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 DanielMaithya (talk | contribs) at 12:26, 26 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


February 19

00:12:42, 19 February 2020 review of submission by M.nelson

Hi, I'd like some advice on how to improve the page Draft:Benevity. It was moved to the draftspace for the reasons 'undersourced and promotional'. I'd like to know what steps I can take to get it article-worthy. Thank you. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:58:08, 19 February 2020 review of submission by Lynnglassford


I have removed several paragraphs as well as additional references. How do I resubmit this article for publication.

I have removed several paragraphs as well as additional references. How do I resubmit this article for publication.

I submitted an article but it was rejected because the review said it was more advocacy. It is not it is history. Someone suggested I add more references and so I did. How do I ensure it is reviewed again?--Lynnglassford (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lynnglassford (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the autobiography policy and the conflict of interest policy. Do not use Wikipedia to publicize yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:38:07, 19 February 2020 review of submission by Kebajikan111


Kebajikan111 (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


all sources have been entered. not this problem the food is known or not. this is wikipedia bro, all information can be accepted to convey

04:40:07, 19 February 2020 review of submission by Kebajikan111


Kebajikan111 (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


all the food that I included in the draft included part of the "Indonesian cuisine list."

@Kebajikan111: You need some additional reliable sources in both of your drafts to show that these dishes are notable. shoy (reactions) 14:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:34:16, 19 February 2020 review of submission by Cpjalufka

Added more references but to no avail. His name comes up in other Wiki pages (Mastodon (band), Avenged Sevenfold (band), and Unearth (band) ) and thought this artist may have a chance at notability. The Youtube videos are him with members of Metallica and Mastodon on his artwork, but read that videos aren't viewed as reliable sources. Any thoughts? Would including the artwork in the page help, or matter? Cpjalufka (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The person may (mayyy) be notable, however you need to read the provided links about our policies on WP:RS and WP:GNG these will be a good jumping off point for improving your article. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:28, 19 February 2020 review of draft by Kr1shnamur

Hi guys, Draft:The Humanitarian Society is my first draft, but was declined. I'm not sure how I can adjust the page. Please, consider it's a direct translation of https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societ%C3%A0_Umanitaria. Can you please give me a few suggestions? Thank you!

Kr1shnamur (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:21, 19 February 2020 review of submission by Alczix


Hi,

Could you please give me a few tips on what specifically should I change on this page to be accepted? I was following this example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riskified to keep the information plain and basic, not commercial or corporate.

I'm willing to make any changes you suggest, but I need a little help here. Alczix (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alczix. Riskified is not a great example to imitate. That article was narrowly kept after a discussion in which four participants weighed in for delete and three recommended keep. For that topic there are multiple articles in The Wall Street Journal and The Jerusalem Post, plus ones in Globes, Mother Jones, and from Reuters. Draft:Nethone doesn't cite a single source of similar quality or weight, and the reviewer's analysis is that no such sources exist. No amount of editing can fix that problem and make the draft acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:49, 19 February 2020 review of submission by Brigittevandam

Hi guys! I am not sure why my submission hasn't been accepted. I changed it a bit, to make it more from a natural view point. = Do you think it's good like this or should I make another change in order for it to get approved?

THANKS!


Brigittevandam (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason your article wasn't accepted is clearly outlined in the decline message on the draft page. In particular, we cannot accept biographies about livnig people without the minimum standard of inline citations. Please read the links in the decline message on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:08, 19 February 2020 review of draft by 24.164.139.222


Hello, this is Haruka from Gramercy Global Media. I am trying to create an official Wikipedia website, however, it has been declined for approval. I was wondering if you could give us advice on what to add and where to fix. Unfortunately, we do not have many secondary sources and links, therefore, it would be helpful if you can help us for anything on the content that we are able to edit. Thank you and have a great day!

24.164.139.222 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have secondary sources then your company isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Wikipedia is not a business directory or a place to promote your business. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:13, 19 February 2020 review of draft by Postmahomie


I don't understand why this page got denied. I am making a wiki page for a rising star and have only provided facts, but it is being called a "hoax" and has been claimed to be "threatening" the subject. This is not my intention. Please let me know what changes need to be made for this page to be allowed to be published. Postmahomie (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting our time. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:31:20, 19 February 2020 review of submission by Akickincrowd


Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Tony_%22UNK%5E6%22_Reynolds Draft:Tony "UNK^6" Reynolds

}} I believe this satisfies the rule of notability under two sections according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Please explain if those standards were overlooked or have changed? Thanks!

CREATIVE PROFESSIONAL: 1) Article includes multiple third party sources: The Atlantic, Time, Vanity Fair, MSNBC, Mother Jones. All of these sources are on Wikipedia's Reliable Sources List. (there were multiple other sources that were not on the list I chose not to include.)

2) Those articles are SPECIFICALLY about Tony Reynolds creation of the Reagan Hologram. 3) The event directly impacted the Republican National Convention, which was/is a major event. 4) From the 2012 creation by Tony Reynolds, until The Reagan Hologram was unveiled in 2018, which is verified by Wikipedia's list of reliable sources, this was not a short term happening.

ALSO OF NOTE MUSICIAN: Tony Reynolds released multiple albums on SONY. 1) Tony Reynolds charted on a verifiable national chart in the Top 5 position. 2) Charting was verified by an independent third party source. (Sirius Satellite) 3) Reynolds has released multiple albums with a major record label, SONY, which again was/is independently verifiable.

WIKIPEDIA Criteria for musicians and ensembles 2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 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).

If those published Wikipedia standards were overlooked, or those standards have changed, please explain when, or what further do I need to do to provide detail for you?

Akickincrowd (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I have rejected this in error but a Google search comes up with zero results for "Tony "UNK^6" Reynolds" and it looks to me like a hoax. If you could trim it down to only the simple sourced details, it might help. Courtesy link Draft:Tony "UNK^6" Reynolds. Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:02, 19 February 2020 review of draft by 2metiger


I am not understanding the reason for the issue with this article. There is a Wikipedia page for Dr. Richard E. Mounce that is not as extensive as this, yet he has a page published. Please advise. The sources of the articles that have been co-written by Dr. Adatrow have been cited. They are in Pub-Med and in other journals.

Thanks for your help!


