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 Pilot333 (talk | contribs) at 03:40, 28 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, 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


March 22

01:03:21, 22 March 2020 review of submission by HayleO

I do not understand why "Unwritten Rule" can not have a Wikipedia page but the band they competed against "Real Like You" can.

  1. REDIRECT Target page name

HayleO (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HayleO, if you check out the page for "Real Like You," you will see that it is supported by reliable sources that are independent of the subject and mention the band significantly (so not just trivial mentions). This is required of an article per WP:Notability. Your article has not been completely rejected: if you add reliable sources it will be accepted. Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source, and the other two sources you have seem to be routine coverage (it's just profiles of them, and all of the three articles seem the same which suggests they are press releases or something like that). Your article was declined, which means you can resubmit it once you find sources that support notability. Also (although not required to be accepted), I would recommend you learn how to use inline citations on Wikipedia. You can learn more about this at here. Let me know if you have further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:47:53, 22 March 2020 review of submission by FastCube


I created the BRFC player article for players have have 1-24 appearances with BRFC. And users are not allowing me to make this article stand. I am outraged, because this has been happening for the past three months. The reason is that they are saying that splitting the player list is a bad idea. However, I strongly disagree. When I did the same with Adelaide United FC player articles. No-one complained about it. And I'm more upset, because the BRFC player list references section have more than the AUFC player lists. And NO-ONE is replying to my messages on trying to say that these lists on stay on Wikipedia or on how to improve this. Plus, those split lists is bigger than the whole list of players who played between 2005 and 2018. Please tell me what I should do!!

FastCube (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FastCube, The list page has been rejected which means it will not be considered further here. I would suggest what has already been suggested and continue to work with the people on the already created list page. If and when consensus is built to make another page, then it will be appropriately considered. As it stands, looks as if the consensus is to leave it as is. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


07:31:06, 22 March 2020 review of submission by FrostyWolfDev

Curious as to what specifically is needed for the page to be accepted and what I am missing in the article in terms of having significant coverage and not just passing mentions. FrostyWolfDev (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FrostyWolfDev, One review on a blog site isn't going to be enough. Please review WP:GNG and WP:NVG. Also, do you have a connection with the makers of this game? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I work with the developers as a Community Developer that works on sponsorships and public image of the game via Twitch etc. Is there a minimum amount of references needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrostyWolfDev (talk • contribs) 08:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FrostyWolfDev: Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. There is extensive advice regarding writing about video games at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games, including a link to a list of sources that Wikipedian's have found useful when writing about them. If, as a new editor, you find yourself citing sources that aren't on the reliable sources list, odds are you haven't found fantastic sources that no one else has ever noticed before, but that you're using ones so inappropriate that no experienced Wikipedian would even consider citing them. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:57:10, 22 March 2020 review of draft by Schota17

Dear AfC team, I need help with the mentioned article. I tried to follow the reviewer suggestions as close as possible, i.e. changing sections, reducing examples and adding much more footnotes to the article. Would it be possible to get more feedback, which aspects of the article could be strengthened? Thanks a lot! Schota17 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:10:05, 22 March 2020 review of submission by 216.174.67.55


216.174.67.55 (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13:09:12, 22 March 2020 review of draft by TheBirdsShedTears

How long does it take for an article to be approved via AfC without posting a review request here on help desk? Thanks TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the article and how easy it is to review. There are 2600 drafts waiting for review and it can easily take 3+ months. Simple rejections are usually done much quicker. Approvals can take even longer. Posting a review request is discouraged and normally doesn't result in a quicker approval (but often results in a quicker decline if applicable). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: Okay thank you! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:45:57, 22 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Chatsha57


Hello, I have submitted the article but denied two times, I guess the first point of the issue is that reference websites are mostly from the Japanese site, so the reviewer cannot judge if the websites are published by the third person or not. And the biggest issue is for me now, the way of writing seems to be an advertisement, could you specify which expressions make such impression? could you help me to specify them??


Chatsha57 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chatsha57, The wording and phrasing is not that of a neutral encyclopedia article. The biography is just a list of achievements by year, which looks like a resume. The awards are in all caps. But as the latest reviewer noted, the sources are inadequete. We can still use Google translate on sources to read them, and some of our reviewers speak other languages. The sources need to mention him, be reliable, and give significant coverage to him. At the moment they do not, so the article remains in draft. If such articles cannot be found, then he is not notable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:06, 22 March 2020 review of submission by Farishta Maryam Satari


Dear Wikipedia Help Desk,

Please advice on how to improve my page for it to be accepted by Wikipedia. Thanks


Farishta http://farishta.me

Farishta Maryam Satari (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Farishta Maryam Satari: Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion and social profiles. There is nothing at this time that you can do to improve the page to get it accepted. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:04, 22 March 2020 review of submission by Farishta Maryam Satari


Dear Wikipedia Help Desk,

I am creating a Person page for myself to share notable work on Wikipedia.

Your comment, "Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion and social profiles. There is nothing at this time that you can do to improve the page to get it accepted," does not correspond to reality.

I am the first mathematician and philosopher to have proved the existential question.

"Do I exist?" "I think, therefore I am." Rene Decartes of France made a philosophical statement.

"I was because I am; 'I am,' therefore I shall be." Dr. Farishta Satari proved the existential question by mathematical induction.

My proof is published on my http://farishta.me, which I have included in the reference section.


In plain words, if Rene Decartes of France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes can have a person page then so can Farishta Satari of Afghanistan.

