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 THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER (talk | contribs) at 12:41, 18 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 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]

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]

All of your sources are traditionally unreliable sources (i.e. instagram and youtube). Sam-2727 (talk) 16:09, 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]

Did you have a question? There are zero reliable sources in your draft so it has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone Can Help Me

Hey Anyone Can Help Me To Create a Wikipedia page and success approvel — Preceding unsigned comment added by James3354 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James3354 It is very hard to successfully create a new Wikipedia article, as you have found out with your draft Draft:JPixelite Studios. Note that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". Your draft has been rejected, meaning that there is little chance that the draft could be made acceptable. You seem to have a common misconception about Wikipedia. It is not a place to merely tell about something. It is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a subject that meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about itself. In the case of a business, independent sources must have chosen to give significant coverage of the business(not just press releases, staff interviews, or routine announcements) showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. No one doubts that this business exists, but Wikipedia must do more than tell that the business exists.
I assume from your draft that JPixelite Studios is your business or you work for it. If so, you will need to read and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked and the draft has been deleted. The block and deletion logs contain more information, but this is obvious promotion. --Kinu t/c 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wwwf22345 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:16, 12 April 2020 review of draft by Wwwf22345


Wwwf22345 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC) I would like guidance on what to add to show that I have sufficient sources for the entry. The listing includes a reference to a "New York Times" obituary and to a dedicated page at the site of "The Paris Review." Thank you.Wwwf22345 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:27:57, 12 April 2020 review of draft by Whisperjanes


I have a couple of questions, because the reviewer's comments about notability have gotten me confused about my understanding of Wikipedia notability (since in my opinion, this article would survive an AfD nomination with the sources given).

I've never seen a Wiki guideline/policy that mentions that local or specific subject sources are less reliable or usable. Is this a common practice on Wikipedia that I just haven't run into yet, or am I misunderstanding something else? Also, does a draft need online/checkable sources to be accepted at AfC as notable? I'm a bit confused why the reviewer said they looked online for notability, because I thought AfC's weren't supposed to be rejected based off of sources being offline or behind a paywall (but maybe I'm misunderstanding something else about the review process). - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperjanes (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whisperjanes. For companies, organizations, and their products or services, at least one regional, provincial, national, or international source is necessary to demonstrate notability, according to WP:AUD. Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. "Limited interest and circulation" has commonly been interpreted as trade journals and local newspapers. It is not customarily used to dismiss publications in ethnic and other non-trivial communities that have historically been underserved by the mainstream media (e.g. publications such as Black, Mennonite, or LGBT newspapers).
Offline sources are perfectly acceptable for demonstrating notability, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources being offline or behind a paywall would be an illegitimate reason for declining a draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thank you! I haven't participated in many AfDs about companies/organizations, so I apparently have more to learn :) For books, is the publisher what makes them regional/national vs local? Or is locality determined on a more case-by-case basis when the source is not a newspaper/trade journal? (For example, books that are available in nation-wide stores don't seem instinctively "local" to me. And I'm unsure if online store availability (e.g. Amazon) influences locality at all, either) - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Whisperjanes: "Local" rarely arises in connection with books. If the Ithica Chamber of Commerce published a book about a large employer in the town, it probably wouldn't convince reviewers of notability. But if Cornell University Press (also in Ithica) published the same book, it would probably carry great weight. The reputation of the publisher and the independence and qualifications of the author tend to be the most important factors in evaluating books about companies and organizations. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:44, 12 April 2020 review of submission by Oleg obsase

what is missing? I saw many Georgian's pages, and this is absolutlty same.