2metiger (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2metiger: The article Richard Mounce should not exist, either. I have nominated that page for deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:31, 19 February 2020 review of submission by 84.23.209.134


Concerning my draft submission of Jef Rens, trade union leader and deputy-director general of the ILO. You are such snobs to reject this submission. The list of references is taken from accepted submissions by others in French and Dutch. Why are they not verifiable? 84.23.209.134 (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that maybe you don't know what you're doing and properly asking for help instead of insulting people you've never met, who have had nothing to do with your draft? For instance, you might ask how to provide in-line citations, and consider that maybe you should list page numbers instead of giving us barely enough info to find sources and then expecting us to read the entire thing. Gosh, that's not rude laziness on your part at all!
You do realize that this is a volunteer-run project where no member of the site has a total picture, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:33:21, 19 February 2020 review of draft by Gabbya2020


I recently created a page that got declined due to it reading too much like an advertisement. What are some ways that I could fix this? Gabbya2020 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to fix it is to do some reading. In particular, review the links provided in the decline message. This is the greatest resource on figuring out how to re-word an article. We are happy to help if you have specific questions about your page or the policy, but generically asking us "how to fix this" is the equivalent of asking us to do your work. WP:BUILDERSulfurboy (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabbya2020: Annoyingly, this question has also been asked - and answered- at the Teahouse. In future, ask one question in just one place, as it really annoys volunteers who then simply waste their time answering already answered questions"! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

00:27:57, 20 February 2020 review of draft by 2metiger


Is the issue that he is not notable enough to be included? Also, I would review the Wikipedia list of notable dentists- that is where the link to Dr. Richard Mounce was located.

Thanks!

2metiger (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't judge whether or not someone is notable, we judge whether or not the sources denote notability. I would concern yourself with your article instead of worrying about others. In particular I would recommend reading the linked pages in the declines of your draft to understand what it is you need to do. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:20:28, 20 February 2020 review of draft by Sandrah.Akol


Hello I wrote an article about Ntinda Vocational Training Institute last year but it was linked to article of Ntinda, I started creating from fresh but it has been declined many times. am writing about a vocational school in Africa (Uganda) that has existed few years back ( 2 years) and the challenge I face most is the type of reliable independent sources you have consistently talked about, but I believe this article is not of any form meant to advertise the institute, but to help fellow young men and women of Africa get to realize the need for vocational training. For any help about this article feel free to help but I request if you could help publish it. thank you--Sandrah.Akol (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Sandrah.Akol (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandrah.Akol: I've moved your article back to draft space, since you moved it into article space without changing anything. Unfortunately, Wikipedia needs reliable sources to prove notability. They don't have to be in English, or online, but they do need to exist. As noble as your intent is, this is not a place to promote anything. shoy (reactions) 14:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:56:09, 20 February 2020 review of submission by Raizada.ashish87


Raizada.ashish87 (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raizada.ashish87, No need to compliment us or give platitudes, that doesn't increase your chances of success. The reason your draft was declined is two fold. The first: it had no references. Wikipedia articles require referencing to reliable sources (see WP:ERB for a good how to guide). Second: the subject doesn't seem notable. We only write about folks who are notable. For actors, that usually means that they have had a long career of minor to medium roles, or had a big film role. This person does not seem to meet our notability guidelines. And as a last note, the article is also quite informal and not written to the standards we have on Wikipedia. Our writing must be neutral and formal. So bottom line: unless you can show that this guy meets some part of the actor notability guidelines, we cannot have an article on him. If you reply, do so on my talk page else I will not see it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi David,

Greetings.

I hope you are doing great and you guys are giving world's best service called "Wiki". I really appreciate the effort of Mr. Jimmy Wales, who really work hard to give people who they really need, which was "Information". My case is also like same. I really just spread information about Punjabi actors and actresses, who are famous in Punjabi box office called pollywood but no one knows about their past or journey. I just want to spread some information about those guys. This is my first post on Wiki. after this I will upload another character who is a famous film director in pollywood. He has made 3 movies and 5 web series, but few peoples know about him. Only few platforms are providing such strength to spread relevant information with others and wiki is one of them. Rest are spreading spams and vulgar things. So that why my faith is in wikipedia.

I hope,I am at the right path. If not so please correct me.

Warm regards, Ashish Raizada

09:19:58, 20 February 2020 review of submission by 2601:14A:4000:B65E:C499:A052:F836:F3B8


2601:14A:4000:B65E:C499:A052:F836:F3B8 (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:35:00, 20 February 2020 review of submission by Gostaresh Tarahan Naghsh Almas


Dear sir/madame,

The article that I have tried to add is a well-known company based in Iran. What information do I need to add so that it becomes worthy of being an independent article?

Thank you very much. Gostaresh Tarahan Naghsh Almas (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:36:18, 20 February 2020 review of draft by Sharmo96

Hello, I recently thought that I could come to Wikipedia with open arms however apparently this seems to not be the case. Other users harass and reject your ideas. I even had my personal page “deleted” because another user disagreed with the content... It was about me, tell me that I’m not notable??? Go bloody google me. I put out the good and the bad, Wikipedia advises against personal publications only if you are going to be putting out a biased based view. It should not be be up to other users to decide what is or isn’t worthy. This is just another platform for other people to bring others down and exclude whom ever they wish. Take your high class website and shove it... Have a great bloody day!

Sharmo96 (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sharmo96. Draft:Ryan Sharman has not been submitted for review. The technical problem is extraneous wiki markup around the curly braces of the submit template. If you're using VisualEditor you may need to switch to the source code editor to see it.
There is no point in submitting the draft, however, because it cites no sources (no books, no academic journal articles, no newspaper articles, etc.) about Sharman. Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable in published reliable sources. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic, to show that the topic merits an encyclopedia article. No draft will be accepted without such sources. A second fundamental problem is that Wikipedia, unlike Facebook or LinkedIn, is not a place to write about yourself. I've left more information about that on your talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a helpful comment on your draft "No evidence that you pass WP:GNG" as you have no sources at all and all drafts require sourcing. You have not submitted the draft for review yet. You have attacked me instead on my talk page with "You’re a bully hiding behind a screen. Get real mate, you’re not the Wikipedia police. Why don’t you just start minding your own business." Attacking other users will not help you get an article about yourself, only reliable sources will do that. Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:30, 20 February 2020 review of draft by Philjones2510


I have attempted to edit the article in response to the reviewer's comments. I am looking for some help to see whether I'm on the right track with the changes I've made.

If possible, any specific examples of non-neutral content or non-encyclopedic tone would be very helpful and much appreciated.

And if there are any other issues I've overlooked, please would you be so kind as to indicate specific paragraphs or sentences?

Many thanks in advance.

Philjones2510 (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:59:19, 20 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by AmericanDirectory


The article is most needed from the nigerian community.