Farishta Maryam Satari (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The René Descartes article has 141 independent reliable sources, your draft has zero. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rene Descartes also invented analytic geometry. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Farishta Maryam Satari Wikipedia is not a medium for sharing your work. To be written about on Wikipedia, others independent of you must write about your work. It is also inadvisable to write about one's self here, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:38:12, 22 March 2020 review of draft by Aceithistorian


Hi. I am working on the Allan Flanders article draft. It has a lot of information and has been written with a number of academic sources and citations and is a neutral article that does not promote a particular point of view or unduly promote the topic, however this is the information the reviewer cited as an obstacle to publishing. I was wondering if someone might take a look and see if there is anything that stands out to them as contravening these wikipedia policies and perhaps post to the page's talk page so that they might be fixed.

This is the link for the article Draft:Allan Flanders

Aceithistorian (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aceithistorian I would suggest asking the reviewer directly, but otherwise I would suggest reviewing the links provided in the decline message on the draft. The issue is more the tone and style than anything. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

02:19:50, 23 March 2020 review of submission by RealCapitalC99

I am requesting a re-review on this page because this page has been needing to be create for a long time and I need to know specifically what edits I need to make in order to get it reapproved and some guidance through it cuz this is my very first Wikipedia page being created solely by me so if you guys can do that, make sure to message me please. RealCapitalC99 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RealCapitalC99 Your draft has been rejected, meaning that there is almost no chance it can be improved enough to be accepted, no matter how well you write it. You have not demonstrated with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how this musician meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:32, 23 March 2020 review of submission by Anyajerald


Anyajerald (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC) I am requesting a re-review on this page, I have been trying to get approval for a long time with lots of efforts as this is y first time in posting in Wikipedia. I have added some new ref links.Pls re-review it and provide me guidance in getting this published in Wikipedia.Thank you in advance.[reply]

Anyajerald Your draft has been rejected, meaning there is almost no chance of improving it enough to be accepted, no matter how well you write it. Any Wikipedia article must only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. The sources you offer are all brief mentions with no significant coverage and only cite specific information. I'm sorry, but the app does not seem to merit an article at this time. If you are associated with this app, such as working for its maker, you must read and comply with conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:39, 23 March 2020 review of submission by 24.47.53.207


I am re-reviewing this again because idk what I did wrong and I need a Wikipedia for my brand so can h bare with me here and help me out. 24.47.53.207 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are not notable in Wikipedia's terms, see WP:NMUSICIAN for the specific requirements. Theroadislong (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:39, 23 March 2020 review of draft by 172.78.61.42


172.78.61.42 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Im trying to make a championship Wrestling from Arizona page & it's lock[reply]

Hello. your article is currently citing two articles right now that could possibly establish notability (although this is a definite edge case) under Wikipedia's notability criteria. But given the length of this article, more citations are required to support it. Essentially, all your citations are verifying is that the subject of the article existed (because they are passing references in the article). You need to provide citations that at least broadly cover all the other claims made in the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:18, 23 March 2020 review of submission by HowellSarahLouise

Hello! I recently submitted an article on the topic of the Power Play Initiative by ExxonMobil. The feedback I received said my tone wasn't formal or neutral enough, but I'm having a hard time discerning exactly which sections this was in reference to. Additionally, I was told my references aren't sufficient enough to classify as significant coverage, even though every article is solely about Power Play. I am grateful for the feedback and would really like to get this page up, so any help identifying where the issues are in the current copy would be much appreciated.

HowellSarahLouise (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HowellSarahLouise For what reason do you really want to get the page up? The draft article(not just a "page") is sourced to nothing but press releases, which does not establish that this initiative meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia articles should only summarize what purely independent reliable sources state about a subject. Press releases are put out by the subject itself(even if republished). 331dot (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:00:02, 23 March 2020 review of submission by Ecorrea5621


Ecorrea5621 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


My name is Eugene Correa I'm publishing a Biography/article here about myself it has been declined for whatever reason I would like to know? why when I am a current professional athlete world recognized if there's anything needed to get it approved I would like to hear back please thank you.

Ecorrea5621 Please read the autobiography policy to learn why attempting to write about yourself on Wikipedia is not advisable. Your draft was declined because it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about you, indicating how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable MMA fighter, please read it at WP:NMMA. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

Request on 05:51:36, 24 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mem271



Hi all,

I have had some helpful feedback on my page for Elizabeth Ford and some editors appeared willing to support it on mainframe. However 'Sulfurboy' is particularly non-helpful with his rejection.

First of all, I think that Sulfurboy has attempted to respond to the first edit, not the second that everyone else was looking at when they were suggesting it's readiness for the mainframe.

Secondly, Sulfurboy says I haven't used references that can be checked: yet, all the printed information is available in the State Library of Western Australia. As part of the second edit, I put in extra refs, but I don't think he has seen them and instead has repeated his idea that I haven't used references and have used colourful emotive language.

Just to add to that, Sulfur boy's criticism re: the mention of awards is really unwarranted, given that this is just a list of awards she received in her lifetime. I am not promoting her - I am simply writing down what she received as is mentioned in the art books in the library.

Further, I was working within a wider project to bring Western Australian female artists to the fore with the Lawrence Wilson Art Gallery. So, it boggles my mind that he can right this off so easily.

Last, I apologise if I don't respond in the right forums in the right way but I find this framework immensely difficult to negotiate. Please help. My only motivation is to see an esteemed artist find her place - without prejudice.

