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 Brenchristo (talk | contribs) at 13:13, 9 March 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)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


March 3

please help on how to submit this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ummeeta_Rabiu

05:05:00, 3 March 2020 review of submission by Ummeetaa x


Ummeetaa x (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ummeetaa x, Your article is currently submitted and awaiting review. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:55:33, 3 March 2020 review of submission by RightWrite1986


RightWrite1986 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RightWrite1986, You need to read the links provided in the declines on the subject's page. Some of the sources (e.g. facebook) show that you have not yet done so. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I could really use help regarding my article. I feel it has been greatly supported. What can I do to edit it so that it is accepted?

Request on 06:43:29, 3 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Carl J. Weber


I would like to feel confident that I am going along just fine in putting together my article. Carl J. Weber (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Carl J. Weber (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is exactly the same as before. This is an essay with unclear sourcing/attribution. Encyclopedic articles have to state facts and precisely attribute them. It is not at all clear in the draft which are sourced facts and which are your added prose. Stuff like "need to also be looked at", "Well documented", "assumed to be historically authentic" etc. is not appropriate writing. This is something you would see in an academic paper/essay where you are allowed to combine sources and explain your reasoning or propose interpretation. Wikipedia allows no original research and no combining of sources in that way. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An additional problem is that it seems the Illinois Historical Journal is the only source that actually directly discusses the subject, all the other cited sources are used for synthesis and original research by the draft author. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:54:36, 3 March 2020 review of submission by G antonakakis

Dears,

I would like you to re-review this draft "Karatzis Antonios" Also we have an other refererence from the "www.times.com" Below you will find the digital magazine. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H_Ov-ADs3UBWzT0lG5lI38KNDwpkvL-h/view Can you value this reference and add it at draft? Also at references we have some donations to hospitals. I would like to tell me what i have to do and what i have to change to be public this draft. I want your help for this G antonakakis (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, I suggest you find another topic to write about, there are many thousands of articles that require improvement. Theroadislong (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:27:34, 3 March 2020 review of submission by Annisd

I added reliable source. Let me know if more changes are required. Thanks, Annisd (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources; the sources that you have offered are press release type sources(which are not independent) and routine business announcements(which are also not independent and are only a brief mention). 331dot (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:50, 3 March 2020 review of submission by Eddy thoker


Eddy thoker (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please help how to get submission approval in wikipedia

16:23:10, 3 March 2020 review of submission by Bsitts09


I do not understand why this page was rejected. Almost all coordinators in division one college football have a Wikipedia page. I think the reasoning for the rejection is incorrect.

Bsitts09 (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bsitts09 The notability guidelines (WP:NGRIDIRON) state that they do not apply to assistant coaches(which would include coordinators). That means you would have to show that the person meets the more general notability guidelines for biographies or is also notable for something else. Other coordinators were likely notable for something else besides their coordinating work. In any event, other things exist and each article or draft is judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:00:12, 3 March 2020 review of submission by Wwhitman1819


Wwhitman1819 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what can I change to get my article published? Scarlett Sabet is a bonafide published poet. If I just list basic info (where she was born, educated, and the titles of her publications) will this pass?

All the best,

Whitman

Wwhitman1819, I'm deleting my previous comment as I realize I somehow clicked on the wrong article. I'll try taking a look at the article in a bit. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok after taking a look I have seen that you have provided more "journalistic" sources. Actually, your article might very well qualify for a Wikipedia article at this point. Some points that I would address before resubmitting it. Use your reliable and independent sources more (the two reliable/independent sources I see are [1] and [2], although the second one is an interview, so maybe not completely independent?) and for more contentious claims, and the sources that are generally unreliable for basic factual information (if at all). Delete any Daily Mail sources, as their articles are very unreliable. Also I would remove "overcitation" in some areas. For instance, you do not need four citations to support that "Her partner is Jimmy Page of Led Zeplin." Let me know if you have any further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:43:15, 3 March 2020 review of submission by Jbfitzgerald


Jbfitzgerald (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jbfitzgerald, What's your question? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:39:05, 3 March 2020 review of draft by Ednei Campos De Jesus De Brito


Ednei Campos De Jesus De Brito (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ednei Campos De Jesus De Brito, What do you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Need Help In The Draft Revision How I Do?!

23:30:40, 3 March 2020 review of draft by Tienasekharan


Tienasekharan (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article I wrote has been rejected on the following grounds - “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.”

I have found the book referenced in the following articles/ academic parapets but am not sure how to include them in the content. Should I just mention these at the end with the references despite them not adding to the article?


The medical AI insurgency: what physicians must know about data to practice with intelligent machines, by D. Douglas Millar https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-019-0138-5 

Why we’re failing to regulate the most powerful tech we’ve ever faced, by Gary Grossman Edelman https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/01/why-were-failing-to-regulate-the-most-powerful-tech-weve-ever-faced/  

What Will Really Determine the Winner of the U.S.-China Rivalry Over A.I.?, by Annie-Marie Slaughter https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/united-states-china-rivalry-artificial-intelligence.html   In this interview with MarTech CCO, he mentions he is reading Big Nine https://martechseries.com/mts-insights/interviews/martech-interview-with-henry-iversen-cco-and-co-founder-at-boost-ai/   Nationalism is not our biggest threat, technology is, by James Poulus https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/29/nationalism-not-biggest-threat-technocracy/  