AmericanDirectory (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:29, 20 February 2020 review of submission by CBlincoe

I would like to make my content comply with Wikipedia and I note that there are Categories of "Food Brands of the United Kingdom" and Penguin (biscuit) that are very similar to what I am trying to publish. I am struggling to categorise my entry accordingly. Please can you give me some suggestions on how I can make the article more acceptable for publication? CBlincoe (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CBlincoe: First of all, each article here is judged on its own merits. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Penguin (biscuit) looks like a poor example of an article to me. It probably should be part of the article on its parent company. Since Wikipedia is a big place served by volunteers, not everything gets cleaned up immediately. Secondly, none of the sources that you have provided show significant coverage of the brand, they are all passing mentions which do nothing to establish notability. Harry Campbell is notable (we even have an article on him) but unless you have some much better sources that you haven't shared, Bickiepegs are not notable. Your effort would be better spent improving Campbell's article than trying to create a new one. shoy (reactions) 15:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:35:22, 20 February 2020 review of submission by MisterGamerNL


Can somebody please help me with this article? I am willing to pay for it. I am very sick and i want this article to be public. I am a noob with editing this draft.

For the one who will help me with this, thank you in advance.

MisterGamerNL (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable independent sources and as the rejection tag says, "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. No amount of editing will change that. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs independent commentary saying that they're a significant and notable musician. Read WP:MUSICBIO. Take a look at some other similar articles: It's not a high bar to meet, coverage in Discogs is often seen to meet it, but just Spotify counts definitely don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:39:55, 20 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by DeCharia


I need to pay someone to help me asap DeCharia (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:37:52, 20 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Jingleman2


I do not understand your not excepting. It is the exact format as Frank Simms and several others including Sundance Head, and others from the Voice who do not have ANY published sources. everything I did is as accurate as one can get and NOT just passing mentions. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Simms. If you need others who are set up exactly the same [lease let me know. ALL of which have been published! Jingleman2 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jingleman2, 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. The Frank Simms article is...pretty bad. And likely to be deleted because its not notable.
For your draft, you need to prove notability. Specifically, please check out the musician notability guidelines and tell us how Dan Shafer meets our guidelines. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:23, 20 February 2020 review of submission by Morty-0


Morty-0 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Why the fudge was my article deleted?[reply]

February 21

06:15:38, 21 February 2020 review of draft by 69.209.30.181


I have never ever made a Wikipedia page before. I don't know how, but I know that there needs to be a page for Jarrett Walker. I am an aspiring transit planner and he has completely revolutionized transit planning in America. I am also requesting help because I do not know how to respond to the editor overseeing the page, who said he was known for only one event when this is clearly not true. I am not even sure what the one event is! Is it the twitter exchange with elon musk? The writings and musings which became real transit principles? Is it the bus redesigns? I need help.

69.209.30.181 (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources on the page that show secondary coverage of the coverage is just about the Elon Musk twitter thing. If all of the in-depth secondary coverage of a person revolves around one incident then that is considered WP:ONEEVENT. I would recommend finding secondary coverage of the subject separate from the Musk incident. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:43:34, 21 February 2020 review of draft by 17todotest



I dont understand why Sulfurboy (talk · contribs) has deleted my article, posting the section from notability for 'quality references' and 'more than passing mention". The references I used are two independent Bhutanese newspapers, and two books published by academic publishers (Routledge and UQP). The two nespaper articles are profiles of the subject, so not a passing mention. Hoping this can be reconsidered. And/or the quality issues explained? draft is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Passu_Tshering Please? 17todotest (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17todotest (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 17todotest. I disagree with reviewer Sulfurboy on this one. Notability is not the problem, but there are some smaller problems. I've left a detailed comment on Draft:Passu Tshering. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce, From what I saw, none of the articles cited showed WP:SIGCOV of the subject, they focused instead on inventions or products that the person was involved with, but not the actual subject. There's also some very unreliable sources (facebook for example) that make this article nowhere near ready for mainspace. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy has over-ridden your opinion Worldbruce. He/she doesnt think the two profiles on Passang and his organisation, in two independent newspapers, are enough about him to qualify as significant coverage. I give up. 17todotest (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:31:27, 21 February 2020 review of draft by 169.149.222.254


169.149.222.254 (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:17:19, 21 February 2020 review of submission by Laura at Vonovia

I've tried to learn why the draft has been rejected, but unfortunately, I don't fully understand that.

There is a lot of independent coverage about Rolf Buch, describing his person and work (and not the company). Examples are "Der neue Herr im Haus" (3), "Der Vordrängler" (5), and "Er kann es doch" (27), all larger portraits published in Handelsblatt (leading business newspaper), Welt (leading daily newspaper), and Zeit (leading weekly newspaper). As CEO of Vonovia (DAX member), Rolf Buch leads a German blue-chip.

Dou you see any chance to get this draft accepted in the future? I'd be happy to improve it in my user space, if that helps, removing some more company details, for example. I am fully aware of my COI, of course.

Laura at Vonovia (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:29, 21 February 2020 review of submission by M.A.Sarmiento

I received a notice that my article submission was declined because some of the material didn't meet the minimum standard for inline citations. It would be really helpful to know which materials this may be referring to so that I can be sure to find the proper references. Am I not citing information correctly? Thanks.

M.A.Sarmiento (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@M.A.Sarmiento: As the linked article explains, you must attribute your facts to exact sources. Since this is a biography, you have to cite pretty much everything so the fact origins are clear, not just some selected facts. For example "Early Life & Career" section has no citations at all. But it has a dozen or so facts. Take, for example, this sentence: "Born in Houston, Texas, Riley studied Fashion and Fine Art at Columbia College (Missouri), graduating in 1973." That's already a bunch of facts: birth place, college, college course, graduating, graduation year. Without exact inline citations, there is no way to know which source(s) you used for this material and whether they were used proportionally, accurately, without bias, without synthesis and without omitting anything important. As a reader, I cannot easily verify this material. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:13, 21 February 2020 review of submission by Yesness89


I don't understand why my article got rejected. Is there specific language that seems like advertising language? If so, I'm happy to remove that language. I also add a lot of sources in the draft. Was my draft rejected because of these resources? What do I need to do to improve the draft so that it gets approved?