Regards,

Mem 271

Mem271 (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mem271, Sorry that you've had such a rough time navigating the structure of drafts, but this is the right place to ask. We're glad you're here, and tackling underrepresented women. I hope you take some of Sulfur's advice, they have provided lots of inline tags that can help direct your cleanup. I'm pinging them Sulfurboy, hopefully they can help you figure things out. You might also wish to ask for help at WikiProject Women in Red's talk page, they specialize in making articles for women. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping CaptainEek Mem271, I'm sorry you found me to be "non-helpful". After your last tirade in which you accused (without cause) a fellow reviwer of gendered bias, I chose to go above and beyond what I normally would do in a review process as to keep everything above board. Very clear reasons for rejection were provided to you and including what could be improved instead of just rejecting with a boilerplate template. Further, I went through the extra effort of tagging each spot in the article that is unsourced puffery or opinions. Playing victim, accusing others of prejudice, and complaining about perceived wrongs in the system will not serve as a substitute for actually putting in work to improve the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:21:43, 24 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mandlanotyawa



Mandlanotyawa (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandlanotyawa, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:00, 24 March 2020 review of draft by 76.170.151.178


76.170.151.178 (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? 331dot (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:48, 24 March 2020 review of draft by Salut65


Wanted to include this article in the wikipedia, and the resources are strong with the proper news links. Please advise if there is anything else that needs to be included. Thank you. --Salut65 (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salut65 (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Salut65:, I understand your concerns but the history section has unnecessary details, which repeat in title holder section and there is no inline citation in the head section. Also, there is already a page existing Miss Pakistan World, why do you need to create a new page with alternate title. You simply can make Draft:Mrs. Pakistan World, a redirect page to Miss Pakistan World by placing #REDIRECT Miss Pakistan World tag on the page. Cheers - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Every entity is different - For example please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._World and then there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_World and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_World

Miss World has a bigger history section as it started 100 years ago. But Mr. World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_World is new and has the similar concept as Mrs. Pakistan. If fact is has lesser info than Mrs. Pakistan World. Please note that If you look at this link for India - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_India Most of the contests are done by the same company but each event and entity has its own name and brand. Miss World cannot list Mr. World and Mrs. World under its section. Similarly, Femina Miss India cannot list Miss Diva and Femina Look of the Year under one section. As each event has a unique identity. Miss is for single women and has the history of single women, MRS is for married women and cannot be listed under a single "Miss" category. Same goes for Mister category which is male only.

If you look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Diva , here you will find that Miss Diva is a part of Femina Miss India, even though Femina Miss India is a beauty pageant but has separate identity. All these events could have redirected to Femina Miss India but they don't and cannot as each event has its own identity.

Please do let me know if there is something that can be expanded. Mrs. Pakistan World has its own identity and cannot be listed or redirected to a "Miss Pakistan" category. I will be still working on the article, as I do think that it was a premature submission. But any other advise would help.

Thank you. --Salut65 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:29:27, 24 March 2020 review of submission by Rogerkuznia

Hello all, I am seeking feedback on why this article was rejected. I've revised it twice, and I believe the only reason for its rejection is because I am a paid editor. I understand the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, that Wiki cannot be a soapbox or vanity press or advertising platform, and this submission is none of those. It has 16 sources -- nothing in the submission lacks a source -- which should be a clear indicator of notability. My submission is written in a neutral tone (I learned that in prior drafts). I've followed all the rules, including acknowledging that I am a paid editor, and yet I think that's the sticking point here. But among those five pillars, there's a line that "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." Please take a critical look at my submission, and tell me what is wrong with the copy. It follows the Good Article criteria, with the exception of lacking an illustration, audio or video. Thank you. Rogerkuznia (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is just a paid for puff piece with multiple non notable awards “EY Entrepreneur of Year Southeast Award”,  Most Admired CEOs of 2020”, “Champions of the New Economy”, Professional of the Year”. Theroadislong (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:17, 24 March 2020 review of submission by ProtectONE original


Please, I wrote this article, this is a story of TICKLESS brand, I tried to wrote it in formal form, not focus on advertising, I know this is an enciclopedy. If my work is not good, please help me to write it in the acceptable form. I tried to delete thing which were more "advertised text" so I would like to ask you to read it again. ProtectONE original (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spam, and user has been blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:31, 24 March 2020 review of submission by Kingof23s


Kingof23s (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Kingof23s. Not every article is notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. To merit inclusion into Wikipedia, the subject of your article must be supported by multiple independent reliable sources. Currently your article has none. Also if you have a conflict of interest, please declare that following the guidelines on the page I have linked. Thanks and let me know if you have further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingof23s, I rejected your article as it isn't notable for inclusion for Wikipedia. In doing so I had to fix the submission template that you had. But it seems as if the software thinks I submitted the article. So now I'm going to copy and paste the decline message on your talk page. Hopefully this doesn't cause any confusion! Sam-2727 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as if it has already been done. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:04:09, 24 March 2020 review of draft by Arief Salim


Hi there,

My name is Arief and I am writing a Wikipedia article about Associate Professor Mohamed Dirani, who is the current Managing Director of Plano Pte Ltd and holds several Honorary roles in the Singapore Eye Research Institute and Centre for Eye Research Australia.

Referring to my second submission, which was declined on 5 March 2020 with the following comment: "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. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

I received this exact comment for my first submission rejection. From there, I improved the second submission by omitting subjective wording and sentences, as well as any form of 'sell' in the new submission. However, the second submission was also rejected with the same comment. Therefore, may I inquire on how to best address this comment so that my submission can be approved?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Arief Salim (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arief Salim, I think the advertisement part of your article comes from phrases like "connecting people through love and art" and this unnecessary description of the company ("The company manages smart device use and eye health among children and adults, with an emphasis on the management of myopia"). I think the more pressing concern is (1), all information must be verifiable. If the information on his accomplishments/life in general can't be verified in sources then it should be deleted. Also, a Wikipedia article must be supported by multiple independent reliable sources. Your first source seems to be some sort of press release so not independent while the second is user generated content so also not independent. Let me know if you have further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:21, 24 March 2020 review of submission by Kingof23s


Kingof23s (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingof23s, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:15, 24 March 2020 review of submission by Bobswift12


I'm looking to understand how to build a business page that isn't seen as advertising? Other businesses have pages, what are your suggestions?