Oleg obsase (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg obsase: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence or not-existence of something can't be used to argue about the existence of something else. As far as I see, this Draft currently has zero relieable Sources. (No, Facebook/Twitter/Instagramm or anything written by the subject isn't considered relieable). If you find an article that you think is the same, please feel free to point it out here, and we can see that we either explain the difference or draftify/delete it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

10:40:20, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Rachelanne Schiller

Thank you for your time. However, there is no COI in this case, I merely have the best information on this subject possible, so I was given the task to write it. My involvement does not change its accuracy, and there is no bias or opinion utilised, merely information access that I have more of than any other person. There is nothing against the rules about being involved with the company and writing the bio - and I have honestly disclosed that information. I respectfully ask that the article be reviewed for its content, and if there are any parts that stand out as requiring clarification, adjustment of verbiage or removal, I am happy to do so. Pixicorn 10:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rachelanne Schiller - you do have a COI, and have denoted so on User:Rachelanne Schiller. That in itself shouldn't have stopped a draft, maybe 1292simon can give some more details on the decline. Drafts and AFC are the correct location for COI/PAID articles. In it's current state, it's not really encylopedic, and a little promotional, but it wouldn't take much work to fix it. I'd kill the "Mud Run Guide Best Of OCR Awards" and reformat the history section into prose. The biggest issue would be seeking to see if the subject meets WP:GNG, as a lot of the references seem self-published or WP:PRIMARY. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so SO much for your valuable time Lee Vilenski! I was unsure how there could be a COI, as I disclosed that I do indeed work for the company as requested before writing it, and while it is discouraged,it is not prohibited. As I have the most knowledge about the subject, it made sense for me to provide the information. As you mentioned, even if the COI stands, this feels like a very unreasonable reason to stop the draft. With massive respect to your input - Can you help me understand why the awards the event has won (factual and backed up with proof) should not be shown? Would an actor not be able to list their academy awards? A football team list the superbowls they have won? While it certainly is a positive thing, it is also informational and unbiased. Plus, you can find a similar section in one of your own articles here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimo_Tiger

The History section has no references to the event's appeal, pedigree or popularity, but only to the sequence of events within it's history and notable moments in the sport that occurred there. As OCR has hundreds of thousands of participants, those events are relevant to the sport's growth. Other races, such as Spartan Race and Tough Mudder can claim the same, quite fairly, and do. I am unsure how to reformat this section to show any more clinically. As you have a sports page background, it would be incredible if you could offer anything to this!

Lastly, as for the references, there are quite a few that are not directly from us, but the ones that come from our website, are things that offer specific information only offered within that context, but should not be considered as questionable or controversial, I merely wanted to back them up further.

Please do not think this is me being argumentative, merely hoping to support the choices made in a way that offers clarity. I worked on this for a very long time to make it fit the guidelines as I understood them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelanne Schiller (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelanne Schiller, Rachelanne, if you work for the company you need to properly disclose that. I'm leaving a message to that effect on your talk page here in a minute. Further, the draft should not have been rejected just because you have a COI, I am reversing that, but it will be declined due to improper formatting and sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:27, 13 April 2020 review of submission by OSUBuckeye1963


OSUBuckeye1963 (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My entry for C.C. Thompson was rejected. The reason I made the submission is because there was a reference to his name under the RKO movie, "Hat, Coat and Glove." He is listed as the assistant director. There is a hyperlink with his name and when one clicks on it there is no further reference but there was a suggestion to anyone with information to make a Wikipedia submission. I was only following the suggestion. If not accepted perhaps the hyperlink for C.C. Thompson should be turned off. C.C. Thompson is also referenced in several other articles, mostly dealing with RKO movies including those of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Thompson's name is listed on several of these pages. If more information needs to be included I could do so. I am his nephew residing in Dayton, Ohio. Sincerely, Carl Wick.

Hi OSUBuckeye1963. Thank you for your posting. Red links are often added to articles without deep consideration of whether there is, in fact, enough information published in independent, reliable, secondary sources to sustain an encyclopedia article on the linked topic. So red links should be understood as maybe Wikipedia should have an article on the topic. On close examination, there are only passing mentions of C.C. Thompson in the historical record of film, not enough to establish biographical notability, so I have removed the red link from Hat, Coat, and Glove. You may wish to explore alternative outlets, such as FamilySearch or other genealogy websites, to record your knowledge of your uncle. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:42, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Prasad3455


Prasad3455 (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources are reliable the topic is not notable and has therefore been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:42, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Zincage1


Zincage1 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)This article is a Ghanaian stub but will be expanded as time goes on.[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:27, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Donmirdas


I removed the links from the article that are considered advertising. Does the article now meet the criteria?

