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 Prasad3455 (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 12 April 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


April 6

02:20:58, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Didgeri

It is imperative to know that what else apart from credible links could one cite in references. And if WiJungle page is an advert then what would you call these pages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trishneet_Arora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucideus There are tons of such pages available on WiKipedia.

It seems like reviewer has declined the submission with no concrete reason. Highlighting a general reason seems intended.

Didgeri (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didgeri Please read other stuff exists. It is a poor argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If the articles you reference are only sourced to press releases, they too would be inappropriate. Wikipedia should only summarize what independent reliable sources] with significant coverage say about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable business). Press releases and routine announcements are not independent sources, and as such do not establish notability. Coverage by a source must be in depth and that source must have chosen on their own to write about the subject, not just republish a press release. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:58, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Didgeri

Hi 331dot, I respect your point and I myself being a volunteer always ensure the guidelines and benchmarks of Wikipedia. Hence while choosing the subject, I did my good amount of research to ensure that references are independent & credible. And that is why I opposed the raised point about article being entirely based on press releases. I kindly request you to go through the article and references once, you would agree that subject has been covered well by credible sources & not just the press releases.

Didgeri (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through all the sources and they all are pretty much not sufficient for WP:GNG. The substantial ones are interviews, primary sources, press releases and other basically churnalisms and veiled advertisements. The closest sources to acceptable are actually about the person. Even the "Aegis Graham Bell Award" award is just a subdivision of a minor award under Alexander Graham Bell honors and tributes. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:12:30, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Chachanna

I am needing help creating citations to publish my article. My information came from a website and I am looking for the best way to publish without being rejected again. Chachanna (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chachanna No one can help you create citations. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. The only way you can do this is to hope that independent sources take note of the subject you wrote about and choose on their own to write about it themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:02:43, 6 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Marcusjp10


Hi, Why was my article not published. Please tell me how to fix and improve it.

Marcusjp10 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcusjp10 Your draft was essentially a promotional or advertising piece about who I assume is yourself. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where a person must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what any article subject says about itself, only in what others say about it. Please also review the autobiography policy as to why writing about yourself, while not forbidden, is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you need to essentially forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources state; most people cannot do this about themselves. An article about yourself is also not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:07, 6 April 2020 review of draft by Kathrynwatson


Kathrynwatson (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Hello,

My last reviewer commented that I was being paid to write the article. I used to work for Jasper Hope at Dubai Opera but not anymore. I am not being paid to write this article. I just thought that given his status here in Dubai and internationally he is notable and therefore a wikipedia page should exist for him. There are a number of references in the article illustrating he is notable including ones for some off the awards he has won. Any help you cam offer would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you, Kathryn

Kathrynwatson Interviews with the subject are primary sources and not acceptable for establishing notability. Any person or organization can create an "award" and give it out(the "331dot award for the 100 best editors"), but the giving of the award needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources, not just a press release or brief announcement of the award(especially if by the organization itself)- as the giving of Academy Awards or Tony Awards has. The article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about Mr. Hope. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:13, 6 April 2020 review of submission by AlejandroLeloirRey

hallo, I was given some advises on how to change the references and I would like to submit it again, how can I do it? thank you AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlejandroLeloirRey Your draft had been rejected, not just declined, meaning there is unfortunately little chance it can be improved to the point where it can be formally a part of the encyclopedia. The person you wrote about does not seem to meet the notability criteria. If that's true, there isn't anything you can do. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot thank you for the info. I was told that since there is a biography of this person written by one of the most important italian writes (Walter Siti, Strega Prize 2013) published by one of the very best Italian editor (Rizzoli Libri) if I used this book as the main reference things would be different and so I did. Anyway, thank you again. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I am sorry if I disturb you but may be I am not ready to give it up, could you please give it a look and tell me what is your impression and what could be changed. There are still a few things I might improve but let me be honest, I gave a look to other gay porn star bios here and most of them have one or two references, in Carlo's Bio I used a very important and reliable book, news from national news papers for the recent facts and articles from AVN and XBiz for porn fact (wikipedia says explicitly that those are good references for porn). only for a few detail about his academic career I used (apart from the book) his institutional page on his university's web stie, which being a universtity web site I consider reliable. I would really appreciate if you could give me an hand.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlejandroLeloirRey I cannot read Italian so it is hard for me to evaluate the sources, but they seem to me to be brief mentions or routine announcements, neither of which establish notability; either the definition of a notable actor or a notable professor(though combining the two is certainly interesting). A university profile is not an independent source as they are usually based on what the person told them. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot which sources are you specifically talking about? 90% is based on the book which is Carlo Masi (real name Ruggero Freddi) biography. I didn't use as a source anything that wasn't entirely about Carlo Masi apart from things I used to prove very specific facts about his porn career which was 10 years ago, so you can understand that most of the material is not online anymore. If you believe that those few references are a problem I could remove them and the information I took from them, it is not much. would that make any difference? would you than also recommend me to remove the university web site as a source? thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you do both of those things. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot ok, I did it :-) Now the only sources not entirely on Carlo Masi are one review of the Theatre show he did in Rome (but his name is in bold and his picture is the only one in the article) and an interview to the writer of his biography where he says that the biography is entirely based on actual facts but some of the conversations have been made up because they have actually happened years before so it is impossible to tell the exact words said then. I also used a couple of interviews but only in the "media attention" paragraph, I think there it's appropriated to used them, right?. could you please give it a look and give me more advises? thank you very much.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:24:38, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Saskia Schuldig


Saskia Schuldig (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there.

I am creating drafts but not sure why they are declining. I'm providing history to a company as I see that it is not listed on wikipedia, none of the SA service providers in web hosting are.

The previous message I received was that it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia however if I look at the five pillars listed I don't infringe on any of them.

Please can you assist me in submitting a piece that would be considered "according to the purpose of Wikipedia"

Thanks so much

I have rejected your draft, the company is not notable and you are being paid to edit but not disclosing this as you are required to do by the terms and conditions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there.

I am not an external writer being paid to edit. I am an employee at the company and am trying to add our information onto Wikipedia to provide users more insight to the history of the company. Based on your rejection, you suggest that the company is not notable. Can you please advise, what notability are you referring to as there are a few points under notability? Our company and the board members listed have a large number of coverage across media sites, thus why I cannot understand the point/which point of notability you are referring to.