Bobswift12 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobswift12, there are a lot of things that go into writing a neutral article. I'll only touch on the main points here. You say "they offer creative, strategic, and technology services for their clients." This is opinion written as fact. "Creative" services is a very opinionated statement, but it is written as if it is 100% true. This can be modified into a fact. This occurs throughout the article. The article gives undue weight to "accomplishments" or details that support the company. For instance "These are referred to as P.O.T.I.S. They stand for Passion, Ownership, Teamwork, Impact, and Skills" is certainly not needed in any neutrally written article. I should also note that the subject of your article likely isn't notable. That is, it is supported by multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject of the article with more than a passing reference. I would encourage you not to edit this article further though and perhaps move onto other articles that are already included in Wikipedia. Your article has been rejected, which means it is unlikely it will be reviewed again. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Request on 18:02:13, 24 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Solangelo19


  They rejected my article it was a pretty good article too. I'm hurt.

Solangelo19 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solangelo19, There's no reason to be hurt. Nothing about the rejection was meant to be personal. I would recommend checking out the welcome message on your talk page. It has a good starting point of links and articles to read about how to create and contribute to Wikipedia. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:22:09, 24 March 2020 review of submission by Alina Karastamatova


Alina Karastamatova (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sulfurboy, thanks for approving my page. However I have to draw your attention to the fact that this page was planned to replace already existent one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro_and_the_euro, which provides much less information on the matter. I count on your support. Alina

You should not have submitted a draft article but instead have edited the existing one here Montenegro and the euro. Theroadislong (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:56, 24 March 2020 review of draft by Cinephile786


UNFAIR REJECTION OF ARTICLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danish_Renzu The person has notable press on him : www.danishrenzufilms.com, two feature films and still it's not being accepted here.. please advice.


Cinephile786 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go off of WP:GNG to make this simple. In brief, that means you must have multiple independent reliable sources to back up your article. Here's a source by source analysis. [1] seems to be an autogenerated profile of sorts, perhaps a user written profile, and thus doesn't meet the reliability criterion. [2] could be debatable in meeting the notability criteria. It is mostly interview (not reliable or independent), but does have some introduction before it. [3] demonstrates notability. However you need multiple (typically interpreted to mean three) sources that meet these criteria. Just add these sources to the article and you will meet the notable criteria. Next, you should clean your submission of "advertisement" like content. That is, a lot of your submission seems to be written like a promotion. Wikiepedia articles must be written in a neutral tone. For instance, "starring Academy winning" doesn't need to be there. Also subtle phrases like "He even took" suggest an opinion of the author of the article, which means that the article isn't written in a neutral tone. Please clean up these issues before resubmitting. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

00:02:00, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Punk Hazard

First I want to say that it doesn't make sense to judge classical music compositions by the general music notability guidelines, which obviously don't take it into account at all. You can't expect any divertimento's recording to be on a billboard, and that's definitely not what may make such works notable.

But at least I think it complies with the first rule. Sequenza21 and Musicweb International are serious independent sources on classical music and pretty much online magazines. They aren't personal blogs, they have a staff structure. AllMusic even has its own article. While a CD liner notes being a secondary source may technically be disputable, they are written by Morohide Katayama, who isn't some Naxos Records employee but a musicologist and politologist and has published books on the topic (20th century Japanese classical music) so I believe that provides some academic assessment on the composition.

Punk Hazard (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Punk Hazard, your article wasn't rejected, so it can sources likely exist out there that could establish notability. I assume you're referring to WP:NMUSIC. Although some of these guidelines are biased towards more "popular" music, I will admit, but some of them, like being rotated on a major radio station, aren't. Classical radio stations do exist. But anyway, that's by there are also general notability criteria. This allows articles that don't fall into any of the categories specified in specific notability criteria to still be labelled as notable if they are supported by multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject of the article non-trivially. I'll go by the general criteria and evaluate each of your sources for you.

I went through them, and actually I do agree with you: these sources in general indicate notability. The reason I think it might have been misleading to a reviewer (I would be confused too) is that the sources you provide that have professional reviews appear in a user generated format, when really they aren't. I'm going to move the article to the mainspace for you, as it now meets notability standards. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I do hope you continue as I see you've written a great article here! Sam-2727 (talk)

01:31:30, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Iregno8

Hello, I am requesting a re-review of the page created as I was incorrectly assumed to be the subject the page is about. I, in error, used the subject's name as the username when creating an account hence why I'm here. Can you please have a look and let me know where I stand? Thanks! Iregno8 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iregno8, I've removed the rejection and resubmitted the article. It will be reviewed again in due time, but I would highly recommend continuing to try to establish notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy I have added to notability - subject was invited and spoke at the Oxford Union in 2016 (link to YouTube video included) as well as an interview on ITV's Good Morning Britain. Hope this is sufficient. Iregno8 (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy:, just an FYI, interviews rarely add to notability, as they are inherently non-independent Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, I assume you meant this to be directed towards Iregno8? Sulfurboy (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, yes, apologies Nosebagbear (talk)

06:19:16, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Lita Evandre


Lita Evandre (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:19:16, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Lita Evandre


Hi Lita Evandre, your submission doesn't have any prose content. A Wikipedia article must go beyond an info box. Also, autobiographies are highly discouraged. Finally, you must provide sources that establish the notability of the subject. That is, multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject significantly. Your article has been rejected, which means no further action on it can be taken. If you enjoy editing Wikipedia, I would recommend you edit an already created article as creating your first article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:31:20, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Aslah k