Donmirdas (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donmirdas, Your article has been rejected and nominated for speedy deletion, which means it will not be considered further. In the future, I would recommend not attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise something. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020-21 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball season

Well My Article Was Declined because it was too soon but the 2020 March madness tournament Was Canceled due to the Coronavirus. But The 2020-21 NCAA Men's Basketball season article should be an article now. 68.102.42.216 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Also, almost none of the article is sourced and is full of empty sections. We also don't know when the start will be for sure, nor do we know which tourneys may be cancelled due to surrounding uncertainity of COVID-19. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:50:02, 13 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Cbhare


I am creating an article page about Jason A Williams, he is the founder of 2nd largest urgent care company in the US, investor and technologist in crypto currency and waste to energy. We work together in PRTI (on of his companies) but otherwise i have no financial link. I am also a friend of and on a board with Ivan Sutherland father of computer graphics so i tried to take the format of Ivans page to use for Jasons as i've never written a wiki page before.

I have tried to give citations from public records, press, company info, colleges etc. But my article keeps being rejected.

Can you help me either delete or improve my submission?

many thanks chris

Cbhare (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbhare, The whole article is nothing but a vanity promotional piece about the subject and does not have a place on wikipedia and thus was rejected. It has already been nominated for speedy deletion for being unambigiously promotional and will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cbhare, hi - the reviewers are telling you that you seem to be sourcing information from press releases and the like. We aim to reference information from reliable, independent, secondary sources; the existence or otherwise of such sources is used to determine whether a subject is notable. Please take a look at WP:FIRST, which will help you with things like tone, standard methods of citation, etc. You should also recognise that, since you know and work with these people, you do have a conflict of interest - you need to be aware of, and adhere to, the guidelines at COI. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:06:02, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Flaviomax63

Contribution was rejected for not having "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". This military operation has just been launched and there is not a lot of coverage around (mostly reprints of the EU press release). I have added the 2 most significant sources available at moment, coming from the Council of the EU and the United Nations. Should I delete the draft because no other "significant coverage" is available and therefore the subject doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article? Thank you. Flaviomax63 (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flaviomax63, If there is no significant coverage than it is very likely the subject isn't yet notable WP:TOOSOON. Deleting it is not required, but if you want us to, please let us know. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:41, 13 April 2020 review of draft by Bloof7464


Hi there! I am a student trying to publish a page on female director, Pippa Bianco, for a school assignment. There are no current articles on Pippa Bianco so I am trying to submit a new draft, however I keep getting the message that my article is not published for review... I was wondering why this might be the case. The information was gathered and written prior in a Google Doc and was since pasted into the wiki article, could that be a possibility as to why it is not published for review? Thank you so much for your time! Bloof7464 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloof7464: I've submitted the draft on your behalf. In future, if you want to submit pages for review, simply add {{subst:submit}} somewhere on the draft and hit save. (If you copy it from here please copy it as it appears when viewing the page, as I added coding to prevent it from working on this page). Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:14, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Iayaz


Hi , i couldnt find many sources (i provided two earlier but rejected) of my page.Please review as this is a about a housing society which actually exists . Iayaz (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iayaz Please see WP:42. If there are no sources, thats the end of line for now. Please see WP:AMOUNT. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:58:10, 13 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Zebuready


I have created my 1st simple article with verified official source but it declined, i am working improving but i do not understand what is the exact mistake i have done so the article is declined.

Article link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zebuready/sandbox

Zebuready (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zebuready: So far, that page was never submitted and is not in article space, but on your user sandbox. I could in theory add code that allows you to submit it, but I'm not comfortable doing that right now as it would get declined. Wikipedia requires multiple independent relieable sources. Source 1 is a Wiki and not considered relieable and number 2 appears to be a directory listing and not relieable either. If you talk about Draft:A2Hosting that page was deleted under WP:G7. If you want it back, ask at WP:REFUND or post here and some admin will probbably restore it as well. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This editor appears to be trying to game the system because they blanked their sandbox after it was Rejected and have re-created a draft on A2Hosting. I don't believe them above when they say that they do not understand what the exact mistake was. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: Thanks for the response. So you mean wikipedia dont consider a valid reference source from another wiki? and the other source from Crunchbase, i have seen lot of wikipedia article using crunchbase as verified source. Zebuready (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Sorry about this but i want to clearify i am not trying to game the system. I am new here and i really dont know how wikipedia works and what are the features there, i have deleted and resubmitted with my sandbox page because the option to submit article for review was missing, So i did this after making some valid changes to the articles. Anyway thanks for the guide, i will take care from future Zebuready (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zebuready - The option to resubmit the article for review was no longer there because the draft had been rejected. If a draft is rejected, you should either accept the rejection and do something else or discuss the rejection, rather than blanking the rejection. You blanked and resubmitted the draft in two different ways. I can't speak for anyone else, but if you accept that you have been told to leave it alone, I will leave you alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: you explained me and i understand now, i dont know this before because i am new wikipedian that the reason when i see there is no options so i just plan to make some good edits and submitted again from step one. Zebuready (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:35, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Rkprince21