Please advise, thanks so much

15:51:02, 6 April 2020 review of draft by Mischievousgnome


Hello, I have recently created my first Wikipedia entry on a subject in the area of fundamental physics, specifically a phenomenological model of gravity involving inertia. The entry was rejected apparently within a few hours on the grounds that the references did not show the topic to be sufficiently notable. It is not clear whether the editor bothered to read the article. I made disclosure before submitting the article, and produced it using an account that I had created years ago in order to make a small edit that, to my recollection, has nothing to do with the present submission. I would like to proceed to add references from third parties in order to attempt to satisfy the notability requirement, though I note that at least one other article dealing with similar subject matter falls far short of the standard being applied in this case. (I realize that this is not deemed a valid defense, yet it does not suggest impartiality in the review process.) In the article itself I provided numerous references to illustrate various empirical tests of the theory, as well as a proposal for a crucial laboratory test, which has not yet been performed. Barring a laboratory test, the strongest evidence for the theory will come from the data gathered by one of the experiments that make up the current Insight Mars mission. I conceived the idea of creating a full Wikipedia article on the theory after making an edit to the appropriate article about the Mars experiment to indicate that a test of this theory would be one of the bonuses from the the mission. In order to demonstrate that this was fact and not my personal opinion, I cited the principal investigator at NASA, with whom my friend has been in regular contact for perhaps a decade. Upon embarking on the drafting of the article, I discovered that I had not accumulated sufficient edits to qualify as a creator, and therefore made edits to other articles in related fields so that my proposed article could be cross-referenced, a procedure I assume to be quite standard. There are now mentions of the theory that are ready to be linked to my eventual article. All this took place in the last few days. This morning I am greeted by the news that a thread in the WikiProject Physics Talk forum is accusing me of starting a single purpose account (which I have pointed out to you is not the case) created to promote my friend's publications and claiming that the theory in question is too fringe to merit mention. The edits I made are deemed proof of corrupt intent. Apart from the slanderous accusation against me personally, this disclosure reveals a prejudice against the type of theory proposed by my friend. Following a much earlier suggestion by one of the great physicists of our time, it is based on a modification of Newtonian gravitation, and its conclusions call into question both the need for Einstein relativity and the foundations of the current model of cosmology, the Big Bang theory (not the TV show). In light of the assertions on the Talk forum, it begins to appear that the air is poisoned, and I wonder if an assessment of the submission on its own merits remains possible. I should point out that my friend is an emeritus professor of engineering with a long and illustrious career in academics, also serving as director of a prestigious university. He is an expert in Newtonian mechanics and has authored and co-authored university textbooks on this topic and related engineering subjects. In addition to his publications, he has presented his theoretical work in numerous lectures at institutions of higher learning and conferences, and has endeavoured to test its validity in publications spanning a 36 year period. I am therefore in need of advice as to how to proceed with the revision and resubmission procedure, knowing that the process may be tainted by bias. Thank you for your attention. Mischievousgnome (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC

Going forward, might I suggest paragraph breaks? This wall of text was quite difficult to digest. Your comments here have made it abundantly clear that you have a COI with the subject and should properly disclose so or cease editing as your ability to stay neutral seems quite compromised. We are going to heed and give heavy credence to the Wikiproject for Physics opinion about this article. I would work with them to establish the notability of this and the factual accuracy. Until then, this article should continue to be denied. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I did use returns at the ends of paragraphs, but these seem to have been stripped. With regard to your first recommendation, I did do disclosure as per instructions. To the best of my knowledge the content of the article is entirely factual. Should the opposite be demonstrated I would be happy to make amendments. I hope that the text will be fully vetted without bias on the part of editors once additional references have been entered and the article resubmitted.Mischievousgnome (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mischievousgnome:, use two returns at a time to split up paragraphs. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mischievousgnome - The content appears to be fringe science, and appears to be an effort to use Wikipedia for original research. Portions of it read like they were either translated from French by someone who did not know the underlying subject matter, or like a piling on of academic terms. I am inclined to assume the latter, because it does not mention having been translated. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:42, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Queenofboston


Queenofboston (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC) I have added another references to the Financial Times covering the interview of EU Scream with the spokesperson of the European Union on the Covid-19 crisis communication. This is to substantiate that EU Scream is contributing on an ongoing basis to public policy discussions in Brussels and the EU. I accepted all recommendations of previous reviewers and deleted a reference to a Forbes online article. It is difficult to find sources that are accessible to reviewers online that are at the same time not online articles. Some articles are pay-walled and that is also discouraged by Wikipedia, based on my other experience.[reply]

Queenofboston, pay-walled sources are fine as long as they are reliable, independent, and mention the subject of the article significantly (not just trivial coverage). How about you provide what you think are the three sources you think meet the general notability criteria best and I'll see if they actually do meet the criteria. This will save reviewing time on my part. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727 Most reliable source third party coverage was in the Financial Times, below are two Financial Times links and I also copy the text because they are paywalled. Third I copy the reference in Politico to a specific episode and event by EU Scream.

https://www.ft.com/content/b3d20cce-19fe-11e9-b93e-f4351a53f1c3

Elsewhere in EU podcast land, EU Scream's latest episode looks at the merits of Macron's “citizens dialogues” to revive European democracy.

https://www.ft.com/content/b2d1cca6-38b7-11e9-b72b-2c7f526ca5d0

Podcast du jour : Economic historian Barry Eichengreen gets personal with EU Scream about his new book, The Populist Temptation, and warns that a failure to complete monetary union could be catastrophic for Europe's politics.

www.politico.eu/newsletter/politico-eu-influence/politico-eu-influence-presented-by-deutsche-borse-hearing-palooza-%E2%81%A0-on-ethics-body-%E2%81%A0proposals-huawei-ex-lobbyist-sets-up-consultancy/

TIP-TOEING AROUND THE FAR RIGHT: Should lobbyists engage with far-right and extremist lawmakers? EU Scream recently convened an ambitious group to kick-start this conversation: Michiel van Hulten, the director of Transparency International EU; Maris Hellrand, an Estonian journalist and activist; Benedikt Herges, the head of Siemens’ Brussels office; and Heather Grabbe, the director of EU affairs at Open Society Foundations. Participants were then guided by professor and activist Alberto Alemanno in drawing up some preliminary guidelines for lobbyists. If you missed the event (and a sighting of yours truly), then you can have a listen here.

There is also this article by Forbes which I find is relevant but apparently is not reliable because it is an online article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carmenniethammer/2020/03/02/ai-bias-could-put-womens-lives-at-riska-challenge-for-regulators/#4fc3107f534f — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenofboston (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:41, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Cavan.hill

Can someone please provide me with any assistance around finalising the article before it gets submitted.
I have updated references and removed un-verifiable references. Thanks, --Cavan Hill (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Cavan Hill (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:58, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Joecoolfavors


i have been working for a time on an article about a very accomplished musician, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Craig_Bailey_(musician) I have been rejected twice now because of unreliable sources...i really need to overcome this obstacle, and i am very confident ini the natability of the artist. any suggestions would help!

Joecoolfavors (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joecoolfavors Why do you have an urgent need to overcome this? The sources seem to be unchanged from previous reviews at least in terms of quality. This musician needs to have significant coverage (not just press releases, routine announcements) in independent reliable sources showing how he meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:08:29, 6 April 2020 review of submission by 76.88.34.163


76.88.34.163 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:39:27, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Tejaskapoor22


Tejaskapoor22 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

one <ref> was missing I corrected it .please approve it is my first submission and will work hard for next submission .
User:Tejaskapoor22 - The malformed reference to Nalandalive was not the main reason why your draft was rejected. You resubmitted your draft repeatedly after User:Sulfurboy and User:Theroadislong said that you had improper sources and that your draft needed to be cleaned up. Your unreliable sources included IMDB, which is not a reliable source, a Google search, and Wikimedia Commons. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:41:23, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Gvldz


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} Dario Brignole is one of the most recognized sports marketers in the US. He deals with big companies around the US promoting Hispanic talent such as Mexican players: Giovani dos Santos, Miguel Layun, Guillermo Ochoa, Jonathan dos Santos, etc. Furthermore, he has worked with MLS executives such as Don Garber who has a Wikipedia page as well. Looking for advice on how to add a Biography of him in Wikipedia.