Yesness89 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Yesness89 it was declines on the 2 February, you then made a lot of changes wit the summary of "I removed all promotional language and updated the content so that it is more encyclopedic." but you didn't actually re-submit. I've re-submitted for you. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesness89 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:05:25, 21 February 2020 review of submission by Yachty4000


I really do not know why this article is being rejected except for the first time. Many other RC brands have there own Wikipedia pages yet when I try and create a more current brand one that I hope other will add to and I want to link to it keep getting rejected. What content does it need to be accepted as when I add content it is accused of turning into an advert. Here are some other pages already accepted (( Category:Radio-controlled_car_manufacturers )) Any advise would be appreciated. Yachty4000 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 22

00:14:16, 22 February 2020 review of draft by Iwalters


Iwalters (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was refused due to inadequate sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mission_of_the_Shark:_The_Saga_of_the_U.S.S._Indianapolis

So is IMDB no longer a reliable source or do I just need to add more sources?

does Wikipedia no longer have stub articles and if so couldn't this article be made one rather than deleted?

Iwalters IMDB has never generally been considered a reliable source on Wikipedia as it is user-editable. Reliable sources must have editorial control and a reputation of fact checking. Wikipedia needs significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:16:20, 22 February 2020 review of submission by Anastasia Belotskaya


Anastasia Belotskaya (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlekK19. This is UPE. Cabayi (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:18:39, 22 February 2020 review of submission by Anastasia Belotskaya

hii, i just want to create this page. it is not an promotional page because this model is already very famous and she just need an wikipedia identity so that people can know abut her with the help of thiswebsite. hope you understand my thoughts. i am wwaiting for your positive response.

Anastasia Belotskaya (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlekK19. This is UPE. Cabayi (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:25:31, 22 February 2020 review of submission by Franklin187


Hi everyone, thanks for your input but I don't understand why you are still not accepting this article. Every time I adjusted exactly what you told me before you are giving new reasons why you can't approve it. Benjamin played critical roles in multiple productions as stated in the article, won awards which is proven by the published accredited articles of high level newspapers, magazines and press in general.

Pls review this article again.

Thanks in advance.


Franklin187 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin187 You have been given extensive commentary about your draft on it- what about it do you not understand? 331dot (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:42, 22 February 2020 review of submission by Thecorrector21

i have given you reference or source directly from the pakistan navy website why did you still decline.

Thecorrector21 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thecorrector21 You were given the reason for the decline in the draft. Wikipedia requires significant coverage of a subject in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:24:16, 22 February 2020 review of draft by Georget2004


My article was declined as lacking sources confirming the contents of the article, but if you check I added two credible sources including Kirkus Review which is a gold standard in literature reviews... Could you explain what else should be added to confirm the short synopsis of the novel? Thank you.

Georget2004 (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georget2004 Generally, more than two independent reliable sources with significant coverage are needed. Most reviewers like to see at least three. The draft does little more than tell of the book's existence- the article must do more, indicating how it meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable book. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:17, 22 February 2020 review of submission by PinkElixir

Draft:Vartan Melkonian

Hi, I'd appreciate some help on resubmitting my article. I created a draft on Vartan Melkonian, conductor of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. As you can see, my draft was declined for mainly lack of notability. I've added some sources and removed ones which seem connected to the man himself. In addition, my article was denied because of advertising language, but I'm not sure which language specifically seems like advertising language. I'm open to any feedback that helps improve the article so it can get approved when I resubmit. Thanks in advance! PinkElixir (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

08:04:51, 23 February 2020 review of submission by Wikiwarrior19

The draft article: Joshua Brandwood was not moved to the main space as the reviewer claimed it was not supported by reliable sources. I would like a second opinion on this as there were numerous reliable sources including an official university website alongside a reference to the Metro website. There were numerous references used to support each piece of information in the article. If you also type in Joshua Brandwood in google then this individual is notable. Please can this be reviewed again? Thank you.

Wikiwarrior19 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs typically aren't considered a reliable source. Also, just because someone shows up in a google search doesn't mean they're notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:26:00, 23 February 2020 review of draft by Hrdwrkinmom436


I just want to edit my reviewer comment for my draft.


Hrdwrkinmom436 (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:59:27, 23 February 2020 review of submission by Giuseppe Rodio


Hi Team

I see my submission was rejected as the topic is considered not relevant enough for being posted. Would be feasible to please learn more about relevancy and what scope/ reach does a topic need to carry in order to be considered relevant?

I understand not many people know about SANGHAMITRA in Europe or the Americas, however the brand and family name touches millions of people in India. The designer (Sanghamitra phukan) is the daughter of Actor Biju Phukan, widely considered the most important actor in the North east of India:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biju_Phukan

Sanghamitra is the first indian model to have ever featured in a global Benetton campaign and was formerly global brand ambassador for Reebok, she worked internationally as a professional model and gave shape to her sustainable fashion/ lifestyle brand during the same time.

Across the last decade, SANGHAMITRA actually participated at the London fashion week, headlined the ASVOFF festival in Paris and hosted several events in both London and Milan (if international relevance is something important to wikipedia). Still regardless of that, the Sanghamitra annual fashion show is arguably the most important fashion appointment in the region of Assam, watched by millions of people locally and thousands of Indian/ Assamese people on global satellite TV.

The brand was featured on Forbes and innumerous local media platforms. Is there anything we could to provide in order to demonstrate this? Or could you please guide us on what would qualify as relevant to be rightly posted?


Giuseppe Rodio (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've declared your COI. You need multiple references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements or blogs. What you have is a Youtube from a show (with only 24 views), the company web site, & a paragraph in a magazine which is indistinguishable from a press release. None of these will do, but if she is as important as indicated above, there should be significant material about her in multiple international major newspapers and magazines. You need to find it DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:03:47, 23 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Athousanddaysbefore


Hello, I am having trouble publishing an article. I keep receiving the same boiler-plate message of rejection, despite providing internationally-recognized, independent sources that fortify the subject of the article's relevancy. The article in question is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Black_Heart_Saints

Can any editor please provide more insight other than the standard boiler-plate message of rejection? I've resubmitted multiple times, each with more references than the last submission.

Thanks for your time.

Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Athousanddaysbefore, Sorry you've gotten just boilerplate, I know that can be darn annoying. Hopefully I can clear things up. There are a lot of bands in the world, and we can't possibly write about them all. Thus we have the music notability guidelines. I'm afraid I don't see how the band meets any of those requirements. The best shot they might have is charting, but we're actually pretty picky about how we define charting. The websites we use, [1] (based off of Nielson Data) and [2], do not have the Black Heart Saints song on it. They also don't seem to have enough independent media coverage, its mostly local stuff about them playing a gig somewhere. Unless I've missed it, I don't see any national coverage. Regional notability is not enough. Unless you can point to me how they meet some part of the notability guidelines, I'm afraid they aren't notable, and we just can't have an article about them. I know that is tough to hear, but we can't write about everything. And who knows, the band appears to be increasing in popularity, they might be notable in a year or so, and then you could pick up where you left off! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:51, 23 February 2020 review of draft by MayaBliss


Looking for help to get this article published. I've made more edits to address all of the concerns, and want to see if it's now acceptable before resumbitting. She has numerous press mentions and bylines in credible publications, plus published books so I believe she fits the requirements. Is there anything else I need to do or add? Thank you.