Rkprince21 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC) please review my article and help me to get approval for writing good in the article as per rules.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkprince21 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wim_Hoste[reply]

Did you have a question about why it was declined, or can you specify what you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:42:13, 13 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Fadedsnow


Hi there!

I am getting acquainted with Wikipedia and after making a few edits on existing articles, I thought it'd be interesting to contribute to Wikipedia by making a new article. However, after submitting it twice, the second time was after I made edits from the first round of suggestions, I am unsure what I'm doing wrong. I found a lot of good third-party articles about a local company in my city, so I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. What are specific suggestions that I can implement for this article so that it's Wikipedia quality? Thank you for your help!

Fadedsnow (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fadedsnow The sources that you have offered do not have the significant coverage of the subject required for the company to merit a Wikipedia article. A company merits an article if it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you have offered are routine announcements of business transactions or press release-type articles, which do not establish notability. SEC or any government filing would be considered a primary source and also not establish notability. Independent sources must have chosen on their own to give significant coverage to this company, not just telling that it made a transaction or winning an award of some kind- but in depth coverage of the company. The article should summarize what that coverage is. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

02:58:19, 14 April 2020 review of submission by Marcywinograd

Re: DRAFT AGI ORSI

Marcywinograd (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this, is Marcy. I just received the message that my article on Agi Orsi, a female documentary filmmaker, was rejected because it relied on too many sources from the subject of the article and was more like an advertisement. I am really perplexed because I had dozens of citations that were from a variety of sources, Variety, LA Times, NY Times, International Documentary Association, various small market newspapers, and did not use any words like "popular" or "widely acclaimed." It is written in a neutral tone--does not praise the subject of the piece, a female documentary filmmaker. I am particularly surprised because the reason I wrote this pice was because there was a request on the requested articles page for an entry on Agi Orsi. I am a volunteer writer who spent many hours researching the filmmaker's work. I do not praise her, merely share the themes of her work. I've noticed Wikipedia has glowing pages about the male directors and writers with whom Orsi has collaborated, so why is this entry being rejected? I've also noticed Wikipedia does not have many female documentary producers on its site; in fact there is a glaring absence, with this category completely male-dominated, so I'm doubly confused as to why you are rejecting an article, written in a neutral tone, on a female documentary producer, with many citations from reputable sources. What is it that I can do, specifically, to make this entry acceptable? Do you want me to delete some of the film festival prizes that her films won? Does that make sense? I don't think so Thank you for any guidance or reconsideration you can offer after reviewing the voluminous and varied nature of the sources I cited, the double-standard being applied to a female documentarian, when there is a plethora of male-dominated entries about men in the documentary film world and the neutral toneMarcywinograd (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC).Marcywinograd (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcywinograd, The decline was not based on notability or the quality of sources, but in fact made due to the advert tone of the article itself. Wikipedia article are written in a formal, neutral tone devoid of puffery terms or celebrations of the subject. There's a few other issues that also need to be addressed: 1) The formatting of the article itself is incorrect and a bit sloppy, I would advise checking out WP:MOS or visit the WP:TEAHOUSE for help. 2) The excessive use of bolding needs to be tidied up. 3) IMDB is not considered a reliable source WP:RS and should be used only under the rarest of circumstances (none of which I'm seeing here).
The lack of coverage of women across all industries is a frustrating aspect that many editors are working to correct. I would recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red if that is something that interests you. However, please understand this lack of inclusion is not due to a bias, but rests solely on the shoulders of those that decide to write articles. Additionally, our standards for approval will not be lessened, no matter how little or how much an area of the population is or isn't covered. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:37:37, 14 April 2020 review of draft by Shywolfghost