Gvldz (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gvldz - Your draft, Draft:Dario Brignole, reads like an advertisement for the services of Brignole. He may be a notable sports marketer, but, if so, a biography of a living person in Wikipedia should focus on what independent sources have written about him, and should be neutral and not promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:27, 6 April 2020 review of submission by DigitalScholar55


I would like to know the reason for requesting the speedy deletion of the draft of the Border Community independent record label page. This record label has been established since 2003 and is very well known. Several artists which have done releases on the label have a wikipedia page which links to the Border Community page, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Holden_(producer) & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Fake.

Much smaller record labels have a wikipedia page, with far less content, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Planet.

Please note that I am in no way or form affiliated with the Border Community, I am merely a fan of several of the artists which release under that label.

Do let me know how I can improve the page in such a way that it can be considered for inclusion. Thank you.

DigitalScholar55 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DigitalScholar55 - If you are not affiliated with the Border Community, your draft evidently read as if you were being paid to advertise them. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon - Thank you for the reply. Could you take a look at my draft and tell me which part of it read as being non-neutral? The article was a draft. The information I provided in it was the date of foundation of the label, who founded it, the completed infobox with metadata and the discography. I am puzzled as to how these objective facts may have been seen as attempt of advertisement. Note: I used the french wikipedia page as a template for writing it. DigitalScholar55 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:DigitalScholar55 I am not an administrator. Only administrators can view deleted material. Your draft was deleted as G11, advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DigitalScholar55 I can view it. The draft did little more than state the existence of the record label and stated records they have produced; that's why it was considered advertising. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about the subject showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable organization. You offered no independent sources at all- only the label's own website. Wikipedia has no interest in what a subject says about itself, only in what others say about it. Please read Your First Article for more information.
Beware in citing other similar articles as a reason for yours to be permitted; see other stuff exists. Each article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. We can only deal with what we know about. The existence of an article is entirely dependent on coverage in independent sources. If a "smaller" record label gets a lot of coverage, while a larger label does not, the smaller one will merit an article and the larger one will not. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:29:40, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Argentum2f


Article was rejected because of "Insufficient sourcing to establish notability".

Articles: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=%22anderson+functions%22+magnetics&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47

Books: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22anderson+functions%22+magnetics

A quick look through those results will show that many of the results use, refer to, or otherwise discuss 'Anderson functions' substantively (i.e. more than a passing manner). I only referenced a couple sources originally, because that's all that's necessary to describe what "anderson functions" are. I'm not sure how to proceed. I could add lots of sources (10s, possible 100s) that make more than passing references - but's there would be no actual purpose to these other than establishing notability. I've never seen another article with a section just saying "hey, here's a ton of references just to prove I'm notable", though, so how do I proceed? (Or should I?)

Argentum2f (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argentum2f, Which one of your sources show significant independent coverage of the subject? Sulfurboy (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:16, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Kayhan2341

I will love to review the subject to something more simplified and take out some details out it

Kayhan2341 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

06:43:21, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Tejaskapoor22


Tejaskapoor22 (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dear sir ,yes first two editors rejected my submission because I am new to this ,I had no idea earlier which sources are reliable ,but the third attempt I tried to do with the most reliable sources .if you can see sir .

and I had no idea that imdb and google is not reliable ,I put into the profile just for acknowledge ,that actor has done pretty good films .

please help me to make some few changes and make to publish this is my first work I needed support .

Tejaskapoor22 (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please anyone can help me building the page kritn ajitesh .OR vcan nyone build the page

Tejaskapoor22 You have made the common error of diving right in to article creation without understanding the process or what goes into creating an article- which is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. New users are much more successful at creating articles when they first edit existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and for what is expected of article content. In this case, it might have helped you become familiar with the notability guidelines for actors. It appears that your friend does not meet those guidelines, at least with the sources you have provided. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects. Without such sources, your friend would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time.
If you are able to find such sources, you should first read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about the process. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:24, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Asthes

I would like to know why my draft was rejected ? I followed all the guideline of wikipedia to create a page on a new subject by referencing all by sources and to give more information about a company to whom it would interest. This is why I would a least like to know the reason of this reject.

Asthes (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asthes, The article was a full on advertisement which is not welcome here. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 09:14:06, 7 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Jaystall80


hello, I am looking at getting further input into the article draft we have created and wonder if someone could point out where we need to look at or change? This is one of the first pages we have created so any further help would be very much appreciated.

Thanks

Jay Stall (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is just advertising, I suggest that like the many volunteers here, you spend a few hundred hours editing other articles before you have the gall to start charging for your services. Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:23:55, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Mohammad Faiq Shah


Mohammad Faiq Shah 10:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Faiq Shah (talk • contribs)

Mohammad Faiq Shah, what is your question? Sam-2727 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:13, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Lynda MALOCHET


Hi, thank you for your review. The goal of this page is informative, it wasn't the purpose tou make it sound like advertisement. What should i do to rework this ?

Regards, Lynda MALOCHET (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 11:07:00, 7 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Earthianyogi


Copula article declined

Hello, My article was declined by a senior editor :@Sulfurboy:. The comments provided were "What is going to be most helpful here is providing a lead that introduces the subject to the uninitiated reader. That is, imagine you are trying to explain this concept as simply as possible to someone that doesn't know about this subject, how would you do so? Once that is done we can properly assess the notability of the subject." This comment makes perfect sense, however, the concept is already define in another article on Wikipedia at URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(probability_theory). Does it mean that I am suppose to duplicate the same information in my article? Or it it more appropriate to merge two articles? Also, I would be thankful if a senior editor could help write this up so that it is accepted? Thanks for the feedback. Earthianyogi (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earthianyogi, Yeah I wouldn't word for word repeat what's said in another article, but maybe incorporate the ideas in that lead with a simple connection made from that broader subject to this more specific topic, if that makes sense. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, I think it does. I will try to add short context to the article and re-submit. Thx

Earthianyogi (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Earthianyogi - I see that you are trying to write about technical mathematical topics. I would suggest that you ask for advice at WikiProject Mathematics. I will also comment that I would rather read technical mathematical drafts that I do not understand than advertising that I do understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon Fantastic, thank you! Earthianyogi (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Other Experienced Editors

It appears that this new editor is trying to contribute to Wikipedia in highly technical mathematical areas, and is having difficulty with the style or approach, and should be encouraged. This editor is likely to provide more of a contribution to the encyclopedia than editors who want help in advertising their companies. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:52, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Dudup2020

Hello! I have been working on an article, and it's been declined three times. Could I get some specific help on what I need to change? Nothing is seeming to work. Thanks! Dudup2020 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told yesterday "You offer no independent reliable sources to show how this person meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician" So you need to find at least three of those before re-submitting. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:24, 7 April 2020 review of draft by Mollygmorris


Hiya,

I've been working on a page about Vernon Francois the hair stylist for a while now, which keeps getting declined for using a non-neutral tone. I think I've finally fixed it, but wanted to get some tips beforehand, as I don't want it to get deleted because it keeps getting declined. Is there anyway someone could take a look just to give me some feedback?