MayaBliss (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:51, 23 February 2020 review of submission by Dave Bains


I am not experienced with Wikipedia but I feel a sense of duty to contribute what I can. I am not sure how this article should be placed. I would like something like Biblical_hermeneutics but for the SGGS Ji. As far as I can tell there is no such article for the SGGS Ji. There are sections on its interpretation and meaning like Sikhism#Philosophy_and_teachings, but these only give one interpretation; and furthermore the perception that is the one true interpretation with which all Sikhs agree.

Do you think it would be good to have such a separate article on interpretation of SGGS Ji? Or is what I have written more suited to an existing article?

Also as a final note, a lot of my points are backed by Harjot_Oberoi's The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity, and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. I think his article could be expanded with some of the points he makes on what "distinct religious boundaries" the Singh Sabha were defining, and the points of interpretation which they took issue with. It was a significant part of their conflict but I don't see it mentioned anywhere.

Thanks for your help.

Dave Bains (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Bains, Taking a look at your sandbox, it has improper sourcing and tone. All statements need a citation to a reliable source. A religious text cannot be used as a source about itself. You instead need a secondary source that discusses the book/person in question. Also, the tone is not the neutral one expected on Wikipedia. It uses second person POV, which is not appropriate. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, whose goal is to present information about notable subjects in a neutral and non-biased way. Your article at present seems written more like an essay or personal reflection, which is not the sort of stuff we are looking for. It needs rewriting with a reliable source, but could become useful. If you need further help, feel free to ask here, or on my talk page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:34:33, 23 February 2020 review of submission by Hannes Josef


Hannes Josef (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


{{subst:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by {{SUBST:REVISIONUSER}}== 21:54:46, 23 February 2020 review of submission by Hannes Josef ==

Approve the wiki account Hannes Josef (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:47:18, 23 February 2020 review of submission by 2600:1700:4080:52C0:18B0:F35D:2B24:91B5


I believe my subject is notable enough, he has been featured multiple times on reputable and major articles, such as Respect Magazine

https://respect-mag.com/2020/02/ysl-rich-pablo-drops-off-baguettes-track/

https://respect-mag.com/2020/02/ysl-rich-pablo-teases-king-spider-effort/

2600:1700:4080:52C0:18B0:F35D:2B24:91B5 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 24

00:13:38, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Jebayles

Link from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Tasmanian_Football_Association_(formed_1996) does not point to our club information or history. Various other club pages exist from our league/association containing less content and references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Patrick%27s_Old_Collegians_Football_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsdale_Football_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgenorth_Football_Club Jebayles (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


00:28:20, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Elegant Nurse


Hello! What is the problem with the edit sir?

I simply cannot comprehend why you block my words of truth and conscience.


Thank you Elegant Nurse (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elegant Nurse, I would advise reading the links provided in the decline messages on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Can't get this approved -( Don't know what is missing.

01:23:05, 24 February 2020 review of draft by Sungjinyun

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I've corrected the infobox and added notable sources like NYTimes and Newsday and leading industry trade publications as well. But the last comment said there was "no difference" but no specifics. just general guidelines that don't seem to provide more detailed direction. Please help! SJY 01:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

02:00:09, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Theaterofdreams2008


02:37:37, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Zzhu8516


Zzhu8516 (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zzhu8516, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My article is viewed by u. But i made a lot of changes up to now. Can u remove the speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhu8516 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being handled at Teahouse. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:45:56, 24 February 2020 review of submission by VeritaHG


VeritaHG (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VeritaHG, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
VeritaHG, Your draft was rejected because it had no sources and appeared entirely promotional. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:45:48, 24 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Juanpatlang


I think I may need help in publishing my first article. Previously, I think I didn't add any content because I was still trying to understand the system. Now I've added a content. But don't know what the next step is aside from publishing it. So please message me if there's anything I'm missing. Thanks!

Juanpatlang (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juanpatlang, You need to provide WP:RS to show WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:24:29, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Mohitprakashsharma555


Mohitprakashsharma555 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohitprakashsharma555: You need to find at least three sources that are:
  • Professionally-published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources (for example, newspaper articles)
  • Specifically and primarily about Hansraj Raghuwanshi
  • Not connected to, dependent upon, nor affiliated with Hansraj Raghuwanshi or anyone he works with or for, nor his family nor friends
Once you have those, summarize them, and then paraphrase the summary, citing the sources throughout the paraphrase. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:37, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Josepbs

I need to create a Wikipedia page for a person , But its companies not listed on Wikipedia.what do? First, create a page for a person or create a page for companies.

Josepbs (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Josepbs: First, you must disclose your employment per the instructions I'll be leaving on your page. Next you should read our instructions on editing with a conflict of interest and a financial stake in a topic. Then, once you understand that, these instructions will tell you how to create an article that won't be rejected or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:29:08, 24 February 2020 review of submission by 2601:8C3:8000:55D8:BC48:7798:CFCF:279C


2601:8C3:8000:55D8:BC48:7798:CFCF:279C (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Your editor wrote: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. With all due respect, I think whomever reviewed this entry is not familiar with Irish publications. This is one of the more important literary publications of Northern Ireland, whose editor, Amos Greig, is highly respected. Indeed, A New Ulster has been publishing for 8 years now and is so important that is is recognized by Poets & Writers in their directory, something that is not possible unless you are a legitimate, leading, publication. https://www.pw.org/search/google/A%20New%20Ulster That link alone should convince you that it belongs as a listing...