Aslah k (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aslah k, Wikipedia articles are not for promotion. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles: collections of facts for a reader. Thus Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral tone without promotional language such as "pioneered upon the efforts of two college students" and "An excluseve video posted" (although these are just examples). Also, a reviewer has determined that the subject of your article likely isn't notable, which means no further action can be taken. That is, your submission won't be reviewed again. If you would like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would suggest you edit an already existing article as creating your first article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:00, 25 March 2020 review of submission by AbdulRehman0364


AbdulRehman0364 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AbdulRehman0364 What is your question? 331dot (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:09, 25 March 2020 review of submission by 198.200.115.29


P.S. I know it can take a long time to get back with a response for submissions such as mine and as such I am grateful that you wer able to get back so quickly. Thank you 198.200.115.29 (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your article is essentially a resume of the subject. That is, except for the last sentence, it is a list of their accomplishments. Also, a reviewer has determined that the subject of your article likely isn't notable. That is, there aren't multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject of the article non-trivially. If you would like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would encourage you to edit an already existing page as creating your first article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:44, 25 March 2020 review of draft by Jcollinsycc


I am adding a scientific paper citation for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_S._Fuchs His most cited work has over 300 collaborative authors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810696). When I'm listing the names of the authors for the citation, should I include all of the names, or just the first few and then Dr. Fuchs? Is there a way to add "et al" to the citation, if that would be appropriate? Not sure of the best way to proceed. Thank you for any help! Jcollinsycc (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jcollinsycc, I think the way to do that is to just use the automatic citation creator. So just enter the link, and the citation comes out as this[1]. Let me know if you have further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727, I didn't even know that was an option - thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcollinsycc (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cancer Genome Atlas Network (2012-07-18). "Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer". Nature. 487 (7407): 330–337. doi:10.1038/nature11252. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 3401966. PMID 22810696.

Request on 14:27:15, 25 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sawhitney36


Hi there, I would like to understand why my draft was declined, I'd like for the understanding to be a bit clearer, from Robert McClenon's review I'm understanding that it was because it didn't qualify for an article to be made on it as it didn't have significant coverage. But that's what I don't understand. It charted and was talked about and I found a page on here about an EP that doesn't have siginicant coverage: Sarah Close's Caught Up EP the page is almost empty. I know I'm still a beginner editor but Wikipedia's rules and guidelines confuse me a lot. There's also a lot of rules and guideline pages on Wikipedia and I haven't read most of them because I haven't been able to find most of them. If it's badly written, can I at least have some help with that from better editors? Or do I have the wrong understanding of their review?

Sawhitney36 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This better not be declined... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:4C33:3369:AEC8:B806 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Sawhitney36. Not all articles on Wikipedia are model examples. The page you reference likely isn't notable (at least by the sources provided in the article). The problem of Wikipedia having too many guidelines is a common complaint. Let me help you out a bit. I do agree that your source is notable. I'd just clean up the article to make that clearer. First off, just remove all of your unreliable sources. That is, any time you reference twitter or youtube, just remove that from the article (and the information that it is being used to back up). Also remove references to the "yungblood store," as this isn't a secondary source. This will make your article supported by only reliable sources. Finally, try making the article less of a promotional tone. Specifically, remove the phrase "Credits adapted from Tidal." (just cite directly from that source, no need to say "adapted from"). I would also in general delete that entire "personnel" section as it isn't necessary to know every sound engineer that was part of the production of the album. There are also slight examples throughout the article of stating opinions as facts. For example, "that he had a surprise in London on a boat at the," this is presumably a surprise from the opinion of the artist, not everybody. So put "surprise" in quotes or quote the artist here to ensure that the "surprise" isn't stated as fact. Let me know if you have any other specific questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:32:10, 25 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Renwang101


I recently submitted an article to Wiki, but unfortunately been rejected, I asked the reviewer to provide more specific reasons, but only some words that didn't make sense to me. The article URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Document_Management_in_E-government

I hope to get some help to make this article been published.

Best regards,

Ren

Renwang101 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renwang101, sorry for the late reply. Your article has been rejected as being written in a promotional tone. That is, it doesn't present article factually, stating opinions as if they were facts. Let me know if you have any more specific questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:53, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Lijmaar


Lijmaar (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Por qué no recibe mi nombre en wikipedia?[reply]

Aún no eres notable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:51:52, 25 March 2020 review of submission by 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:1138:9EB0:D861:6BA8


2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:1138:9EB0:D861:6BA8 (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted any drafts to review. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about Draft:Battle For Dream Island, it has been rejected because the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable, so volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:35:40, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Ennex2

The submission of the page List of Excel functions was rejected and the link to the draft brings up a page that says it has been deleted. Is it possible for me to retrieve the code of the page that was submitted and deleted? I need it for my own reference. Ennex2 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ennex2. You may ask the administrator who deleted it, DeltaQuad, but because it was deleted for infringing copyright, it's unlikely that anyone will retrieve it for you. More details can be found in a number of essays dealing with your situation, such as: Help:My article got nominated for deletion! and Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:05:53, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Eeberbach


Eeberbach (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Our submission does not advertise our research, and it does not constitute attack on a person or organization either. It is neutral and objective. It does not constitute new research, and is based on well-known reliable sources. It does not present new original theories, opinions, or insights that were not published before by many reputable sources. The article is notable in the sense that it covers important topics of scalability and expressiveness of EC, not addressed by other Wikipedia pages. We expanded introduction section to address the notability and importance of topics covered by this article. That approach is well-known for specialists in the EC area, but we believe that it should be interesting and useful for general Wikipedia readers who have all necessary explanations and defined concepts included in this submission. We added also the links to several existing related Wikipedia pages Note that the authors of this submission have many years of research and rich publication record in the area of submission – they were in program committees of multiple EC conferences, organized special sessions in congresses on EC, were associate editors and organizers of Ubiquity Symposium on EC in ACM Ubiquity Magazine journal with publications by top EC specialists (e.g., David Fogel, Zbigniew Michalewicz, Xin Yao, Hans-Paul Schwefel, David Wolpert, Moshe Sipper), and published many articles in the area (books, book chapters, journal and conference papers). Thus for sure, the authors of this submission can be considered the experts in EC area. Please unblock our submission (it was corrected according to advice Theroadislong) to allow unbiased neutral review. So far I have an impression that I am talking to the wall.