Thank you!

Mollygmorris (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:16, 7 April 2020 review of submission by EVS2015

Hi,

I've had two reviews and comments regarding the Wikipedia draft article on The Power of Nutrition. I made edits, trying to remove anything that read like an advertisement and changed the tone to more neutral. The second review also got declined because, additionally, it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I was wondering how I could go about ensuring the article complies to the Wikipedia guidelines entirely? I thought there was still a good variety of independent, reliable, published sources, not just ones produced by the charity, so as this has been deemed not to be the case, I was wondering if anyone could perhaps point me to specific sections that don't comply, and in your opinion appear to be the problem?

Thanks. EVS2015 (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:19, 7 April 2020 review of draft by Mustafa Aw-Abdi


Mustafa Aw-Abdi (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not asked a question, your draft has not been submitted for review either, it has only one source and was declined previously for not being adequately supported by reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:43:24, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Fh.india


Kindly tell me which is the promotional content I shall remove It immediately Fh.india (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for spamming. Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:35, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Geoffrey Luoma


Hello. I had published my sandbox page (very rough draft) for my class for someone to peer review it. Why was it rejected? Thank you! Geoffrey Luoma (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geoffrey Luoma: Wikipedia does not publish original work or any essay-like submissions like this. Consequently, we also don't review work that isn't suitable for Wikipedia in the first place. If you believe the topic is notable as defined by Wikipedia, you have to begin by finding suitable sources and only then writing content based fully on those sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:54, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Anishjustoficial


Anishjustoficial (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anishjustoficial: The person is not notable. The draft has been reviewed and you've been told this many times. There's nothing else to be done here. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:56:01, 7 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by NanaKofiER


I believe the subject is notable for a wikipedia article, but i fear my lack of experience in creating wikipedia articles is hindering the process.

I respectfully ask a seasoned editor for assistance in creating an article that meets wikipedia standards.

Two things i would ask to be considered:

First, the subject has several published works on the web. It is easy to confuse published articles in credible news sources written by the subject and published articles written in credible news sources covering the subject. It seems like unintentionally the subject is being punished for being an authority figure with published writings.

Lastly, the source is an American living in America but has established authority, credibility and notability in the African country of Ghana. The Ghanaian sources include national news outlets in the country which should also be considered.

Thank you for your support.


NanaKofiER (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NanaKofiER, have you written this article before perhaps under a different username? The article you're referring to I can't find (it isn't in your contributions). We (other Wikipedia editors) can help you format the article, but you need to write it yourself. How about you go ahead and create the article and I'll check out the formatting. If the sources you mention are independent, reliable, and mention the subject significantly (not just trivial coverage), then a Wikipedia article would be theoretically possible on this subject, but again you need to create it yourself. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:11, 7 April 2020 review of draft by EHoward83


Hello, I would like to publish an article on Jonathan Tel. My draft was rejected for lack of notability. How do I fix that?

EHoward83 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EHoward83: As the big red banner on the draft page explains, you need to add multiple independent reliable in-depth sources to the article. You should follow the further comments left by the reviewer. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EHoward83, Robert went above and beyond to explain why the article was declined. Did you have any specific questions about the policies he pointed out? Sulfurboy (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If his short stories have appeared in The New Yorker, you need to cite those stories as evidence of his notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:44:29, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Chachanna

I am wondering what changed I need to make for a re review and to have my article accepted? Chachanna (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chachanna, The article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. I would advise maybe editing existing pages for awhile before venturing in to the very complicated world of page creation. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:13:32, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Document hippo


I wonder what changes should be made for the article to be considered notable.

A retired Federal Security Service colonel who used to serve as the head of its public relations centre does sound to be a notable figure.

There's a lot of information in the Web, and I would appreciate any pointers regarding what kind of information should be added to that article.

--Document hippo (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:34:36, 7 April 2020 review of draft by Sdifenlin


Hi, i try to make game Draft with an image. But the game cover always disappear automatilly from the page. The image is low quality so it should not have copy right problem. Here is the image. Please help. Without image this page is not complete...



Sdifenlin (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdifenlin, actually you have a legitimate point here. Fair use images are only allowed in the article space, but it seems to me as if the draft space should allow them as well. I'm probably missing something though because I'm sure someone's thought of this before. Anyway, I would just go without an image for now and then when (or if) your page is published to the mainspace (that is, it becomes an article), you can add the image in. Hope this helps, Sam-2727 (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Yes thank you ! i think the problem has solved :3. It was an image in the draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdifenlin (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

01:53:18, 8 April 2020 review of submission by BelalMurad


BelalMurad (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:34:06, 8 April 2020 review of submission by BristolJack


BristolJack (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


How can I publish this article?

The short answer is that you can't. The topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, you have no independent sources and no indication that they meet [[WP{:NARTIST]]. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:38:00, 8 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Anne De Frenne


hello, English is not my native language, so there are probablymistakes in my text. Sorry for this. I need your assistance for writting this article like an encyclopedia. I have already retrieved many information from the website and left the minimum. What can I continue to change? The reviewers ask for independant reliable published sources. There are three, what can I do better? Many thanks for your help. Best regards, Anne

Anne De Frenne (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne De Frenne, the main problem now is that your article reads more like an advertisement. For instance, "a number of" kind of suggests that there are "a lot" which is a subjective measure. Why not just list the exact number? Also, I don't think (but am not 100% certain without further investigation) all of your sources are independent of the subject of the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:57:26, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Mr Tejal


Mr Tejal (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:59:12, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Mr Tejal


Hello, I have tried to write Amit Bhadana article. And I think I have written the article correctly, but even then the reviewers do not accept this article. I do not have much knowledge of English language. I might be mistaken for this. Please help me make this article. Thank you Mr Tejal (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:24, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Kotmic kenan

Kenan Kotmic is a 17 year old South African Independent Artist , Born (18 April 2002) raised in Johannesburg. He started making music back in September 2016 and has been at it ever since.
 Kotmic kenan (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kotmic kenan: You can comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kenan Kagiso Kumalo in regard's to the person's notability. There's not much else we can help you with if the person does not meet the threshold. Please also disclose any conflict of interest. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:56:45, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Kotmic kenan

please delete it a Kotmic kenan (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kotmic kenan, speedy deletion requested. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:16:59, 8 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by N77dawes


I would like to know what changes I need to make to the sources in order to publish this page. I would also like to present this page as a biography page.

Thank you for your support.