Dessertation - Ideological Misalignment in the Discourse(s) of Higher Education: Comparing University Mission Statements with Texts from Commercial Learning Analytics Providers https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2754&context=td   Open-Sourcing Civil Society, by Vlad Tarko https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-34937-0_10

Essay- Opportunities and Risks for Citizen Science in the Age of Artificial Intelligence Authors: Luigi Ceccaroni , James Bibby, Erin Roger, Paul Flemons, Katina Michael, Laura Fagan, Jessica L. Oliver https://theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org/articles/10.5334/cstp.241/  

Hi Tienasekharan. Being used as a reference in statements like "This growth in AI publications has prompted researchers to critically explore the potential promises and risks of AI (Webb 2019)" is not the same as being the subject of the work. Such references don't help satisfy criterion #1 of WP:NBOOK, so I don't see a reason to mention the above articles/papers in the draft.
Although the draft is not a summary-only description of the work (it has a brief reception section with a few comments of the flap copy variety), it is almost all synopsis. The draft needs a more extensive summary of published analysis of the book to justify a stand alone article separate from the existing Wikipedia article about the author. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

02:39:51, 4 March 2020 review of draft by 94.192.4.85


94.192.4.85 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit credible references ?

Take a look at other Wikipedia articles (click random article to see some examples). You should see that blue citations appear, like this: [1]. You can create these citations by clicking the "cite" button on the top of the editor window (and can find more information on this here: [3]). But remember that these citations need to be reliable and independent of the subject of the article. For notability purposes, you should have multiple citations that are independent, reliable, and cover the subject of the article significantly (that is, not a mere reference). For more information on these requirements, see WP:Notability. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Example Domain". example.com. Retrieved 2020-03-04.

05:20:52, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Prajnadutta


Prajnadutta (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


07:09:14, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Renukaapollo

I have to create Wikipedia Page for my company Apollo Aerospace Components. The one I had written was rejected. Kindly help me how to write the company page. I have all the reference links also for supporting the information. Renukaapollo (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renukaapollo: Wikipedia requires more than just links that support information. We need multiple reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. Please also WP:DISCLOSE your connection with the subject as per instructions on that page. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:42, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Kamimashita


Hello, my request to create a new page was recently denied. The reason given for the denial is as follows:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

To create this page, I referenced other awards wiki pages, including Crunchyroll's. If you take a look at their references, they literally only reference their own site and social media properties. I have included an image below: https://i.imgur.com/mjn6JVz.png

In fact, the references I have provided include more secondary sources than their page, an article from ANN which is an independent respected news website.

I would just like to understand how I can better format the page, and if Crunchyroll's Anime Awards page is in compliance of this rule, and if so, where my misunderstanding is.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Kamimashita (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamimashita: Hi! In short: Crunchyroll is a notable topic. Crunchyroll Anime Awards is not a notable topic. The reason we have it as a separate page is because it is too long to be in the main article. In contrast, /r/anime is not a notable topic. Even if it was, you would expand that article first and then WP:SPLIT the content instead of making a draft. So in this case, we judge /r/anime Awards as a stand-alone topic on its own without a parent article. And it does not appear to be a notable topic, not unless you have multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, as specified in that message. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:17:50, 4 March 2020 review of submission by MohammedKMS


Hello,

I have been informed that the page I created (British Libyans) has been created. however whenever I google 'British Libyans' it never appears as a google search result. In addition I have tried to google the entry 'British Libyans Wikipedia', but still no sight of the page in the results which deems my created page as useless since no one can access it upon research.

It has been a while since to finally get it approved and I was happy to finally see it online, although I understand the huge backlog and appreciate your efforts, but was wondering if there is something I can do to see it in appear in google searches.

Please if you can advise on where is the problem.

thank you and all the best,

MohammedKMS (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MohammedKMS: - hi there. New articles can't be seen in search engines until they've been a) been patrolled by a new page patroller, which authorises it to be indexed by search engines and b) a search engine actually indexing it.
I believe a has happened (the system should have notified you) as I'm not getting an option to review it when I go to the page and page info states it is indexable. At that stage indexing would usually be pretty quick by the search engines, but we don't have any control over that aspect. If you check your notifications you might be able to see when it was patrolled. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:56:46, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Radmaipid


Hello! I need help with my article. Can you please guide me with specific steps to follow? The response I get is too vague and complicated. I just don't know how to make the necessary changes. Thank you for the understanding and consideration.


Radmaipid (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radmaipid The article seems to be written as more of a information essay that just tells about Mr. MacFarlane rather than an encyclopedia article. It has much promotional/opinionated language("MacFarlane is a dedicated husband and father", "MacFarlane’s business and speaking career began in earnest", "Not willing to end his athletic career on such a low note", etc.). Wikipedia articles need to sound pretty dry and not have excess descriptive language in them. Wikipedia articles should only summarize what independent reliable sources state about a subject. It also appears at least some of your sources are not appropriate; such as an interview with Mr. MacFarlane, which is a primary source. The article should only describe what others unaffiliated with him say about him, not what he says about himself, routine announcements about his work, or brief mentions. You may wish to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about what Wikipedia is looking for. Successfully writing a new article is the hardest possible task on Wikipedia. It takes much effort, time, and practice.
If you are affiliated with Mr. MacFarlane, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and (if you are paid)paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:33:07, 4 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Visuseditor


Dear Article for Creation Team,

I wanted this page to be created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thomas_Ertl


I got this answer two times (first from Whispering Dec' 6, 2019 and then from Sulfurboy Feb' 28, 2020: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations.