@2601:8C3:8000:55D8:BC48:7798:CFCF:279C: - the reviewer didn't make their judgement from their own assessment of how important the publication was (that would require an impossible breadth of knowledge for anyone to cover everything). It was made from the three sources you'd used - one of which is the own site, and the other two are primarily seeking new writers/content. As such, none of them are independent. The publication, like almost any other article, needs multiple sources that are reliable, independent (no bias & no interviews), in-depth, secondary.
Your link above seems to indicate various authors who have had their content included. Notability can't be "inherited" - you need sources writing about the publication itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:10, 24 February 2020 review of draft by Brucewalker1


I am requesting help because I am using reliable, independent sources for this page, yet it keeps getting declines. Could you specify exactly what is wrong with it? Brucewalker1 (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brucewalker1 You have one independent source, one is a press release type announcement, and one is a fluff piece. All describe the company's products and not the company itself. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is needed. If these do not exist, then the company would not merit an article at this time and no amount of editing can change that. Are you associated with the company? 331dot (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:57, 24 February 2020 review of draft by Ali.shaila


Ali.shaila (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My entry was declined. I am not sure why someone declined my submission because I modeled my page after an already published Wikipedia page. The page I modeled after was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory

Why are the entries not reviewed by more than one person? And what if there are published pages in the same format? Why do reviewers don't search already published pages before commenting on other people's work?

I am trying to edit my entry but I am not sure what to edit.

@Ali.shaila: A comment about copyright on this. This appears to be this paper. I am very confused about who the author is. It says "Ronald P. Rohner", but then it also says "Abdul Khaleque" and "David E. Cournoyer" contributed. Wikipedia can only accept freely licensed work, which only the author(s) may release as freely licensed. Who holds the copyright of the work at this time? Did previous authors transfer their rights to the current author? Does the University have copyright? Has the paper been released under any free license? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, these people are just in the references. It is only my page. I am just referencing their work as contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I only compared the start of the article. The first paragraph from the draft:
"Interpersonal acceptance-rejection theory (IPARTheory) is an evidence-based theory of socialization and lifespan development that aims to predict and explain major consequences, antecedents, and other correlates of interpersonal acceptance and rejection worldwide"
Here is the first sentence from the paper:
"Interpersonal acceptance-rejection theory (IPARTheory) is an evidence-based theory of socialization and lifespan development that aims to predict and explain major consequences and other correlates of interpersonal acceptance and rejection worldwide"
What I said still applies, but only for any content that is copied like this. You have to summarize and paraphrase, otherwise it is plagiarism at best and copyright infringement at worst. Although you could make an argument it's the most concise and precise way to describe it. Or make it a quote. However, I would say that I am not familiar with the topic and this explanation did not really help my understanding that much, so it should be rewritten for a general reader anyway. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:48:14, 24 February 2020 review of draft by DougHill


I'm confused. The latest reviewer, User:Praxidicae, states that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Yet every claim on the page cites a reliable (and independent) source. What are we doing wrong?

The previous reviewer, User:WikiAviator, states that "the notability is already proven. What you need is to improve the format (like more on his personal life)". Aren't we liable to make WP:BLP violations with information on his personal life? If we have the notability and sourcing (which I understand to be the issues here), shouldn't this move into article space? After all, we should always be improving the article. The article already has more that many stubs.

DougHill (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DougHill: I think that you should be aiming to just be better than stubs. Yes, we are liable of BLP violations but personal life is necessary for biographies or else you're writing a resume. After fixing this, then you can resumbit it and I will publish it if everything's okay. WikiAviator (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:51:34, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Aliciasue.cote


Aliciasue.cote (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was wondering why my draft for Draft:Take A Daytrip was declined again. I have added secondary sources to the page describing and accounting the duo as producers and I have cited various accounts of where the duo has been credited for their work. What else can be added to help this page get approved?

Be advised that Instagram is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:47, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Mingdaoisgod

The things in the article is already verified, Eg Dan does have 2 million followers on Instagram, and he has 2 million subscribers on youtube.

Hes story from Hong Kong to Canada To Millionaire is also true, hes net worth is 50 million according to famousebirthday. He has lots of companies including Dan Lok Media, Closers.com, Copywriters.com.

He is the leader of a global movement, high income skills, its a concept he stands for and he has lots of programs and courses that teaches that, the reviews and feedbacks are very possitive.

Hes books is best selling in some catagory of books according to Amazon ranking.

He has been interviewed in lots of news, channels, magazine, radio because hes rich and famouse. He has been features on lots of sites like forbes.com, entrepreneures.com, inc.com, fox business...

All that is true, please suggest what i could edit on. Mingdaoisgod (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linked In, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Amazon, and his own website are not suitable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:44, 24 February 2020 review of submission by BramsKK


My draft was submitted 2 weeks ago and was denied the reason stated was: Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. I checked and it seems that I am in line with wiki guidelines for inline citations. The page is on the first lady of my country all references are from our local legitimate and reputable news outlets and official government websites. Given the above-mentioned reasons could you please assist me on where I went wrong and how I can correct this asap. thank you

BramsKK (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Early Life and Career" section has no sources, "Marriage and Children" section has no sources, "Office of the First Lady 2018- Present" section has no sources, and the whole tone of the draft is promotional in nature. Theroadislong (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:46, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Liveshirdi


Liveshirdi (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liveshirdi: This is blatant advertising; there is nothing we can help you with. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:49, 24 February 2020 review of submission by ReadingRed

Hello. My draft for the author Talia Hibbert was recently declined, and the reason that was given was I did not show significant coverage of her in reliable, independent, secondary sources. In my list of sources I have pieces published by NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, Entertainment Weekly, among others. Some of these pieces solely focus on Talia Hibbert's work, while others discuss her in what I would categorize as more than a passing mention. I'm wondering how many more of these types of sources I would need for this page to be considered a publishable article because I felt confident submitting my draft with what I had. ReadingRed (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:05, 24 February 2020 review of submission by 68.103.78.155

I Put in 3 Sources that they are true from newspaper and tv websites and it says that those 3 are true statements. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 68.103.78.155 (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:56, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Sammy singhh


Sammy singhh (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


19:21:13, 24 February 2020 review of submission by 198.17.32.188

This organization is a growing organization helping thousands of those living in the impoverished country of Bangladesh where most of the world's clothing is exported and has almost 40% of its population living in poverty and 12% living in extreme poverty. BhaatBank is helping feed the poor of Bangladesh which has provided a considerable impact in the country. They have over 1500 volunteers and are expected to expand to over 10,000 in the coming years, the work that these people have done with clothing drives and the distributions of everything given to them is amazing. 198.17.32.188 (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]



I'm a family historian for the Ron Mickel family. Ron was a business man in the 1960's who had several businesses including a carry-out, a Fine Art Gallery, and a hardware store when he began selling custom cut frame moulding via magazine mail-order. His was the first company to start selling picture frames in this manner. Business boomed in the 1970's and 1980's and a large scale custom picture frame business was launched. Then when the internet came around in the 1990's, it morphed into the world's first online picture frame company. Today, this has become a two billion dollar industry. The reason you can find cited publications on American Frame is because everything is online now. Please check the history of this company before you reject the significance of it in the world of culture.