N77dawes (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N77dawes, check out the links provided in the decline message. Essentially, your article must be supported by multiple independent, reliable sources that mention the subject of the article significantly (not just trivial references). Currently, the references you have that mention the subject of the article aren't independent of him, and the ones that are independent/reliable don't mention him significantly (if at all). Hope this helps. Let me know if you have a more specific question, Sam-2727 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:31:09, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Sairamg.13

Kindly help me getting my article to get approved Sairamg.13 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sairamg.13, an article must have multiple independent reliable sources to be considered notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. Generally, interviews aren't considered to be independent, and in general youtube videos shouldn't be cited as sources. I would recommend you try looking for reviews of her acting, or modeling. If sources complying with these guidelines exist, this is where they will probably be. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]



U have mentioned try looking for reviews of her acting, or modeling. .... so ehre shall be the reviews ? In Facebook page or in wer can u help wer to find i means in which source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairamg.13 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:41, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Miraculousladybuggg


Miraculousladybuggg (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miraculousladybuggg, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:11:14, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Agwarnock

Hello! I had recently tried to get an article published because it is part of a graded assignment for my english class. However, my request was rejected because it was marked "contrary to the use of Wikipedia" (or something along those lines, sorry) and was considered "an uncensored advertisment". The assignment is due today so I really need to get it published; I am willing to make the corrections needed in order to do so! Agwarnock (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agwarnock, If your teacher is requiring that you have a published wiki page as part of an assignment then they are improprly using Wiki as a teaching tool. Please direct them to go to WP:ASSIGN Sulfurboy (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to follow the rubric that she has given. I appreciate the help, though! Agwarnock (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agwarnock Your teacher has set you up to fail, and that is completely unfair to you. I would be willing to communicate with them to make that point. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agwarnock also just a general piece of advice. Articles on companies/people are generally the hardest types of articles to write for Wikipedia because it's very hard to write them in a neutral tone. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
THank you, I have found that to be true. Any advice on what to include about a company on the page in order for it to be published ASAP? Agwarnock (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:50:07, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Samoaja


Dear, May I ask why it was rejected so I can fix it. Its very similar to Zcash which has far less resources, information and references. What am I doing wrong? I would appreciate the help.

Samoaja (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samoaja, The article has been rejected which means there is no hope to establish notability at this time and it will not be considered further. Just because another page exists doesn't mean this one should. See WP:INN. If you have an issue with the Zcash page you can nominate it for deletion if you feel it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samoaja (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Dear There isnt another page for Hush coin. Maybe other pages with same name but not in cryptocurrency. This is the first time Hush coin page was tried to be created.[reply]

Samoaja, what Sulfurboy meant is that just because the zcash page exists doesn't mean that the hush coin page should necessarily exist. It must be considered on its own merits. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:42:40, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Ciete007


Dears:

Please, ¿What is the name of one Personal Template with fields (name, image, size, description, place of birth, place of death, nationality, occupation) like e.g. his partner Wolfang Förster in https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_F%C3%B6rster who is mentioned in the document.

Thanks a lot for support.

Regards, Ciete007

Ciete007 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ciete007, copy and past this code, and if you want a more specific one (for a sports person), check out this template. Let me know if you need additional help in how to use these infoboxes as template modification can be intimidating at times. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Sam-2727:

Thanks for soon reply.

I really appreciate your help and it seems that the Template work very well.

Regards, Ciete007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciete007 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

Request on 01:36:15, 9 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Kojomo


I'm a new editor on Wikipedia who is either missing something or not doing something right in my quest to creating this page. I have since the decline, deleted content that are promotional and not properly sourced to my understanding but I would be grateful to any assistance provided as it will help me understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia better and further improve my knowledge to edit Wikipedia pages. I am currently stuck at this point and in need of your help. Thank you in advance.

Kojomo (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kojomo: As an example, you can't use wording like "one of Africa’s fastest growing and most dynamic companies" when the source is the founder's words. This is basically advertising for the company/person and not neutral reporting. Anything beyond the most basic facts needs to be sourced from a secondary sources. Expressions like "bagged a bachelor’s degree", "many strides", "lovely daughters" are not encyclopedic. The whole "Education" section is supported by a non-independent source where the content is basically the person's quote and it doesn't support most of the content, for example, where does it say anything about secondary school? You must cite all content for a biography. For example, 2 children -- where is this information from? Even obvious things like birth date -- the attached sources never actually say this. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: Thank you for your recommendations, I have now made the changes and correction as pointed out. Please review. And if I may ask, can this article be made a stub rather than leaving on draftspace while continuing to improve it? Your contribution to this article is highly appreciated! Kojomo (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kojomo: Firstly, you need to support content with secondary sources. This is what the first reason for rejection explains. For example, this is a (poor) interview basically. This is a press release and should not be used to support content about the company (it can at best say what the press release was for, but even then secondary sources are much preferred). This is half from the person themselves, half from a non-independent source and the whole tone of it suggest it's a company media blurb and there was no journalism involved. I didn't look past these sources.
You need to cite everything. Which source support that they were "born 24 October, 1980"? Which source support that they are "also known as Mr Sleeves Up"? Which source support that they are an "investor"?
Making the draft a stub is the same as accepting it. It's fine to improve it, but not to address fundamental issues with sourcing, which is critical for biographies, especially living persons. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: Wow, this is really helpful, I have a better understanding now. Please review to see if the article is now fit for submission. Thank you for your assistance thus far. Kojomo (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:10:39, 9 April 2020 review of submission by Lucyschneider

I need to remove copy-write information from the history, but am not sure how. My page submission was declined due to copy-write information, which i have since corrected, but the information is still in the history and this may cause the article to be deleted.

Lucyschneider (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucyschneider, It appears that the article has already been deleted. My suggestion to you would be to rewrite it, making sure to not copy-paste from any source, and only paraphrasing when adding sources. Furthermore, you shouldn't use the website of a subject to write about it, you should only use reliable secondary sources, i.e. newspapers, books, reputable news sites, that sort of thing. If such coverage does not exist, then we cannot write about the subject. Seeing as that subject has paid you, you ought be prepared for the very real possibility that your subject cannot be written about. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:23:06, 9 April 2020 review of submission by 102.65.40.97

I am requesting a review as the content submitted is informative, based on the history of the company. It provides insight into the development of the business. The article is not aimed to be promotional in any way.

102.65.40.97 (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable company). Brief mentions or routine announcements are not acceptable for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:40:09, 9 April 2020 review of submission by Saskia Schuldig


Hi there. I am not an external writer being paid to edit. I am an employee at the company and am trying to add our information onto Wikipedia to provide users more insight to the history of the company. Based on your rejection, you suggest that the company is not notable. Can you please advise, what notability are you referring to as there are a few points under notability? Our company and the board members listed have a large number of coverage across media sites, thus why I cannot understand the point/which point of notability you are referring to.

Please advise, thanks so much Saskia Schuldig (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saskia Schuldig, For starters, as an employee of the company you are in fact being paid by the subject, thus you must declare that by following the steps at WP:PAID.
A link to our policy on notability. In plain English: in order to have a page on Wikipedia, a subject needs to have been written about in reliable independent sources. Generally, for companies, that means having a solid helping of newspaper articles written about it. The company's own websites and statements don't count. If its employees/owners are notable, that doesn't make the company inherently notable.
You should probably read WP:COMPORG, which lays out why its not necessarily a good thing to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not for promotion, and companies don't have control over articles they create. People can put both good and bad things on your article. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:56:33, 9 April 2020 review of submission by Invader2580

Since my previous draft was rejected I request you to reconsider the request again for the wikipedia page to be created. Thanking You, Yours Sincerely Invader2580

Invader2580 (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Invader2580: There is nothing we can do about this draft, because the site/channel are not notable. You have made no changes to the draft since it was rejected, so there's nothing to re-review. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:01, 9 April 2020 review of submission by CormacORourke19


CormacORourke19 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Healy is the singer of The 1975, a band with multiple platinum records, billboard #1s, etc.

