this, though if the article is reviewed again and rejected I'll have little issue with abandoning it as not being notable. In regards to user:Bkissin's concerns stated earlier on this page, I want to stress that PragerU isn't used as a source in the submitted draft and that the previous deletion discussion was done at a time when the article subject was less notable and had less coverage in media (for example, the NYT article was posted just this year). --Apathetizer (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:47, 31 January 2020 review of submission by John BG Johnson

I put the requested references. I am new here. Is there anyone to help me finish this article? John BG Johnson (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John BG Johnson, Many of the claims do not have references. Every claim made in an article needs references. But before going any further: do you have a conflict of interest to declare? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See 1 and 2 for previous requests (that got replies). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:37, 31 January 2020 review of submission by Kartiki Malik


Kartiki Malik (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kartiki Malik: You appear to have written an article about yourself, but you don't meet the notability requirements for biographies. Sorry but we won't be including an article about you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

05:28:07, 1 February 2020 review of draft by GargAvinash


Can I move this Draft to main page? GargAvinash (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GargAvinash, please wait for it to be reviewed. Yes, there is a backlog, but it will be reviewed eventually. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:17:04, 1 February 2020 review of submission by BG J. Johnson


BG J. Johnson (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BG J. Johnson, I didn't mean to accuse you, its simply a formality we ask of many draftees. Many of our draft writers have personal or paid relationships that they don't realize they need to disclose, so its asked frequently. I mean no disrespect and cast no aspersions. It arose because of your previous username, which implied that you were a gallery owner, and thus if you had some of Apostu's work that might be an issue.
With that behind us, many issues remain in the article, and I recommend you follow the cogent advice of the folks who have replied to you previously. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This item have not been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments. Merely I found the artist on the Internet and saw that he has achievements in the cultural field and that he has made a unique painting in the world with more than 8000 colors. How is it possible to be so blind and to make such accusations?

15:16:55, 1 February 2020 review of submission by Jonashgs


Hello

I added reliable sources to this article.

What do I need to get this article published?

Kind regards

Jonashgs (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonashgs, sources have to be published. The whole point of sourcing is so that others can verify the information. Names of people both aren't verifiable - we can't ask them, and also aren't independent from the tournament, so aren't reliable either. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Thanks for your reply

All our sources are on physical paper, so how can I add these as a reliable source?

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonashgs (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonashgs. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources for detailed information. For an offline newspaper, at the end of a phrase, sentence, or paragraph that the source supports (after any punctuation, and without a space before the beginning of the <ref> tag), add code like:
<ref>{{cite news |author=Sven Svensson |title=Torsten Lager blev svensk mästare |newspaper=Blekinge Läns Tidning |date=20 January 2020 |language=sv |page=4}}</ref>
Replace the values assigned to author, title, newspaper, date, and page with the values that describe your source. There are templates {{cite book}}, {{cite magazine}}, and so forth, that can also be used for offline sources of those types. Learning the mechanics of how to cite sources is a useful skill if you are going to write about other things. You shouldn't be writing about the John Poysti Classic Ping Pong Tournament, however, because of your connection to it. Furthermore, the draft has been rejected as not notable. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:21, 1 February 2020 review of submission by John BG Johnson


John BG Johnson (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This article have NOT been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments. It's a baseless notification. Merely I found the artist on the net and I think it deserves attention especially because it influenced other cultural events of the same kind and because he made a painting with over 8000 colors, which, after the research done, seems to be unique in the world. It is a shame to make such statements without researching yourself if what is written about this artist is or not true. So if you think the artist deserves to be included on Wikipedia, please assist me to edit and publish this article.

The miss-understanding may have been prompted by your former user, name which implied you were a gallery. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that they are still editing with both accounts interchangeably. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to choose one account or the other User:John BG Johnson or User:BG J. Johnson you cannot use both. Theroadislong (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:03, 1 February 2020 review of submission by Chasma1


Chasma1 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chasma1, your article has been declined because content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations.
Articles about living people generally require in line citations (as opposed to just a ref list at the end), where statements are referenced directly in the text. At the moment we have a list of references, but we don't know which reference supports which claim, hence which claims are actually verifiable.
Please read User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners, a useful guide on how to do in text citations. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why has been my article declined

February 2

Request on 06:10:00, 2 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 14.139.183.114



14.139.183.114 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:11, 2 February 2020 review of draft by FelixtheNomad