Thank you. Valerie Kopp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.251.90.252 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:07:28, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Chris.cornerstone


Thank you, editors, for your guidance in helping me to write an entry for the organization Cornerstone International Group. But I must admit to becoming depressed by the repeated reasons put forward for not accepting my entry. A quick note on me. I have been a business writer for many years and I learned my craft as a daily journalist and ultimately daily columnist for one of Canada's top three newspapers. Now for the sources of my depression. 1. Bias. There is a boilerplate text that begins: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia" which I believe editors tend to reach for a little too eagerly. This has been the opening salvo on every rejection and, since possibly the first, is simply not true. The current text is entirely factual and written from a neutral point of view inline with other industry peers published in Wikipedia. The latest editorial comment implying no change in five revs is particularly egregious and reflects badly on the author ans an apparent lack of understanding of the business under discussion. . There is clearly a downside to "community editing."

2. Validation. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. I'm sure you receive many comments on this. I fully understand that you have to define "notable" but you must be aware of the flaws in your criteria. Gray's "gem of purest ray serene' is still notable though no-one ever sees it, never mind writes about it in a "reliable source". One reason why Cornerstone has few references is because it has independent members in 36 countries who tend to be more newsworthy than the parent organization that binds them. I believe the references I have been able to give meet your standards. " Forbes Media is an American business magazine publishing original articles on finance, industry, investing and marketing. It was founded 102 years ago and reaches 19 million people. " Scanlon Hunt Media is 25 years old and is focussed on the HR and Talent Management Industries. " Huffpost (The Huffington Post) is a widely cited American news and opinion website and blog, with localized and international editions. It was launched in 2005 and attracts 40 millilon visitors monthly " AESC. This is not a news organization but an association of firms in the Retained Executive Search business for which it is the global authority. Membership criteria are stringent. An original interview of the Cornerstone Chairman by the AESC CEO can reasonably be considered "notable". AESC has been accepted as a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia entries of three of our peers. Since the references given are specific, the latest editorial criticism seems to be there should be more than seven: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". Please refer Randstad India (3 references), Whitehead Mann (4 references) Spencer Stuart (5 references)

3. Who's running the store? I have not found any explanation of the editing philosophy or function or whether in fact there is a control process. If there is someone at Wikipedia responsible for the qualification of editors, I would appreciate being able to discuss this further. In particular, after having reviewed a dozen or more Wikipedia entries, I see no justification for this entry not being accepted.


Chris.cornerstone (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.cornerstone: I've taken a fresh look at the draft. I have cleaned it up a bit. However I am not sure why the organisation belongs in an encyclopedia. We don't have articles about every organisation. At the moment this just looks like you're intent on publicity for the organisation, which is against Wikipedia's terms of use. I know there are other articles that you think are less worthy than yours, but that's not a valid argument. If we have a number of articles that don't meet the criteria that the Wikipedia community has come up with then we certainly don't want more of the same. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have also declined it for being an advert too, lines like "Members are recognized leaders in global executive search and leadership advisory solutions." is straight out of the marketing department! Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:30, 24 February 2020 review of submission by 173.198.42.6

Additional information has been included. 173.198.42.6 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@173.198.42.6: Your additions haven't helped show how this station is notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 25

01:31:04, 25 February 2020 review of submission by HsChamberlain

An article I submitted was reviewed and declined on the grounds that the citations did not meed minimum standards. The comment stated that footnotes must be used. My article included footnotes. I added a citation I felt was necessary and resubmitted the article. The second review was also declined and the reviewer left the following comment: "It was outlined to the page creator where all inline citations were needed and this was resubmitted without being fixed Sulfurboy." If there was indeed an effort to "outline" where the article needed citations, it was certainly not made immediately obvious. I am more than happy to correct, properly format, or add citations as necessary. However, it remains unclear what exactly is problematic about the footnotes or inline citations in the original article. Thank you.

HsChamberlain (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:56:49, 25 February 2020 review of draft by Daphinevadhera


Hi Team, the article is in review for a long time. I have made a log of changes to make it Wikipedia worthy. Please share your thoughts.

Daphinevadhera (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daphinevadhera There are thousands of draft waiting for review; reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers, so you will need to be patient. Just looking at it quickly, I'm not clear on how this development meets the special definition of notability; the draft does little more than state that the development exists. Wikipedia articles must do more than that, summarizing the significant coverage given to a subject by independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 331dot for sharing your thoughts. If you just do a google search for Hiranandani Parks Oragadam, you will find the amount of interest generated by users for this project. Apart from the development, the page also carries a brief history of the project with references from independent reliable sources and I have also added some more information about other details like Green Base with reliable references. Regards Daphinevadhera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I re-reviewed it. I concur with 331dot and previous previous reviewers. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:27, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Lottie1306

Hi there - I have submitted the draft page three times now and each time stripping the content right back in accordance with the feedback I have been given. Having compared my submission for the page titled "MAISON de SABRÉ" to other pages of a similar nature, I feel we are very much in line with the tone of voice, factualness and referencing as the others. I would appreciate some more detailed feedback as to why my page keeps getting rejected and what we can do to get it across the line for publishing. Thanks so much in advance for your help! Lottie1306 (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lottie1306 If you work for or represent this business, you must formally comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. In the draft, you should remove everything cited to the business's website, Wikipedia articles should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. I see at least one blog cited; blogs are not usually reliable sources as they usually lack a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. The buzzfeed source is also inappropriate. If there are not a sufficient amount of independent reliable sources with significant coverage, the business would not merit an article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:50:17, 25 February 2020 review of submission by 167.192.187.68


167.192.187.68 (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@167.192.187.68: Do you have a specific question about something? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:33:01, 25 February 2020 review of draft by Minjah


I am not quite sure what the problem with the sources is. The fact that they are in Finnish? Are they marked wrong? I can't do anything about the language as it is a Finnish person the article is about... Minjah (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Minjah: This is a biography and as such everything in it has to be cited and no content is allowed that does not appear in reliable sources (no personal websites or autobiographies). There are many sentences in the draft that have no citation attached, so it is unclear which sources were used for those. Sources being in Finnish is fine. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:08:06, 25 February 2020 review of draft by Vdroulia


Hi, I see that my draft for ACSR: Aids and Cancer Specimen Resource was declined for submission. I added more sources and I'm hoping this does the trick. Is there anything else I can do?