Hi CormacORourke19. The band is notable, but Wikipedia has stand alone biographies of individual members of a band only if the person is notable for something independent of the group. As of summer 2016, there was overwhelming consensus that Healy was not independently notable. The draft doesn't make a persuasive case that his notability has changed since then. Write about something else. Wikipedia has over 6 million topics to choose from, nearly all of which need improvement. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:58, 9 April 2020 review of submission by Woodchuck123


Woodchuck123 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you please re-review. The reviewer said it was rejected as wikipedia is not a place for resumes or autobiographies. Which I understand and agree with. The article I submitted was neither of these.

The article described a notable NASA engineer who just happened to be my late brother which I noted on the page with the conflict of interest as required by Wikipedia.

Craig's contributions to NASA and space science were many. NASA acknowledged his contributions with two NASA leadership awards and NASA renamed the MMS mission control center after him along with renaming one of the four MMS spacecraft after him.

And not sure how one could argue that his achievements were not notable as he led NASA's last mission to the moon! The moon mission, LRO, was on a tight timeline and budget per a directive from President Bush. Craig and the NASA team got it successfully launched on schedule and it has continued to operate to this day. The spacecraft was only designed to last 2 years and now has lasted > 10 years and continues to provide data on the moon. The MMS mission that he led, put 4 identical spacecraft in synchronized orbits. First time ever accomplished. And is even in the Guinness book of world records.

I have seen plenty of wikipedia of pages for people that IMO were far from notable.

Maybe I didn't write it well enough to get the point across. So if it isn't written well enough, maybe someone could help to make it publishable. Woodchuck123 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodchuck123, Howdy hello! Its possible that he might be notable, but some additional sources will need to be found. To show notability we need news articles that discuss him with significant coverage. Can you try to find some news coverage that specifically discusses him, and is more than just a passing mention? Please leave any findings on my talk page.
Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:04, 9 April 2020 review of submission by Chelseam5

I created this draft, and abided by the terms and conditions, disclosing paid editing. Needless to say, all of my edits on WP are constructive and are always done voluntarily. This draft was recently rejected, after half a year(!) of pending, clearly because of the paid edit disclosure. The official reason was supposedly lack of notability, yet any amateur editor can see that this isn't true. The article is written in a NPOV, backed by over 20 independent and secondary sources, and its subject is notable. If this help desk can be of assistance, I believe this case deserves its attention. Thanks. Chelseam5 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably decline ANY draft that had the word "solutions" in the first sentence too. See WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed that word. Is there anything wrong with the draft now, that is actually not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines? If so I would like to know, before re-submitting it. Thanks, Chelseam5 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chelseam5, It needs a general cleanup for buzzwords. Also the sourcing needs to improve. PRnewswire is a bad one, don't use the company's own press releases. I would go through all the sources to ensure they are reliable and not promotional/related to the company. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the PRnewswire article now (it should be noted that such sources are often properly used in WP articles and do not cancel out dozens of other independent articles). DGG, the draft's sources include TechCrunch, Nuance Communication, TIME magazine, Fortune, to name just a few -since you disapproved it for notability reasons, would you be so kind to explain why these aren't enough, or whether there are enough now. CaptainEek, maybe it's because English isn't my native tongue but I candidly couldn't find buzzwords (I tried to improve the article with a minor edit now), if you find something specific please tell me. Chelseam5 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:54:45, 9 April 2020 review of submission by Denis99999


Denis99999 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:54:45, 9 April 2020 review of submission by Denis99999

Denis99999 the subject of your article must have multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject significantly (not just routine or trivial coverage). A reviewer has determined that these sources likely don't exist, so your submission has been rejected. If end up finding these sources, put them here and then perhaps a review could be considered. Also, autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:11:05, 9 April 2020 review of submission by Matrixfundaments

Hi! I recently submitted a Wikipedia page for artist, "Jamie Kai". I manage all of my own artist relations, and have recently signed a distribution deal with Symphonic Distribution, who will be releasing my first official single in all DSP's available as of tomorrow 10. April 2020. I recently submitted a Wikipedia page as well to have presence within the community for all listeners to match the presence in other outlets, YouTube, Soundcloud, Instagram, and all other social media platforms.

However, after submission to the Wikipedia database, my submission was declined although it did meet Wikipedia standards as quoted, "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 music-related topics)."

My question is why was my submission rejected, as sources for the first submission were provided, from reliable, published, secondary sources, which show significant coverage.

The artist began their career in Germany, on the spin-off of the German franchise of "American Idol", Deutschland sucht den Superstar or DSDS. I have provided articles and videoclips as references. What am I missing? Here by the suggestion of Tatupipla. THX! :)

Matrixfundaments (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixfundaments, which sources exactly do you think qualifies the subject as notable under WP:GNG? I can offer you more specific advice (per source) if you give examples of ones you believe are part of the guidelines. Also I'm wondering: you refer to the artist in the first person at the start of your comment, but shift into third person at the end. If you are the artist, you should declare a conflict of interest on your userpage (follow the instructions on the page I linked). Sam-2727 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


April 10

Request on 00:13:06, 10 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Fireinmyheart


My article got declined because they do not show significant coverage. I have added two external references and it is also connected to the article which is already present in wikipedia.

Fireinmyheart (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fireinmyheart, Two sources is not sufficient, nor is the article sufficiently cited inline. You need more sources. It also reads like a piece of advertising. For example, "exciting" is not a formal encyclopedic descriptor. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:54:07, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Celebritychoosing


Celebritychoosing (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celebritychoosing, This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Celebritychoosing, They seem to be an average set of individuals, like you or I. I was in a band in high school, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Only subjects that have received reliable coverage in multiple sources (such as newspapers) are included. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

05:48:23, 10 April 2020 review of draft by Geethmariya

We have to know how to write a proper content for my subject

Geethmariya (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geethmariya, We? Who is we? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:31:02, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Tsgroove


Tsgroove (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsgroove, You have not improved the draft despite repeated requests. It appears that the subject is not notable, and thus we cannot have an article about him. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:32:13, 10 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mr Tejal



Mr Tejal (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tejal, Very few YouTubers qualify to have a Wikipedia article. You need better sources. Be careful, many Indian sources that seem reliable are not, reviewers are pretty exacting. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:37:52, 10 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Vishakha2588


How to write the reference for the article?

Vishakha2588 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vishakha2588. To demonstrate the correct referencing technique, I edited the "Early life and education" section. You can follow that example for other topics you may edit.
I strongly urge you not to continue working on Draft:Mohit Romesh Sharma, for the reasons I've explained on the draft. The draft has been declined again, this time by KylieTastic. If they hadn't declined it, I would have. The draft is a hopeless effort at this time, but Wikipedia has millions of other articles you could improve. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:49:04, 10 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by GssBoot



GssBoot 11:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

15:18:22, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Invader2580

Hi, I wanted to know why the Article 'Radhakrishna Pillai' would soon be under speedy deletation. The article is about the Best selling Author Dr Radhakrishnan Pillai in India. A brief information is been provided with relevant citation and web links. Kindly help !