Hi, I am trying to create my first article, but I've become really confused by what different editors have to say. Given my understanding of notability and citing independent sources, I think I've provided many references which are in line with the guidelines. The subject has also won many awards which I believe also add to the 'additional notability' criteria. The subject has also been written about in news, articles, and books. There is even a book dedicated to his work. Can somebody take a look and provide specific details as to what I might be doing wrong and how can I improve? Or simply help me publish this one, so I can learn by reference and do better next time? Much obliged. FelixtheNomad (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FelixtheNomad (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers are often skeptical of drafts about living businesspeople, especially those described as speakers and consultants. Too often, such drafts

Hi FelixtheNomad. A Pulitzer Prize or Canadian Screen Award would demonstrate notability, but the listed awards do not help. If there isn't a Wikipedia article about an award, it may be because it is insignificant. A good rule of thumb is that if an award is covered only by the awarding organization and the recipient, then it isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Removing the entire section would also help with the draft's promotional tone.
You write that there is "a book dedicated to his work." Is it from a publisher with a history of fact checking and accuracy (ideally a university press), or is it self-published, such as through Lulu.com? With a few narrow exceptions, self-published books are not reliable sources, should not be cited, and do not help demonstrate notability.
Quality of sources is far more important than quantity. I recently started an article about a journalist with eight sources: a book entirely about them, two reviews of that book in academic journals, a chapter about them in another book, a magazine article entirely about them, two theses entirely about them, and an encyclopedia entry about them. When a large number of sources is cited, but each is used to support only one fact, or many are cited to support the same fact, it implies that none of them contains much depth about the subject. Make your best sources do most of the work, and throw away poorer sources. You may find the essay WP:THREE a useful exercise.
If, at the end of the day, the subject simply is not notable (not suitable for inclusion), try a different topic. We have more than 6 million to choose from, 98% of which are assessed as less than "good" by the community, so there is much scope for improving existing articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce, thanks for the detailed response. This is all extremely helpful. I've been asking around for this kind of guidance for a couple of days, so thank you for sharing these insights. I have a whole bunch of subjects I want to write about, but I thought this person is notable enough to begin with. I will try to rewrite segments, find more reliable and independent sources, and improve the article. In the meantime, I plan on writing about a bunch of other things. Hopefully, I'll get the hang of it soon enough. Once again, thank you. FelixtheNomad (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:57, 2 February 2020 review of submission by Abhishekgi1988


My Article got rejected, Can you please review it.

Abhishekgi1988 (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishekgi1988: The company just is not notable for Wikipedia, because there are no quality sources. Sorry, but there's nothing we can do about it. And please do not remove the rejection template, this will not help the draft get accepted, and you are only making it harder for us to review it in the future. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:12:29, 2 February 2020 review of submission by Itspirantee


This blog contains all the content with proofs and references and does not voliates any policy of wikipedia

High authority reference links are attached with respective to the content written in the blog

Please review the article taking in mind all the rules and regulations

Itspirantee (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have provided all the references to the information provided in the article and After publishing I got "Speedy Deletion" , the blog was in accordance with wiki guidelines and policy . Itspirantee (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:26, 2 February 2020 review of submission by Fibdg


I will expand this page through the years of my life. It's about SerHack, and if you search on Google there is a little template of Google about him, but no Wikipedia link. Please consider this page and let it grow.

Fibdg (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fibdg, This person doesn't seem to be notable. We only write about folks who are noteworthy, and this individual does not seem to be. That requires coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, which there do not seem to be. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


19:44:44, 2 February 2020 review of submission by 104.189.106.32


Hello! I am coming up quickly in the industry and this Wikipedia page would really help me. Please let me know what I need to bring this dream to a reality. I have loved using Wikipedia since I first found it in 3rd grade. I owe much of the knowledge I have to Wikipedia. 104.189.106.32 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please re consider 104.189.106.32 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. We are not here to promote topics, but rather collect already-published information about topics. In other words, we don't make pages to aid up and coming persons, but only document persons when they have already become notable, which means at least multiple independent reliable sources cover them in-depth. None of the sources in the draft fit this. Unfortunately, there's nothing to be done at this time. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

02:58:10, 3 February 2020 review of submission by Ckfasdf

Hi..
I recently created draft article about National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups or NITAG in general (NITAG in the US is known as ACIP, and in Canada is known as NACI). Some NITAG already has its own article such ACIP, JCVI, and STIKO. I thought it would be proper to have article about NITAG in general (not country specific). Kindly someone please review the draft and accept if it is acceptable. Thank you.Ckfasdf (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ckfasdf, we don't typically review drafts on request here, however, because it isn't a bad article, and because I can't really see a reason why you submitted it through AFC, I've accepted it. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:14, 3 February 2020 review of submission by Jamporter


It is a page describing one of Australia's largest importers of European bathroom and kitchenware. Whilst many details are currently missing, it's creation will help guide people, particularly retailers, who have heard the name, know what Argent is.