There is really no additional source, that could be cited. I used footnotes wherever possible. I don't know what to do. It's just an english version of the german article about Thomas Ertl. I work with him, and know him in person. He asked me to set up this translation.

Could this EN page please be created?

Kind regards,

Leon Kokkoliadis, Visuseditor

Visuseditor (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visuseditor Please understand that the German Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia(and other language versions), each with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. The main issue seems to be that while you have references, it is not clear what the references are citing because you have very few inline citations- citations within the text of the article(as footnotes). Please read about citing sources at WP:CITE.
Since you state that you work with the man you are writing about, you must review and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:39, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Tina Rosco


Upon your rejection notice, I re-read my proposed article and noticed it contained many non-neutral sounding phrases and adjectives, and a few sentences of information that were extraneous and not needed. I have gone through and attempted to remove all non-neutral sounding phrases, adjectives and information. Sometimes it is hard to notice those things until it is pointed out, but I am getting better at it and I think this morning's revisions to the article demonstrate an improvement. With articles about this company in several different countries and in notable sources like Forbes Magazine and Gulf Times, I believe they are considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. Your feedback is appreciated. Thank you for your time. Tina Rosco (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Tina Rosco[reply]

Tina Rosco (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Rosco, Your article has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulfurboy, thanks for getting back to me. Is there anything I can do or try in order to avoid having this draft be a waste? I spent a lot of time on it and I think it's good now, and should be reconsidered. Please let me know. Thank you for your expertise. Tina Rosco (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Tina Rosco[reply]

17:49:17, 4 March 2020 review of draft by Ufdent98


Hello! I'm writing for two purposes:

1. WikiAviator wrote:
Also, please do not present the article like a lost as you did in "Television Career" section. I don't understand what "like a lost" means. If it means list... Then I'm unsure how to write any more formally.

2. I'm unsure about what parts of the article aren't formal enough. Could someone please point me to specifics?

Thank you very much! steve schroeter

Ufdent98 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ufdent98 as for your first point I think it's just a simple typo WikiAviator made - I believe they meant "like a list" KylieTastic (talk)
  • Thanks, that's a typo and it means list. You have to write in prose, and you're not supposed to break his bio into too many sections and if a section is too long that you have to break it up, you're not logging it event by event. The section's content isn't that long, so you should link these contents together with the appropriate sequencing words to make it read like a prose instead of a shopping list with un-linked events. WikiAviator (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:24, 4 March 2020 review of draft by TamaraJW2020


I am requesting help as my draft has been rejected as it says additional references are required and the submission is written from the point of view of the company. However, everything written is a fact, not opinion, and many of the references are from high-quality journals, as well as some news pieces. I am not sure why this hasn't been accepted. TamaraJW2020 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamaraJW2020, Have you read what is required by us to show notability WP:NCORP and what are considered reliable sources WP:RS? And just because something is factual, doesn't mean it can't be written with inherent bias and undue weight on certain viewpoints. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:10, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Emmalee03


This violinist, Yesong Sophie Lee, is one of the most popular young upcoming violinists. She has over 10 pages of google searches, and has concerts regularly. I am a big fan of hers and would like to create a wikipedia page about her. The last reviewer said that she was not notable enough for a wikipedia page, but that is not true. I have gone to one of her signing events and there was a really long line, and the security had to cut the line off because it was so long. She also was the youngest winner of the Menuhin International Violin Competition (considered the olympics of vioiln) when she was 12, and has performed all over the world since. She is all over youtube and I really hope you reconsider having this draft made into an article. She is a classical violinist, and classical music is less popular than pop songs, but it's no less important. Yesong Sophie Lee is such a wonderful young musician and deserves a wikipedia page and I'm sure a lot of people will agree. THank you and hopefully, you will reconsider my submission. THank you so much and have a great day! Emmalee03 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalee03, Your comments show that you might not have taken the time to review our notability requirements, see WP:NARTIST. Someone being all over youtube, the amount of hits they have in google, and/or your personal opinion of them are not valid criterion that we employ. A previous editor has outright rejected the article, which means the draft will not be considered any further. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:53, 4 March 2020 review of submission by JennaNeiterman

Hi! For this article, we are having trouble toeing the line between being self-promotional while also proving that the subject is noteworthy enough to be published in Wikipedia! I did receive some feedback about editing the awards section, which I am happy to do. Is there a way that it can be outlined/marked up so that we can see what is interpreted as self-promotional? Also, in regards to the comment on linking to LinkedIn, if a website is reliable, but shouldn't be included in an external link, how do we reference that information? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites I intepreted this as being ok since it linked to her LinkedIn page! JennaNeiterman (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JennaNeiterman, Who is the "we" in that post? Do you work for a PR/marketing firm or for the subject? Sulfurboy (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:36, 4 March 2020 review of submission by JianSun2008


JianSun2008 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JianSun2008, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:32:58, 4 March 2020 review of submission by 123.201.225.143

because we have many other references if below references are sufficiant for article creation so please move to Main Article space [1] [2] [3] [4]

References

  1. ^ https://conf.researchr.org/profile/VMCAI-2017/swarupsolanki
  2. ^ https://www.todayindia.live/2020/02/digital-expert-swarup-solanki.html
  3. ^ https://www.worldexpressnews.in.net/2020/03/image-credit-by-today-india-news-swarup.html
  4. ^ https://www.bhaskar.com/news/HAR-OTH-MAT-latest-gharaunda-news-033006-1834854-NOR.html

123.201.225.143 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:37:53, 4 March 2020 review of draft by JordanDRobinson


Hello Everyone! I've reviewed the beginner guide and just want to make sure I'm on the right track. My feedback was that my article does not meet the in-line requirements for citations. Before I begin to alter this, I was hoping perhaps I could ask for further information in regards to what needs to be changed. For example, I see that one auto-generated footnote has a red notice regarding a missing title. I'm not certain how to fix that, or if it is considered a problem, both the source and title are clear.