Invader2580 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not used the articles for creation process, instead you have created it straight into main space, your article has zero reliable sources so has correctly been tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:33, 10 April 2020 review of draft by Mgrodzins


In the Bibliography section, I have listed Titles and dates of published novels. I have more detailed bibliographic information for each work. Should it be included, and if so, how? Mgrodzins (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mgrodzins, you have plenty of information for each source. In fact, for some, you have a bit too much. You don't need to include an image of the actual letter from commons. At this stage (i.e. to be accepted via AfC), your sources really just need enough information to uniquely identify them. The problem with the sources was the types of sources you are using. The majority of your sources should be from secondary sources. These secondary sources themselves should be reliable (i.e. have a fact checking process, so not any blog or manuscript), and independent of the subject (so none of their books). They should also mention the subject significantly (so not just trivial coverage), but that doesn't seem to be a problem for you so far. I should note that Wikipedia doesn't count as a reliable source as it's user generated content (no fact checking process), and so that circular referencing is avoided (A cites B and B cites A). Sam-2727 (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm in the right place to thank you. I'll get to work on cleaning this up as best I can.Mgrodzins (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:24:00, 10 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Jshipley528


Hello I would like to get your recommendation on what types of specific references I should enter to have this article approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spill_(book). Is the most important thing to have lots of ref links within the body that appear in the References section at the bottom of the article? Or is it more valuable to have more Templates cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal references? I feel like there are enough references to this novel out there on the web; I just need to know what would count the most to getting it approved. The author, Les Standiford, has a wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Standiford, his own author page http://www.les-standiford.com/ . Should I look at the references used in Standiford's Wikipedia article to see if I can find more on this novel Spill in them? Any feedback would be appreciated. I really liked this book and would love to have the article published!

Jshipley528 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (copy of answer from my talk page) Firstly it is more important to have a few very good references that lots, and yes it is always good to have them in the body of the article rather than just listed at the bottom so information can be verified WP:V more easily. See Help:Referencing for beginners for the key guide, note that you can use the same source in many places see the same reference used more than once section. Although using the cite templates helps people locate the sources, especially for bare urls to preserve extra information for if the url changes, but it's not essential. The most important thing here is all new articles on Wikipedia have to show they are notable subjects (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Just because Les Standiford is notable does not mean every piece of work is also notable on it's own. The key criteria for a book is Wikipedia:Notability (books) in particular WP:BOOKCRIT. Currently your three sources are the book (not independent), the second appears to just be the book blurb (not independent), the last is IMDB (not a reliable source) and is about the film adaptation. So what you need to find is the independent sources, normally at least 3, for instance reviews and any awards won. KylieTastic (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:00, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Marcywinograd


Marcywinograd (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 

 I just submitted a draft for review and publication of Puppets Against AIDS. I included in the draft several photos, after having described the copyright owner as Gary Friedman of Gary Friedman Productions. Gary Friedman has granted me and Wikimedia a FREE LICENSE to use these photos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Puppets_Against_AIDS) I just wrote Gary an email asking him to forward his FREE LICENSE GRANT permission to permissions-common@wikimedia.org  I hope this will be sufficient, as the photos are fantastic and add so much to the entry.

  Also, I'm finding that even photos I have taken, to which I own the copyright, are being nominated for deletion. This is

upsetting. I write in the description that I took the photo, yet it is still being nominated for deletion. What is the problem? The same is true for video of news events that I have taken. ??? Thanks for any guidance or feedback you can offer. MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:51, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Marcywinograd


Marcywinograd (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I appeal the rejection of my draft "Puppets Against AIDS" entry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Puppets_Against_AIDS 

Below is my feedback to the editor who rejected my entry.

I'm Marcy Winograd. Thank you for reviewing my draft "Puppets Against AIDS" and for responding promptly. I would appreciate it if you would further clarify, with quotes from specific sentences that you consider inappropriate, why you have rejected the article and explain explicitly (with a link) to how I can appeal your rejection as I wrote in the required neutral tone, included criticism of the project under "Evaluation", included multiple source citations (and not just to the creators' web site but also to NCBI abstracts, the World Encyclopedia of Puppetry, New Scientist and the Kenya Institute of Puppet Theater), external links to other Wikipedia articles that related to the topic. You mentioned in the rejection that the article reads more like an advertisement. To be clear, I posted evaluations of the program that included criticism, e.g, "Effectiveness and Evaluation" "Evaluators concluded, however, that Puppets Against AIDS could be even more effective if it were "incorporated into existing community-based education programmes on HIV infection." (citation) also "Although the researchers noted a need for sciprt changes to both improve the portrayal of women and to better address modern misconceptions about HIV/AIDS ... (citation) To further clarify, I wrote this article entry after reading on Wikipedia a list of requested articles. I had never heard of Puppets Against AIDS, nor had any relationship with the creator. I only contacted him recently to see if he had any photos to which he would grant a right to publish in the public domain on Wikimedia and Wikipedia. I believe this rejection is unfair and unwarranted and I would like to appeal it. Please send me a link to where I appeal and/or reconsider the rejection while providing very specific feedback on which sentences are not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I spent many days/hours researching this program and am, frankly, shocked that the entry was rejected.Marcywinograd (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:11:44, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Invader2580


Invader2580 (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invader2580, subjects of articles must meet certain notability guidelines to be included in Wikipedia. Currently, your article has one source that is not independent of the subject (one of the criterion). Unfortunately, a reviewer has determined that these sources that would indicate notability likely don't exist, so no further action can be taken on your submission. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:07:14, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Captionrex


Captionrex (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:25:40, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Alexander marshall 07


Hello, I have created a page for a musician named Eleazar Galope in the Philippines. His biography might not be enough to support the credibility of his Wikipedia page but I know him too much and he requested me to create a Wikipedia page for him. It's so saddening that some staff rejected my submission, but however, I'll add more sources and biography for his page to be more verifiable if it gets accepted. Thank you very much. Alexander marshall 07 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander marshall 07 As an editor who has been around for 9 years you have to know that A) a single link to a Soundcloud account is nowhere near enough to pass both the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for musicians; and B) that you should not be writing about people you have a personal connection to. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

03:20:59, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Joseph Carrollane


Hi David. I'm unsure why you declined this Wikipedia page. This page is perfectly within the guidelines of what was required. Also, pages like this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloob ) are much less informative and informal, so why are pages like that allowed on when my submission clearly has encyclopaedic information on it?