Thanks!

Vdroulia (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vdroulia You've added references, but it isn't clear what they are referencing because you don't have any inline citations. Please read WP:CITE for information on this. The mission statement should be removed, as it is impossible to independently verify what an organization's "mission" is. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, not what the subject says about itself.
If you are associated with this orgnaization, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter applies even for unpaid interns/volunteers). 331dot (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:29:23, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Maria Pereira5


In first place thank you for the feedback.

My intention was to create an article that would reveal how important this event is for marketing, especially in Europe. I intended to write an article about one of the most important european marketing event that takes place in Oporto, Portugal, for everyone's interest. In line with what I did there are many other articles like this one: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Summit

How can I do so that my article is accepted by you. Can you please help?

Thank you very much in advance. Maria Pereira5 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The major part of your draft is not written in English this is the English Wikipedia so Portuguese is not acceptable, also Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:53, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Wrestle12345


Sources are now added in and reliable. This is the top American Freestlye Wrestler at his weight and a an Olympic hopeful.

Wrestle12345 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestle12345: Sources have to be independent and in-depth. theopenmat and uwbadgers are short PR-like news snippets, so they are not significant coverage. flowrestling is mostly person's own words, so it's not really independent. As an interview it might tip the scales if there were other quality sources, but on its own it's insufficient. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:27, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Martindrechsler


Hi,

I recently submitted the above article about ecological-economic modelling which however got rejected very soon with the explanation: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

I would like to revise my article to get it into an acceptable form and for this have a couple of questions. I do agree that the article reads like an essay but I am wondering in which way it differs here from numerous other related wiki articles like the ones on ecosystem models or system dynamics. If my article is an essay, what is, e.g., the article on ecosystem models then? Or, how much an essay may an article be to be suitable for Wikipedia? The second recommendation above seems to emphasise the preference of secondary over primary sources. Again taking the article on ecosystem models as an example, the related wiki articles I read contain as many or even more references to primary sources (original scientific research papers); various of these wiki articles also include references to textbooks which might be regarded as secondary sources (?), - as are the books cited in my article. So (how) should I revise my references list? Lastly, a neutral point of view was demanded. I perfectly agree with this requirement, but I cannot find any violation of this in my article. Except that the article presents my personal view on the method of ecological-economic modelling, but how can one write something without a personal view? I would think most Wikipedia articles are based on personal views, and to my understanding for this very reason it is the philosophy of Wikipedia that articles are open to amendments by other authors if these think their views are underrepresented.

To summarise, I would be eager to revise my article to meet the Wikipedia standards, but frankly, I have no idea how to do this. The guidelines on how to write a Wikipedia article which I had consulted before drafting my article, are too general to be of help here. So I'd be glad if you could give me some specific advice.

Best, Martindrechsler

Martindrechsler (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martindrechsler: In short, Wikipedia articles should be 0% essay. The relevant policy is the linked no original research -- everything has to be supported by sources. Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone, but only within the policies and community guidelines. Reducing bias and representing sources proportionally is the goal, but not adding personal views or disproportionate coverage of alternate views. Other articles, especially on obscure or specialized topics, often have issues, so you should be careful using them as examples (most were never approved through a formal process like this). Ecosystem model looks like it cites almost everything and states facts directly without any speculation. Research papers may or may not be primary sources, depending if they are directly connected with a topic and which content is actually used. They may or may not be reliable, depending on authors, peer review and publisher. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Martindrechsler: Also be wary of citing what you see as other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. See other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:45:34, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Circabambam


Circabambam (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Circabambam: Do you have a specific question? The band is is not notable as far as we can tell from the sources provided. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:33, 25 February 2020 review of submission by Template:Netabomani


Hi, I submitted my first draft for an article on Stephanie Dinkins and it was rejected because the subject was deemed not to be notable enough. I improved the citations on the page in order to denote notability and was wondering if someone could let me know if I'm on the right track. This is an artist who is featured in recognized museums, institutions, publications, radio, television etc. and I want to make sure other people can learn about them on Wikipedia. Thank you.

Netabomani (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:38, 25 February 2020 review of submission by VAnalytica

How can I make this better. It is important for his online precense to excist on wikipedia. +

VAnalytica (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VAnalytica First, you must change your username immediately, as usernames cannot be that of a business or organization- please visit either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do so. Second, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory). Regarding your draft, Wikipedia has no interest in aiding anyone's career or "online presence", or in enhancing search results for them. This is not social media. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable actor. Wikipedia has no interest in what a subject(or its representative) wants to say about itself. If this person does not meet our notability criteria, they would not merit an article here at this time and no amount of editing can change that. Wikipedia also prefers that independent editors write articles and not those with a conflict of interest. If you just want to tell the world about your client, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:40:49, 25 February 2020 review of submission by 84.24.122.95

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.--> Can You Move this page to Non-draft? 84.24.122.95 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given an answer to this question on your draft itself. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

04:57:22, 26 February 2020 review of draft by Rleighty855


Rleighty855 (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I could really use help with my article. I fixed the references by adding footnotes using the citation template. However, my article keeps getting denied. I could use some specific suggestions or clear examples as to what I'm doing wrong. Thank you! Rleighty855 (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:59:03, 26 February 2020 review of submission by Yimfinity


I am requesting a re-review on the basis that the prior reviewer's comments that this article is not notable and is promotion are inaccurate. On the point of notability, plenty of third party (non-press release) sources have have been cited in the article that primarily provide background. These sources including Boston Globe, ATM Marketplace, Yahoo! Finance, Philly Inquirer, Harvard Crimson, etc. On the point of promotion, I focused only on background material that is verifiable and heavily cited throughout the article. Also, I noted my association with the Article on my user's Wikipedia page.

Yimfinity (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yimfinity I would concur with the review. The sources you offer seem to be press releases or routine announcements, which do not establish that your company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. The sources must offer significant coverage that they themselves have chosen on their own to write, not simply publishing a press release or routine announcement. You also cite a Wikipedia article, which should not be done as Wikipedia is not a reliable source(this promotes circular reasoning). Company representatives usually have a hard time writing about their companies, as it is extremely difficult for the representative to divorce themselves from what they know about their company and what it says about itself. Wikipedia is only interested in what others say about your company. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:26:32, 26 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by DanielMaithya


Hi, how can I have this biography published on Wikipedia? It shows it's in draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abdiqani_Sheikh_Omar_Hassan

DanielMaithya (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=942722036"