Or have I over-cited? (is that possible?)

I DO have a reference that is problematic that I can see regarding Ancestry.com, as it requires a login that will clearly not be available to the average reader. So I can remove that, and I have a hard time believing the family information listed there will be disputed as it is directly from both the subject and a genetic/family tree website.

I know you are all incredibly busy and I appreciate your time and consideration being as new as I am to this, but overall I felt that the majority of the facts put forth were very clearly backed up by clear and legitimate sources, so any insights you could provide would be wonderful.

Thank You!!


JordanDRobinson (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JordanDRobinson. I've fixed the reference that was missing a title for you.
You may not use Ancestry.com or similar genealogy websites as a source, nor may you use information you obtained directly from Mr. Kitchen. Primary source public documents on Ancestry.com may not be used to support assertions about a living person. The user-generated content on the site may not be used because such content is not reliable. Personal communications from Kitchen may not be used because they are not published. Unless you can cite published, reliable, secondary sources for the material, you will have to remove the entire biography section and corresponding portions of the infobox. It is not a question of whether the information is true or not, but whether it is verifiable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You WorldBruce!! I'll see what I can do about potentially finding public records or something of that sort, and remove whatever I can't verify before I resubmit. Even this gives me a better indication of how strict I need to be with citations, so I'll keep that in mind and go back through it. Your help/advice is greatly appreciated! (also I hope I did even this response correctly...)

21:59:42, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Spiritletters


Hello, Wiki citations were removed and replaced as advised. Please assist with further edits needed? Thanks! Spiritletters (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritletters (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia references are still there and none of the other sources are suitable, the draft has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

Request on 05:54:00, 5 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Toorkhan Taj



Toorkhan Taj (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

Is it possible to write a page for your own achievement or work. Which is already available on other internet platforms. Like Google play store etc.

If not them is there any alternative? Or is there anyone can write it for me. Or why someone has to write a page about my game. Why not me? Why I get objection that is advertisement or promotion? In fact everything is written about anything is promotion or advertisement. Thanks

Toorkhan Taj Wikipedia is not a platform for people to tell the world about themselves or what they do. That's what social media is for. Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources state about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about itself or its own work. You have what we call a conflict of interest. If you just want to tell the world about your work, you should use social media or some other alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:54, 5 March 2020 review of submission by DipSagarregmi12


DipSagarregmi12 (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:54:33, 5 March 2020 review of submission by DipSagarregmi12


DipSagarregmi12 (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DipSagarregmi12, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:04:32, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Prajnadutta

Prajnadutta I have removed your draft from this page, as it is not necessary to place it here. Looking at it, you seem to be attempting to tell the world about yourself- please read the autobiography policy to learn why this is not a good idea. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject, not what the subject says about itself. This is usually very hard for people to do about themselves, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:32:13, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Basilseo


Basilseo (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basilseo You don't ask a question, but the advice you have already been given is quite correct. If Joboy is your client, you must review and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:49, 5 March 2020 review of draft by StephaniePolystream


I am trying to submit a new page on wikipedia, however, it has been declined. Please can you assist? I have added relevant references and hyperlinks to the page.


StephaniePolystream (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StephanisPolystream You were given some advice when you draft was declined. The sources you have offered seem to be press releases or routine announcements; these do not establish that this company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. What is required are independent reliable sources with significant coverage, written by sources that have chosen on their own to give significant coverage of the company itself(not just its products). You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
If you work for this company, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:12, 5 March 2020 review of submission by DipSagarregmi12


DipSagarregmi12 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Why my article is rejected ?[reply]

DipSagarregmi12 I assume this refers to your sandbox- you were given extensive explanation there. Is there something about it that you do not understand? 331dot (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Actually i am new to wikipedia ...What i did not understand the reason from sandbox also DipSagarregmi12 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing how this man meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician or a notable songwriter. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:DipSagarregmi12/sandbox was rejected because the topic is not notable. Nepalireport is a self-published blog, so not a reliable source. Saptahik is reliable, but that article appears to be churnalism, so lacking in independence. Nepali Times Australia is of dubious reliability. It does not appear to have any connection to the reliable Nepali Times. Self-published YouTube videos do nothing to help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:43, 5 March 2020 review of draft by Djblackwood


I don't understand why my page Draft:Rider's Harbour has been rejected when there are other similar pages such as Barton, Newfoundland and Labrador which have less information and no sources. These are both abandoned communities in Newfoundland. How is one different from the other?