Eeberbach (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eeberbach Who is "our"? Each account should be exclusively operated by a single individual and not shared. The draft does read as a explanatory essay rather than an encyclopedia article, which should only summarize what independent reliable sources state about a subject. The draft was rejected after numerous prior declines, meaning there is little chance it can be improved, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eeberbach, see also the multiple pieces of advice you have been given in the past at the AFC help desk. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Our" is my co-author and authors of many publications used in this submission. I share their knowledge and reliable sources in the area. Both knowledge and sources are shared, and belong to humanity which is superset of Wikipedia. Because I used their work, I say "our", what should be interpreted in the positive and not negative term. The account is operated by a single individual, i.e. me, who does not hide behind anonymous names (like other Wikipedia editors), thus I did not violate any Wikipedia rule in that.

331dot can claim without any proof that the submission is still a[n] explanatory essay rather than an encyclopedia article despite that article does not diverge from other published pages on EC (evolutionary computation) - it is easy to verify that. It uses exactly independent and reliable sources - please prove that it is otherwise. I understand that for someone everything might look like an essay, despite that it is not. I can write and prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but someone can still claim that for him/her it does read as 5 rather than 4. And for such convictions anybody (including myself with my Ph.D.in mathematics) would be powerless.

331dot wrote that "The draft was rejected after numerous prior declines, meaning there is little chance it can be improved, unfortunately." Exactly, it was 6 declines and final rejection by Sulfurboy who wrote nonsense, did not understand anything from submission,thus with pleasure he blocked the submission entirely. All these were decisions based on misunderstanding, not real reviews. The first decline should not be counted as decline at all (Liance) - he declined it as an "empty" submission - I sent it in pdf, because information about formats accepted by Wikipedia were confusing and not sufficiently clearly provided. Only 3 next "reviews"/declines should be counted: one by Praxidicae who helped me with formatting sources (references and citing them in text). It looks that I convinced him that sources are reliable and their number is sufficient for Wikipedia submission. Next, 2 declines were by Theroadislong repeated practically the same comment about "reliable sources", despite that everything has been corrected, and then I started to understand that "The road to publishing the article would be really long" and steep. The 2nd review by Theroadislong was very short: "Appears to be original research." Note "Appears" - this means that he suspected that it might be original research, but was not sure about that. I proved that it was not original research but an encyclopedic summary of original research based on multiple reliable sources. After that I had 3 "reviews" (2 declines + 1 reject) by Sulfurboy who did not understand anything from submission, and was very subjective and biased in his opinion. He was the first to call it an essay, despite that submission did not have anything common with an essay. Additionally, two his first reviews were exactly the same, thus should be counted as one not two. Either, he was lazy to write a new text or this was an example of Wikipedia "stuttering", because it did not provide any new useful information for the author. After that, I got from Theroadislong some really useful comments (not counted as an official review, nevertheless useful). I agreed with his comments, and made all requested corrections, and I was totally astonished that as the result I got the final rejection from Sulfurboy, who became personally offended because earlier I questioned his motives and knowledge of the area of submission. He did not care about any corrections and wanted simply to penalize me as the retaliation. Because 3 of reviews by Sulfurboy were biased and not objective - I asked for an independent review done by person(s) who knows a little more the area of submission and will not write things that obviously were false. I never got any chance for that, despite that I asked for that multiple times, and made new corrections on rejected text. Thus from 7 reviews only 3 could be considered as reviews, and I should not be blocked by knockout Sulfurboy's decision in such circumstances - to not have any chances for publication in Wikipedia, which I consider that the submission in question would be very useful for general Wikipedia readers.

Eeberbach (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eeberbach, Your apparent WP:COI with this article is quite overwhelming. You have accused and attacked multiple editors, insisting at nearly every turn that you are right and they are wrong. Your comments and continued use of an account by multiple people has made it clear that you do not have a willingness to follow even the most basic of Wikipedia policies.
This is exactly why Wikipedia highly discourages people from writing about subjects they have a close connection to, because people are not able to view criticism neutrally and further they view that said criticism as being based in ethos instead of logos. You/You all have called in to question the credibility of Wikipedia, but then turned to it for assistance in the same breath. Please understand that Wikipedia is not an outlet for you to further publish your research. Wikipedia is a collection of topics that are clearly demonstrated to be notable and (this is key) presented in a neutral and formal tone expected of the encyclopedia. Your name calling, accusations, degrading of the encyclopedia's integrity, willful ignorance of basic rules, and insistence of playing the intellectually superior card show that you approaching the topic neutrally is impossible to expect. This, in combination with the fact that the article is still so far from the expected tone show that continuing to review the topic would be an act of futility.
Name calling, accusing others of bias without merit, deriding a communal publication and insisting on intellectual superiority do not work in any academic field I'm aware of. I'm not sure why you (the collective we) thought it would work here. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:22:45, 25 March 2020 review of submission by NuvaTelcon