Joseph Carrollane (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging David.moreno72, as the questioned is addressed to them. The current problem with your article is that it's purpose is promotion. I agree that the article you reference is perhaps less informative. Not all pages on Wikipedia are good examples of pages. Generally it's frowned upon to create "Operation" sections that explain in detail how to use a certain program. Wikipedia isn't a user manual. You also use promotional words that express opinions as if they were fact like "boasted" and "advanced" (these are just examples). Also, sources must be independent, reliable, and mention of the subject of the article significantly (non-trivially). Currently, your sources fail the "independence" check. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:46:07, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Serotonine69


This personality did achieve success and recognition in his field of work: https://thehearup.com/francesco-carrozzo-has-been-working-as-a-sound-engineer/6777/ https://www.theodysseyonline.com/from-italy-to-los-angeles-francesco-carrozzo-takes-over-the-music-industry-worldwide


working with American and Italian artists such as A$AP Ferg, The Game, Negramaro. Why it should not be approved?

Serotonine69 (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serotonine69 Your draft offers no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person to support the content of the article- it has no sources at all, actually. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:05:18, 11 April 2020 review of draft by DamienPo


Hi, should I understand that this article should be attached to CAST (company), is this correct?

DamienPo (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:53, 11 April 2020 review of submission by AlejandroLeloirRey


Hallo. anybody here can help me with Carlo Masi (Ruggero Freddi) biography please? I had a "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" note and I worked hard to improve it. Now the biography is almost entirely based on a biography of Carlo Masi (Ruggero Freddi) written by Strega Prize winner Walter Siti, who is one of the most important Italian writers alive. This biography is a book published by Rizzoli Libri one of the most important Italian publishers. Apart from the book I use as a source Xbiz and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Sources it says it is reliable. I use as a source also la Repubblica, La Stampa, Il Giornale and Corriere della Sera which are the most important Italian national news papers, very reliable and authoritative. Moreover I used Attitude (magazine), Times Higher Education, Gay Star News, Vanity Fair (magazines) and Vice (magazine) but mostly in the "media attention" part. Finally, I gave the link to the segment of the tv show where he asked his partner to marry him. Every single article I cite here is entirely on Carlo Masi (Ruggero Freddi) apart from the review of theater show he did, but even there his name is in blod and he is the main character.

As a porn star he was one of the most important and he was definitely the most important at Colt Studio Group, the company he worked for, in fact he is the only one ever named "emeritus" and he is the cover man of the 40th anniversary celebrative book of the company. Apart from the porn career his theater debut rose a lot of attention among critics and media. Moreover, media from all around the world have spoken about him when he become a professor for one of the most prestigious university in Italy, Sapienza University of Rome.

I don't know if this makes any difference but his biography is present in the Spanish (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Masi) , Italian (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Masi), Polish (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Masi), French(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Masi) and Korean (https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%B9%B4%EB%A5%BC%EB%A1%9C_%EB%A7%88%EC%8B%9C) wikipedia (I didn't use any of them as source).

Can anyone please give me an advise on how to improve it and ask to unblock it to submit it again for publication?

--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already being addressed at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD: yes, i saw it. i apologize, i thought they were different and separated pages were to gather informations. shoudl i delete it? thank you.

11:27:30, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Kew1122


I need help, and I don't know what I can do. Kew1122 (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:57, 11 April 2020 review of submission by 1.186.107.130

It's present on amazon prime https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brazen-Epiphany-Abhishek-Chaudhary/dp/B086VSN8TB

How more notable should it be? 1.186.107.130 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:07, 11 April 2020 review of draft by Marco Papavero


Marco Papavero (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:51, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Tsgroove

Help Tsgroove (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


15:52:04, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Shikhasethia


Hi, I had two questions that I needed support with, as this is my first article on Wikipedia.

Is there a way to have the link to the article on Gudmundur Eiriksson not be "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guðmundur_Eir%C3%ADksson" but "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudmundur_Eiriksson" to make it easier to search?

It still does not appear as a result when I search for Gudmundur Eiriksson on Google - is that something that will happen only as the page gets more hits?

Thank you.--Shikhasethia (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Shikhasethia (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shikhasethia, you can create a redirect, so the more common search term will redirect to the article. This has already been done for this case. For instance, try navigating to the page Gudmundur Eiriksson using the search bar in Wikipedia. I should note that the primary purpose of Wikipedia isn't to make pages visible on Google, it is to write a well written and comprehensive encyclopedia. In this case, the article isn't showing on Google because it was just created. Until articles are "reviewed" by new page patrollers, the article won't show up on Google (unless it hasn't been reviewed in 90 days). It will show up once a reviewer has made sure the article complies with the more essential Wikipedia policies. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sam-2727 Thank you - this is very clear and helpful.

18:44:13, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Geoffkors

This article is about "Hayden McNulty", a famous online personality and musician. Though he does not have any Billboard hits, he has over 600k subscribers and a dozen or so multi-million-view videos. I feel he warrants a small Wikipedia entry about him, as many of his contemporaries or relatively obscure artists also have small Wikipedia entries. Geoffkors (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffkors Please note that it is not usually a good argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist; as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. Feel free to point out some of these other similar articles for examination if you wish(though I'm guessing you don't wish to, which is okay). We can only address the problems that we know about. Other similar articles existing does not mean that yours can too. See other stuff exists.
In order to merit a Wikipedia article, a musician must meet at least one of the criteria written at WP:BAND, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Number of YouTube subscribers is not a notability criteria, as this is easily gamed(and 600,000 is relatively low). There are "YouTubers" with millions of subscribers who do not merit articles because no independent sources write about them. The sources you offer do not rise to the level of significant coverage by independent sources, sources that have chosen on their own to significantly cover the subject. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:54:42, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Gargsociology


Gargsociology (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gargsociology, your subject of your article has been determined by a reviewer to likely not be notable. That is, there probably aren't multiple independent reliable sources that mention significantly the subject of your article. If you can provide sources that do meet these requirements, then your article could be reconsidered for review. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

09:52:18, 12 April 2020 review of submission by 62.238.220.59


hi! I have drafted a site on Barakat-Perenthaler syndrome Draft_talk:Barakat-Perenthaler_syndrome. A reviewer rejected this, leaving a comment it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. This I do not understand, as the page is referring too well known medical journals (Acta Neuropathologica, Nature Communications, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) amongst others). So what do you think is wrong?

62.238.220.59 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the reviewer directly what their specific concerns were? 331dot (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

did not hear back from him/her yet 62.238.220.59 (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS. Just regular journal articles (studies) aren't considered reliable sources for the purpose of medical content. You should rely on review articles instead. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:22, 12 April 2020 review of submission by Zangosc


Zangosc (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zangosc You haven't asked a question, but your draft is completely unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:34:55, 12 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mr Tejal



Mr Tejal (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{u}Mr Tejal}}, "Republic World" can be an unreliable source at times. I would recommend you add a couple more independent, reliable sources to confirm the notability of this subject. Also phrases like "a funny dubbed video" and "Even today" are editorializing the article. That is, they are stating opinion as if it were fact. Hope this helps. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Tejal (ec) You don't ask a question, but "YouTubers" rarely merit articles according to the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It doesn't matter how many followers they have or how many views their videos get. They need to have significant coverage in multiple sources. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:22, 12 April 2020 review of submission by 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:BC52:C7D0:89DB:3D3B


2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:BC52:C7D0:89DB:3D3B (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


15:50:42, 12 April 2020 review of submission by Prasad3455


Prasad3455 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=950533922"