djblackwood (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djblackwood They aren't, so I have proposed the other article for deletion. Beware in citing other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see WP:OSE. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address inappropriate articles when they are pointed out. Any article must do more than describe the mere existence of something, reliable sources with significant coverage must also be provided; the article must summarize those sources. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of such pages (see List of ghost towns in Newfoundland and Labrador), that constitute a significant part of the history of Newfoundland. Simply deleting them all is a rather arbitrary and unreasonable solution. Once again Wikipedia'a arcane rules are driving contributors away rather than encouraging their contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djblackwood (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djblackwood: The applicable arcane rule (a.k.a. notability guideline) is WP:GEOLAND. Under it, even abandoned places are typically presumed to merit a stand alone article, so long as they were once populated and legally recognized. Any content, however, must be verifiable in reliable sources, and two of the three cited sources in Draft:Rider's Harbour were not reliable. You may be able to use the two paragraphs on page 597 of the Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador, volume 4, or some of the books in [4], to either bring the draft up to scratch or to improve Random Island, which makes many unsourced statements. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:45:39, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Keglemitch1

I didn't understand very well the reasons why my draft about kid unboxing is not correct. Is it a problem of references and sources? How can I adjust it? Keglemitch1 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keglemitch1, The concern is that there already seems to be an existing article at Unboxing which is essentially covering the same issue. I think that any useful content could be condensed into one or two parapgraphs and added to the Unboxing article, instead of being a separate article. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:16, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Antiques26


Hello, my draft of Draft:WorthPoint was rejected for notability and I'm hoping that I can get some additional feedback as to what kind of sourcing mistakes I've made. There are many more possible references out there, but I have read the standards and am not clear on why the existing ones fail so I don't know which others may be helpful to add. Thank you!

Antiques26 (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antiques26 The sources do not have the significant coverage of this company itself that is required, they are all brief coverage of things the company has done, not of the company itself. One is an interview with the company CEO, which is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:46:30, 5 March 2020 review of draft by Adavolo


Hi, I'm trying to publish an article about one of the logistics company that is based on the blockchain technology, but my article was declined because of sources and the style of the article. I pointed out the sources as a website when indeed it was news. I want to know if I will rewrite the article and name those sources as news, will my submission be accepted? Adavolo (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adavolo (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adavolo It's difficult to answer you without seeing the improvements you wish to make. It's not just about naming sources, it's about the article content as well, as the article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. If you work for this company in any way, you must declare as a paid editor as well as a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:02, 5 March 2020 review of draft by SageMacG


Hello, I'm an brand-new user so I apologize in advance for being unfamiliar with the methods and systems here. I really appreciate the thorough vetting and dedication to good data, and value the time volunteers put into this platform.

I just had my first article rejected, so I carefully read the critique so I could make the article comply with Wikipedia's policies. However, I'm having trouble understanding how the critique applies to my article. The critique was "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." To address the latter first, all my sources were independent, reliable, published sources and the only material produced by the subject is the 'official site' link in the External links section. To address the former, I believe the only area that reads like an advertisement is "Reviews and Commentary" all of which are independent sources. I've seen other artists pages use this same technique, (for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kelly_(artist)) but I am happy to delete that section if it will make the page publishable.

It would be really helpful if someone could point out specifics of how the content doesn't meet the guidelines.

Thank you so much in advance to anyone who is willing to volunteer their time to help me with this. I'm really trying to do this fairly in spite of my stated COI.

Thank you!

SageMacG (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:23, 5 March 2020 review of draft by MortgageGuru23


Hello! I was wondering if someone could take a look at my draft before I submit it. I feel like I have taken a lot of guidance and fixed many of the issues that other editors have mentioned. I have also confirmed that I am not being paid for my edits (see discussion on my talk page).

Let me know if there's anything more I need to do...

thanks!

MortgageGuru23 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MortgageGuru23 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:05:52, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Guettli


My first reviewer told me this:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Canonicalization#Search engines and SEO. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

I think his reason is not valid since "Canonical URL" is not just important for search engines or SEO. It is important and used for intranets, too. Especially in intranets it makes sense to define canonical URLs. These URLs are the starting points for new employers to discover/learn a new topic.

I think "Canonical URL" has enough value for an own article.

Nevertheless, first reviewer provided useful feedback: It makes sense to provide a hyperlink from "Canonicalization" to the new article "Canonical URL".


Guettli (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:31:56, 5 March 2020 review of draft by Sbarclay000


Hi! I submitted an article for review but was declined with the comment "adv,bio" from DGG. What does this mean? What do I need to change? Please be as specific as possible. Thanks!

Sbarclay000 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbarclay000. I've fixed the way the decline reasons are displayed on Draft:Adam Eli so that you can read all the details there. The short answer is usually that you need to change your topic - write about something else. Wikipedia has over six million subjects to choose from, and nearly all of them need improvement. See Wikipedia:Community portal if you aren't sure where to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:40, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Aditya belnekar07


Aditya belnekar07 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:51:22, 5 March 2020 review of draft by Yesness89


I want to make sure I resubmitted my new draft. I cannot tell if I did.

Yesness89 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:02:09, 5 March 2020 review of submission by 2409:4040:405:4E7A:24F0:C971:7F6:F66F

Help my client to create his wikipedia page 2409:4040:405:4E7A:24F0:C971:7F6:F66F (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:54:56, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Winston16

Hi, Please could you elaborate on the specific reasons why this draft was rejected as there are now enough reputable sources to back-up the information provided in the article. If any more sources are needed please could you specify which ones in order for me to be able to improve the article to a higher standard so that it will be accepted.