Hey all. I posted on the Teahouse and was asked to come here. I just tried out my first Wiki article, a biography of a living person. It was declined due to not meeting the sourcing requirements: "Sources need to be independent of the subject". I was sure two of my sources, that of a large Guardian article and a short film published by National Geographic would be correct, with all the other sources supporting the information. However, both the reviewer and the users in the Teahouse disagreed. I've since added more sources which don't feature interviews with the subject, but I fear they won't be enough. Any chance I can get some advice, or a good example of a source or biography that fits the Wiki requirements? NuvaTelcon (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NuvaTelcon. To be frank(and I apologize), the source you added are no different. They either consist of interviews/comments from Dunn or are not about him personally, but what he has done. What you have offered might make a good contribution to the 3D printing article, or perhaps an article about 3D printing in space, but not one about Dunn personally. Others may disagree with me, so feel free to get other opinions, but that's what I see. If you haven't already, please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, no worries about being frank. Thank you for your comments, both here and on the Teahouse. I understand your point of view - it could be hard to tell clever (or clumsy) self-promotion with sympathetic publications instead of a journalist genuinely going out to interview the subject. I was really hoping The Guardian had enough journalistic heft to be the latter. I had hoped, over time, to tie his article, along with Aaron Kemmer/Made In Space, Inc. and other NewSpace companies, into a better NewSpace article, or an article on industrialisation of space (I argued that Dunn is a leading advocate of this, and thus is notable). Maybe someone has a different opinion, but perhaps I'll just throw in the towel until more articles come out. NuvaTelcon (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NuvaTelcon And it certainly could be that Dunn will get more coverage later. Your draft was declined, not rejected- which means there is at least a chance it can later make it into article space. It might just be too soon right now. Since your draft is in your sandbox, it will stay there for you to work on over time. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

03:45:41, 26 March 2020 review of draft by Sunstone23


Hello! I am new to Wikipedia, but I would like to request help in editing a draft for a company called "MGP Live." As I disclosed in the talk page for this draft, Massimo Gallotta (the founder and CEO of the company) is a personal friend of mine, and I think that the work his company has done deserves a Wikipedia page. I have been working on the new page, and I have been rejected twice. I am hoping that an experienced editor could take a look at this and share any updates, feedback, or suggestions that could improve the odds of this page being accepted.

I believe that MGP Live is noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia because it has played a significant role in developing the "live Video game music concert" phenomenon. The unique productions of MGP Live have also been covered extensively in international press including The New York Times, Financial Times, LA Times, Variety, and many other local and music-related news.

Any help or advice would be very much appreciated. Thank you very much! Sunstone23 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Sunstone23 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstone23, It needs to be clearly demonstrated how this subject passes the rigorous requirements of WP:NCORP. It is also highly recommend that you do not make contributions on behalf of a subject that you have a WP:COI with. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:00:57, 26 March 2020 review of submission by Beatleswillneverdie

What do I need to do for the article to be accepted? Can you give me some examples? Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beatleswillneverdie, The article has been rejected which means that no level of fixing will make the song notable again. Please review WP:NSONG for guidelines surrounding recommended criteria for future song pages you might want to make. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that books like “Nirvana The recording sessions” are good sources. I see that in all the other nirvana article. Can I use that as a reference?

Again, the article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. You can add whatever you'd like to the draft, but that isn't going to change the fact that it won't be reviewed again. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:34:55, 26 March 2020 review of submission by Fojifon


Fojifon (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fojifon, your article was rejected for two reasons. First, it doesn't appear that it meets Wikipedia's strict notability criteria. That is, it is unlikely that there exists multiple independent sources that mention the subject of the article non-trivially. More importantly (in my opinion), the article is written in a promotional tone, with the intent to promote the subject of the article rather than present neutral information about the subject of the article. Articles must be written in a neutral point of view. If you would like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would encourage you to edit one of the many already created articles, as creating your first article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:47:45, 26 March 2020 review of submission by JWS89

Hello, my submission for the International Teqball Federation was rejected because "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." I of course want to rectify that but I wanted to check if the issue was with the number of sources I included or also with the sources I included? Obviously for some sections like rules of the game or member federations, the most reliable source is the website of the governing body which is what I have referenced. Is that acceptable or does it still need to be an independent reliable source? I am asking because I don't believe there will be many sources other than the governing body website that actually describe the rules in detail. I want to make sure I am getting this all right so it can be approved and I would greatly appreciate guidance on this. Many thanks in advance

JWS89 (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JWS89 If you are writing an article about the organization that governs this sport, the rules for the sport shouldn't be in it- they should be in the article about the sport itself. If the article is about the governing body, it should only describe what independent reliable sources say about the organization itself, not the sport. Those sources must also have significant coverage- meaning they should be more than just brief mentions or announcements of things the organization has done. Press release type articles are not acceptable as reliable sources for this reason. If the organization does not get significant coverage of itself, it would not merit a standalone article at this time.
If you are associated with this organization, you need to review WP:COI and WP:PAID for formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:48, 26 March 2020 review of submission by 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:1984:6A1B:D588:44A8


2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:1984:6A1B:D588:44A8 (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The only contribution from the IP address you are editing as is this page, but I see the draft that you are enquiring about. The subject that you are writing an article on likely doesn't comply with Wikipedia's notability criteria. That is, it isn't supported by multiple independent reliable sources, and those sources likely don't exist. Youtube videos are generally not considered reliable, nor are tweets or "fandom" sites. Additionally, your article seems to be written as a promotion. That is, by indiscriminately listing all characters on the T.V. show, there seems to be an intention to promote the T.V. show rather than presenting a neutral summary of information about it. If you would like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would encourage you to edit an article that has already been created. Creating your first article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:57, 26 March 2020 review of submission by Bamas100


I don't understand why the page is still marked as draft and I require assistance to move it to a publishable format. What do I need to do? Bamas100 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bamas100 You have submitted the draft and it is awaiting review. This will take some time so you will need to be patient. I see that you have declared a COI, but you may need to make the stricter paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What might be confusing you is that the article was originally accepted by a bad faith editor. Did you perhaps have any connection to the user that originally accepted your article? If not, I apologize for the confusion. I will note that your article is currently at risk of being rejected because of a promotional tone. Sentences like "launches landmark USD500 million Credit" serve only to promote the subject and not present factual information about it. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:42, 26 March 2020 review of draft by KennyParis