Do I need to incorporate more of Argent's origin story? I can find that out.

Jamporter (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamporter. Wikipedia may not be used to "get the word out", "raise a profile", or any other form of promotion or public relations. The draft was rejected because the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Most businesses are not notable. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. No amount of editing can fix the problem of notability. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. Pick a different topic to edit. We have more than 6 million to choose from, and 98% are assessed as less than "good" by the community, so there is much room for improving existing articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:39, 3 February 2020 review of submission by Bethany m m


Edits have been made - can this article be submitted for review again, please?

Bethany m m (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No changes since rejection? "a British based company that specialises in providing ventilation solutions" is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:42, 3 February 2020 review of submission by Bethany m m

Then why do these have one? -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vent-Axia surely it shouldn't be one rule for one and another for another?

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Our standards have previosly been laxer, and that page probably shouldn't exist either. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:26, 3 February 2020 review of submission by YoonCheong

Hello, This page was declined for being "not sufficiently notable for inclusion". I wanted to ask for advice on how this page can be included in Wikipedia. David Amber is a very prominent figure in the global K-pop industry, writing and producing for top K-pop groups. I'd like to request a re-review. If the content of the page is concerning, please let me know so I can make changes. If David Amber is believed to be insufficiently notable for inclusion despite his contributions and achievements, also let me know. Thank you.

YoonCheong (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:27:33, 3 February 2020 review of submission by 70.15.42.220


70.15.42.220 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:57:45, 3 February 2020 review of draft by Yesness89


I'm not sure how to update my draft so that it gets approved.

Yesness89 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:49:09, 3 February 2020 review of submission by ABRG72

Hello! I have made edits to my original article and included information that explains this individual's notability as well as improved on the citations. Will this article be re-reviewed? Thank you for your time! ABRG72 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ABRG72: It does not look like any of the sources you have added pass WP:GNG as previously mentioned they should. It does not look like the subject is notable and I'm afraid there's nothing to be done. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 00:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 4

00:59:05, 4 February 2020 review of submission by 24.179.124.27


24.179.124.27 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most YouTubers aren't notable I'm afraid. Unless the media has taken interest in them, they usually don't warrant a page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:28:29, 4 February 2020 review of draft by 47.219.19.95


I was given reasons the draft was rejected (i.e. costs converted to today's dollars, removed pictures of current property, removed list of events) but it still got rejected. All I'm doing is recording the history of a structure that no longer exists. IF someone wishes to rewrite the article by all means do it. I'm not a formal writer so my style is how I write. I'm not trying to "sell" anything. Please advise.

47.219.19.95 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:20:03, 4 February 2020 review of draft by Xsider

My page checked and user give some tasks to change information. I update page, can someone check this? Xsider (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:29, 4 February 2020 review of submission by Jonashgs


Hello

I added third-party sources now - the psysical papers we wrote to keep scores for the tournament.

They are located in the tournament planners office

Kind regards

Jonashgs (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:10:34, 4 February 2020 review of submission by 95.251.55.231


95.251.55.231 (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the president of the Sigismund Thalberg international Study Centre The Sigismund Thalberg International Study Centre was founded in Naples in June 1996 by Principessa di Strongoli Francesca Ferrara Pignatelli, grandniece of the great Austrian pianist, and by me. The Study Center organizes a series of initiatives aiming at increasing the knowledge of the figure and the music of Thalberg. In October 1996 it organized the 1st International Congress entirely dedicated to Thalberg. The Study Center organizes too the Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Prize since 1998. Over the past 22 years the Prize has been won by some pianists who have subsequently won other prestigious awards like Sofia Gulyak first prize at Thalberg Competition and then first prize at the Leeds International Piano Competition or Michail Lifits third prize at Thalberg Competition and then first prize at the Busoni Competition in Bolzano and many others. We have done a page for Wikipedia - Draft: Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Competition - but it has been refused for several reasons, some of which are not true; for example "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia". We are talking about a Piano Competition that has been held for 22 years and which is dedicated to one of the greatest pianists who lived in the 19th century. What can we do to get this entry accepted on Wikipedia? Thank you Sigismundthalberg

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=939111174"