Thanks in advance, your assistance is much appreciated

Winston16 Winston16 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

02:33:15, 6 March 2020 review of submission by Johnpaterno


Johnpaterno (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:35:31, 6 March 2020 review of submission by Johnpaterno


Johnpaterno (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:40:20, 6 March 2020 review of draft by 88.119.152.93


88.119.152.93 (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An article about RutOS was rejected. Perhaps you could indicate specific places that I should add and where to edit? Article page address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RutOS

08:04:02, 6 March 2020 review of submission by Ranudas01


Ranudas01 (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:41, 6 March 2020 review of submission by Renukaapollo

I have gathered information about my company page. The page Apollo Aerospace Components is also deleted. Please help me retrieve this page. I want to update information about my company Renukaapollo (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renukaapollo You will need to comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies on your user page. Please read Your First Article to learn what is being looked for- your text was just a promotional piece for your company, with no sources at all. Wikipedia only summarizes the content of independent reliable sources in articles- this does not include republished press releases, staff interviews, routine business announcements, or other primary sources. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:50, 6 March 2020 review of submission by Nazimbnrpk


Nazimbnrpk (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:20:36, 6 March 2020 review of submission by Carscd

I received a response to my paste-up to to my usersandbox that: the material appeared to be a test edit and unworthy of a page in Wikipedia. I drafted the topic in response to a pop-up on a Wikipedia page that said that a page had not yet been created for the subject of the pop up. For context, my draft has links to other Wikipedia pages but no footnote references. I could create some if these are required to provide standing - I thought the article could stand alone within the context of the linked Wikipedia pages. I do not mind that the various links might send readers away from my article: the topic is historical. have encyclopaedic knowledge of the topic and am willing to perservere to publication. Since I am a novice Wikipedia author I would like to know if the next step is forget it or something else. Carscd (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carscd: The sandbox is for drafting articles, not for what you did. You submitted the note in your sandbox as if you wanted it to become an article. Simply paste whatever you have in your word document into your sandbox and submit it for review. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:56:35, 6 March 2020 review of submission by Nazimbnrpk


Nazimbnrpk (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that Nazimullah Agarai Buner is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:16, 6 March 2020 review of submission by 2409:4066:1D:F698:295B:33E:A7A:64EC


2409:4066:1D:F698:295B:33E:A7A:64EC (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:16:09, 6 March 2020 review of submission by Sworrubt

My article submission has been rejected because "it is very exceptional that we consider an individual academic department notable". But the other eight departments in the Faculty of Science and Engineering at The University of Manchester have pages, so I'm just wondering why this one is deemed unacceptable? Sworrubt (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sworrubt Your draft has zero independent sources and also reads like an advert for the department. Theroadislong (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:33:08, 6 March 2020 review of submission by 2A00:23C6:4882:8401:B18D:374:E410:99A5

I believe it should be as it was published in many reliable sources

2A00:23C6:4882:8401:B18D:374:E410:99A5 (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my question is why has this been rejected if he was mentioned in many reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:4882:8401:B18D:374:E410:99A5 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentions are not sufficient. It needs to be significant coverage of the subject. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just a passing mentions, those articles were specifically about the person in draft wholly and exclusively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:4882:8401:B18D:374:E410:99A5 (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't checked the sources, I only commented on "mentions". But looking at them, the articles are about the movie, not the actor. The coverage of actor in the articles is not significant enough. If anything, the movie itself could be notable, although these random churnalism current event hype articles are probably not be enough. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:10:53, 6 March 2020 review of draft by Sanjay1205


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sanjay1205/sandbox all references posted from reliable sources and notable person in tamil film industry Sanjay1205 (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay1205, Except they aren't. Please review WP:RS. You also will need to provide inline citations. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:11, 6 March 2020 review of draft by Sanjay1205


Sanjay1205 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) @surfboy any examples template for this what you mean can ypu explain please need to provide inline citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sanjay1205/sandbox[reply]

Links explaining inline citations have already been provided to you in the decline messages on the draft page.Sulfurboy (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:40, 6 March 2020 review of draft by Dontwantone


I'd like to delete the article on Bob Quaranta and any comments connected to the draft.

Dontwantone (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, I don't think that guy was the original page creator? Iirc, it was an article that was draftified from mainspace and he was just the one that recently was submitting it. I could be remembering wrong though. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user has worked on it since 2011, the user that actually created it hasn't edited since 2009. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:48:16, 6 March 2020 review of draft by 2605:6000:1525:83C5:FC78:563C:8D27:9F99


2605:6000:1525:83C5:FC78:563C:8D27:9F99 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


May I please ask how this page would be different from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Geoghegan? Michael Healey was also an American hero involved in a historically significant event.

Very respectfully submitted.

Other articles should not be cited to justify the existence of yours, see other stuff exists. It is possible the article you cite is not appropriate as well. Merely being involved in a historical event does not necessarily merit any individual an article. An individual merits an article if there is significant coverage of the person in independent reliable sources showing how they meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. WP:BLP1E is also relevant here. Per that guideline, a person does not merit an article:
  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
I don't say these things to minimize the loss of the firefighter, which is horribly tragic. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:55, 6 March 2020 review of submission by Dotanmeirov