KennyParis (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the page i'd like to create on the artists Picard Brothers keeps being declined because of my sources but i don't understand why. Would be great to have help on this please. Thank you

KennyParis As you were told in the comments on your draft, you have not offered independent reliable sources with significant coverage, like news stories about these musicians, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. If such coverage does not exist, this pair would not merit an article at this time. It isn't enough to just cite the existence of their music. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:19:36, 26 March 2020 review of submission by Beatleswillneverdie

How come Nirvana songs like "Opinion" and "Talk to Me" have their own articles? Those songs were never even released while the band was together. And they even didn't chart anywhere. Some Nirvana songs didn't even chart and they still have articles. How did those get created when they didn't even enter any charts? Beatleswillneverdie (talk) Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beatleswillneverdie Any subject, be it a song, business or person, merits an article on Wikipedia if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. The criteria for a notable song is at WP:MUSIC. Your draft only offers three sources that do not seem to have significant coverage of the song. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:58, 26 March 2020 review of draft by Praundo


I just submitted my draft (Draft:Burgundian State), followed the steps, but no pending submission banner appears. Is it normal? Sincerely yours Praundo (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praundo It is at the bottom of the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:14:39, 26 March 2020 review of submission by IceAgeEcologist

Removed pointer to twitter account. I apologize for mistake. As a newbie, it comes across as hostile to flag my page for speedy deletion without some dialog or chance to fix. Wikipedia user page guidelines say that brief bios are OK. IceAgeEcologist (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IceAgeEcologist: It's fine to write a few sentences about yourself on your user page, in accordance with Wikipedia:User pages. Don't submit such pages for review by Articles for Creation (AfC). As the name implies, only content intended for article space should go through that process, and this content would not make an acceptable encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:53, 26 March 2020 review of submission by Mehr Shahrose Munir

[ actually, i'm requesting because he must be on Wikipedia so that people would know about him easily. He is a motivation for youth. After knowing his life journey, young students of the world will get motivation from this article. Mehr Shahrose Munir (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehr Shahrose Munir: Wikipedia articles must have multiple reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. We don't create articles otherwise, regardless if you believe they "must" be on Wikipedia. You also probably need to disclose conflict of interest. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

03:17:36, 27 March 2020 review of submission by Beatleswillneverdie

I read an article can be notable if it "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries." I have included references from books, articles, and many more. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beatleswillneverdie, The key phrase you are missing here is "has been the subject". None of the sources that are independent of the subject show WP:SIGCOV of the subject. For example, take a look at Heart-Shaped_Box and note that there are sources and coverage that deal directly with the subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beatleswillneverdie, Also, just as a pro-tip, if a song by an artist as popular as Nirvana has been out for 20+ years and doesn't already have an article, then it is very unlikely that the subject is notable. There is a myriad of editors here fanatical about that band. Trust me, they would have created an article about it by now if it was notable. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, Thank you. I really appreciate you telling me. I now know what needs to be done for the future. Just kind of disappointed I spent a long time on research. Beatleswillneverdie (talk)

13:36:36, 27 March 2020 review of submission by SergeyImunify360


SergeyImunify360 (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC) This is not an advertising page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Imunify360, I don’t understand why all edits are regarded as advertising? Why for example these pages can exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAfee or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitdefender and Imunify360 can not? Thanks[reply]

There is no indication that this is a notable subject. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources either. Theroadislong (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:11:15, 27 March 2020 review of submission by 197.90.140.245

Please can you assist, advice on how to be more notable or define notable 197.90.140.245 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires significant coverage WP:SIGCOV of the subject in reliable, secondary sources WP:RS. Your article has been rejected which means it has been determined that the subject is not notable at this time. There's not a way to make someone "more notable" Sulfurboy (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:25:54, 27 March 2020 review of draft by 35winds


35winds (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help with the reference section on the Fumiko Ikawa-Smith page. I think that I've added in the correct information as I can't find any more information. But the system appears to want more. Thank you for your advice, in advance.

19:52:16, 27 March 2020 review of submission by JclarkeFLA

I am requesting a re-review because I took out verbiage that made it sound like an advertisement and added another resource. JclarkeFLA (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JclarkeFLA The problems still remain. It reads as a promotional brochure for the park. Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved, I regret to say. You have offered no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the park. Wikipedia articles only summarize what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:32:44, 27 March 2020 review of submission by Renwang101

Made some changes, hopefully it is fine now, thanks. Ren Renwang101 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renwang101 Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning there is little chance it can be brought up to standards. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a brief message as below from 331dot:

Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning there is little chance it can be brought up to standards. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference between "rejected" and "declined".

Am I getting better or worse after few changes I made to the article?

Thanks!

Ren Renwang101 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask follow up questions in the same section as your existing question. As I said, rejected means it has little chance of being improved to the point where it would be a valid article. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

03:40:35, 28 March 2020 review of submission by Pilot333


Pilot333 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment left by @DGG is really vague and they haven't replied on what part of the Wikipedia guidelines this is failing. I'm assuming it was something they derived from WP:NOT but there's nothing there about press releases, so I can't find more specific info. The article put forward has no events or announcements, but rather just basic history, backed by some media coverage, which basically the bare minimum to get an article started while meeting WP:SIGCOV. I think it's clear the stub has no recruitment, opinions, scandals, gossip, or advertising and maintains a neutral point of view because of that. There's a lot of notable companies in the media that should have stubs (and AFC demonstrates this) but it can be hard to do so when the instructions are unclear.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=947734212"