Hello, I read as much as I can and revised this contribution many times. I think that this company is important and should be part of Wikipedia. It is genuinely understandable not to write anything that is advertisement. It makes sense that everything should stay factual and to the point. But, I hit a wall with "not qualifying for Wikipedia" This is a company that was presented an award from the state of Israel, By the President Himself, Shimon Peres. If that is not qualifying then what is? I revised the wording to pure facts with nothing else. What should I remove, What should I change? Dotan Meirov --Dotanmeirov (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dotanmeirov (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dotanmeirov, The article has been rejected, which mean it will no longer be further considered. Whether or not it was factual or not doesn't matter. Most advertisements are completely factual. The problem is putting undue weight on accomplishments and awards instead of writing a formal, neutral article The fact that you see nothing wrong with the article shows that you have a debilitating conflict of interest. The article was resubmitted multiple times without seriously addressing the issues and in a manner that shows our policies were not actually read. I would highly advise that if you continue to do paid editing that you take the time to read our policies. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:28:45, 6 March 2020 review of submission by 38.140.155.66


I would like an explanation as to why the article was denied for publication. The stated reason seems arbitrary at best. Seems to me he is as worthy as many others included. 38.140.155.66 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on whether someone is worthy bears zero weight. We have strict notability policies in place. The reviwer has rejected the article as they have determined this subject does not meet those standards. As such, the draft will not be reviewed further. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

05:57:48, 7 March 2020 review of submission by 2409:4073:407:87A3:A5D2:149D:F793:FEA2

The decline template says: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject

She satisfies WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC, subject has significant coverage from reliable sources that is independent of the subject. Another article written by myself (Abhirami Suresh) successfully passed review and I was even complimented. Actually, Amrutha is more notable than Abhirami and has more coverage than her. I tried talking this (now archived) to the reviewer, but did not received a reply. BTW, I did have used few primary sources (interviews) as well but those mainly goes for citing her personal details rather than things that establish her notability. What do you think ? 2409:4073:407:87A3:A5D2:149D:F793:FEA2 (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:INN Sulfurboy (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, OK, keep that aside. What if it is independently analysed ? 2409:4073:20C:64CD:8DDB:66E0:2B55:D7A6 (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't analyzed it. I was pointing out the fallacy in you attempting to bring in another article's notability to compare to this one. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is said in the decline template If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. I came here because I did not got a reply from the reviewer, who now archived it. I can improve a draft only if a reviewer gives feedback on what to improve or what was the issue at the first place. And I don't think this reviewer is qualified enough to review drafts, because when I checked his contributions, out of 44 articles created 2 were deleted within the last 7 months through WP:AFD and WP:PROD, and BLP articles created are weak. 2409:4073:20C:64CD:8DDB:66E0:2B55:D7A6 (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe people would be more willing to help you if you didn't attack other editors' credibility? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sulfurboy (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wouldn't have done that if he did not insulted me by ignoring a decently worded discussion. No explanation ? It prompted me to check his credibility. 2409:4073:405:3BA6:B4F1:94C3:2F8F:4A34 (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I re-reviewed the draft, checked the sources and I believe it passes GNG. Sources could be better, but plenty of them focus on the subject and have significant coverage. Plus, there's a whole lot of them, so there's no shortage of material to use. I didn't compare it to other articles, for the reason already mentioned above. I can see how the depth of sourcing can be disputed, but I think this falls on the side of notable. I don't know why the original reviewer did not reply to your query and just removed your message or what the history here may be. I understand AfC is frustrating and going through dozens of sources is mind-numbing. Anyway, in my opinion the subject is notable and that's my reason for approval after source check. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being nice to me as expected from a help desk, and big thank you for considering it for re-reviewing. I am happy. 2409:4073:48E:A1FD:6563:FF4E:BAC1:26A9 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:42:42, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Ltpicard


Links to sources added for more notability.

Ltpicard (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:46:56, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Johnjacksonblog

Amschel Rothschild is a public figure, he is a music entertainer who has fans who want to know about him. Please help me with creating this page. Johnjacksonblog (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjacksonblog The draft is a blatant promotional piece for Rothschild("greatest unknown producer of all time") and almost completely unsourced. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results for him or in aiding his fans. Wikipedia has articles(not mere "pages") about subjects shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, that of a notable person or notable singer. Please read Your First Article to learn more about creating a new article, the hardest task to undertake on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:06:14, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Aditya belnekar07

Plz review its a request its abput a public figure aditya belnekar he is indian Entrepreneur he is doing something great and he is verified on many social media sites therefore he must get a wikipedia page Aditya belnekar07 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya belnekar07 Are you Aditya Belnekar? If you are not, you should not be using his name as your username, please change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Regarding the draft, the sources you have offered are completely inappropriate. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability, in this case, the definition of a notable person. Your sources seem to be fluff pieces about Mr. Belnekar or interviews with him, which are not acceptable for establishing notability. Having verified social media accounts is completely irrelevant. Please read Your First Article to learn more about creating an article- which is the hardest task on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:06, 7 March 2020 review of draft by Porrohmann


I have drafted extensive changes to this article since 2nd January and ensured that all references are to independent sources. Hopefully the draft can now be re-reviewed approved and published? Porrohmann (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Porrohmann A lot of the sources seem to be press releases or routine announcements, which does not establish notability(as they really aren't independent sources, even if republished). Please review Wikipedia's definition of a notable business. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:37, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Callmeabhisheksingh


Callmeabhisheksingh (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callmeabhisheksingh, I am assuming you are asking for clarification as to why your article was declined (if not, let me know). Wikipedia articles have to have citations to support the claims in the article. This is particularly important for living people, as material on those pages can be particularly contentious. Citations also serve to help readers (and reviewers of your article) determine whether the subject is notable. To be notable, the subject of the article must be mentioned in multiple independent, reliable sources significantly (that is, not just passing references). I would encourage you to look at other Wikipedia articles (just click the "random article" button on the side for some examples) to learn how to format these citations and your article in general (there are some other formatting problems as well). You might also find Help:Your first article helpful to learn how to write an article. Let me know if you have any other questions or need help in some specific area (after reading these articles). Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Sam-2727 (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:44, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Salvadi Actor


I am creating wiki page for my friend who is upcoming actor in South Indian film industry, Not sure why my article got declined. Could you please help me

Salvadi Actor (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:48, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Amitavinod

This artist has sufficient articles referencing him as well as had made a debut in a Regional Film (Kannada movie) as a playback singer. This has been recognized on the film's wikipedia page as well. Would appreciate a re-review of the article submitted as I've tried to include as many notable articles. Amitavinod (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:37:14, 7 March 2020 review of draft by Mark98404


I had a question regarding my submission - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ridango It says the following: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

Since I'm new to Wikipedia, then what exactly should I improve to get the article published? All the references I've added are legit websites. For example the http://ceec.uitp.org/estonian-startup-ridango-wins-global-award-its-ticketing-solution - it's a legit source, published by the International Association of Public Transport. https://www.baltictimes.com/estonian_co_ridango_brings_contactless_bank_card_payments_into_public_transport_in_sweden/ is a website aggregating information about anything related to Baltic States. Could you please clarify what's wrong with those references? What references exactly am I missing? The communication of those rejection messages could a bit more clearer, so it would be more easily understandable.

Mark98404 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark98404 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:11:40, 7 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Moonlandingwasahoax


I need help with editing the article above. I may put it up for deletion because I cannot find any secondary sources that back it up. I also do not have much time to do in-depth research. Obviously, I can’t put my personal knowledge because I was told to “forget everything I know and use sources.”

Moonlandingwasahoax (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:13:58, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Suraj rajvardham07


Suraj rajvardham07 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:18:56, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Krisi31


Dear reviews,

the rejection reason was "Just blatant advertising". I am not sure how should I improve this article because it is made by analogy to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Conference_on_Analytical_Chemistry_and_Applied_Spectroscopy. Could you please give me some advice?

Than you very much! Best regards

Krisi31 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists, the Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy article is also blatant advertising and should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:45:34, 7 March 2020 review of submission by Fartsmcdoogle


Fartsmcdoogle (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) What does "diamb not shown to be needed"? Unclear how to address this feedback[reply]

@Fartsmcdoogle: If there's only one person with that name on Wikipedia, then the disambiguation is not necessary. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

00:30:18, 8 March 2020 review of submission by 71.104.11.211


71.104.11.211 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected for various legitimate reasons, including many sources being purely social media (which aren't suitable), advertorial language and non-encyclopedic language Nosebagbear (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:56:44, 8 March 2020 review of submission by Martinehilaire

i just change some stuff Martinehilaire (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martinehilaire, Your article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


03:00:04, 8 March 2020 review of submission by 71.104.11.211


71.104.11.211 (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:46:52, 8 March 2020 review of submission by Junjun odarbe


Junjun odarbe (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junjun odarbe, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

01:41:01, 9 March 2020 review of submission by Tezzadiver


I have adjusted the blurb in the box. I wasn't trying to push an agenda just stating we need to support marine conservation...

Tezzadiver (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tezzadiver Your submission was a personal statement and not an encyclopedia article. You should use social media for such statements, not Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia where articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about notable subjects, not what we ourselves want to say about them. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:52:18, 9 March 2020 review of submission by Salvadi Actor

Please let me know where to mention that it is not an autobiography Salvadi Actor (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


03:30:26, 9 March 2020 review of submission by Spiritletters


Wikipedia citations were simply removed from this draft. Is their a volunteer of Please advise of any additional issues at this point?

Spiritletters (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiritletters: - you've still got 2 wikipedia references, and Discogs is a non-reliable, non-independent source. The band's own site can be referenced for some things, but so that you're aware, it won't help prove that they're notable (as it obviously can't be independent). Your first source is dead-linking, and it looks like it would be quite key, so that would be worth checking. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:42:07, 9 March 2020 review of draft by 125.238.128.21


A page I wrote was denied for the reason "There does not seem to be any individual notability apart from the charity". That's like saying Bill Gates has articles always talking about Microsoft, or Ronaldo is always talked about in the context of football. I feel as though the article was declined for a questionable reason but am open to any further reasons :) 125.238.128.21 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@125.238.128.21: - it's not saying sources that discuss them in their main context don't suffice, but they need to have significant coverage (c. 10+ lines) about them. These sources usually have 3-4 non-quoted lines about Mussie, and then talk purely about the charity. Whereas in the Gates/Ronaldo, there are dedicated articles, plus lots more heavily about both their organisation and the individual. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:21, 9 March 2020 review of draft by Alwayslp


Hello, thank you for your help. This draft had been rejected due to lack of encyclopedic tone - I re-wrote it with what I thought to be more of an encyclopedic style, but it has been again rejected at this time. I'm grateful for any help you can give me. The draft is written in chronological order, not pyramid style..I'm wondering if that could be an issue too? Thank you so much for your help on this draft overall. Alwayslp (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Alwayslp (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:13:04, 9 March 2020 review of submission by Brenchristo

My Article has been rejected and I need your assistance in rewriting it. PLEASE HELP. Brenchristo (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Brenda Mohammed[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=944706864"