Hello, I'm writing a wikipedia article about a band, that I believe passes the notability threshold. I'm confused as to how the evidence I've provided doesn't fill that quota as Individual notability and Songs in a tv show are both reasons to pass that threshold. Does there have to be a specific formatting of evidence? thank you Shywolfghost (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shywolfghost, No, having a song in a tv show does not make a band notable. Having a song that is a THEME of a tv show MAY denote notability. There's also issues that were already pointed out such as the use of social media links as references. You also claim that one of their songs "debuted at number one on Billboard's Alternative Songs Airplay Chart", yet this claim is not supported by the provided source. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:51, 14 April 2020 review of draft by 72.69.243.12


72.69.243.12 (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've come by to put in the 1998 Winter Olympics Closing Ceremony. Can you help me? I just watch it from Olympic Channel.

11:15:04, 14 April 2020 review of submission by RocknRollArchivist

Fats Domino was one of the greatest authors and performers of American popular music, popular not only at home, but all over the world. In particular, in Europe, where his fan clubs and numerous websites dedicated to his legacy were created and exist. The material presented in this article is unique and exhaustively describes all the recordings made by him during his 60-year career. It will undoubtedly be in demand by numerous fans of the artist in the world and collectors of his recordings.

However, if this material is not of interest to the English Wikipedia, I will post it, for example, in the French, Russian, and other versions of Wikipedia. Readers of these articles will wonder why this article was rejected by the English Wikipedia.

RocknRollArchivist (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RocknRollArchivist, I'm assuming you didn't take the time to actually read why it was declined? Because nowhere was it mentioned that the subject isn't notable. You're welcome to post the material on any of the wikis, no one is stopping you. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:59, 14 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) 11:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:11:11, 14 April 2020 review of submission by Neel n popat


Neel n popat (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:27:02, 14 April 2020 review of draft by RMJ13


I have created a page and sent for approval, COSRT and in the infobox, it will not show the information of 'CEO' and 'Chair' of the organization - how can I submit that information into the info box in a way that'll work? Also, the title page is 'COSRT' - should it instead be the full name 'College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists' or is COSRT okay? If it isn't, how would I change the title page? Thank youRMJ13 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RMJ13 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:04, 14 April 2020 review of draft by Mgrodzins


How do I properly respond to the editors comments, for example,to thank them. Received comment from MurielMary. Mgrodzins (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mgrodzins (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC) I have received a warning about "a link or reference running through a local proxy". It says to look for Proxy or gate. Where do I look?Mgrodzins (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:54, 14 April 2020 review of submission by Managementoffice20


He is a quite notable and underresearched person. There are lots of information available on the open web about him. He will play in Eurocup or Euroleague next season. People in the same situation with him have Wikipedia pages because they all had crucial NCAA careers like Alihan Demir. Alihan Demir is all time second leading scorer from Turkey in NCAA. Here are the links of what he accomplished:

https://gophersports.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/alihan-demir/16681

https://drexeldragons.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/alihan-demir/6616

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/4279197/alihan-demir

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/alihan-demir-1.html


Managementoffice20 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managementoffice20 As noted by the reviewer, this player does not yet meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable basketball player. Once he appears in a professional game, he will. Please read other stuff exists; if you are aware of other similar articles that are equally inappropriate, please point them out, as we can only address what we know about. 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.
If you are his manager or agent, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to declare that you are a paid editor. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:38, 14 April 2020 review of submission by KylePippen1


KylePippen1 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be created because it is based on a public person who has done stints on notable reality tv shows, as the Kardashians are posted I also believe that she should be. If you could please help me make this article notable enough to be posted to Wikipedia I would be very greatful.

KylePippen1, Your article has been rejected to the subject not having a chance of being notable and because the page violates many of our rules, in particular, it is a full on promotional vanity page. Surely you aren't actually suggesting that subject has the same notability as the Karashians... Sulfurboy (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:20, 14 April 2020 review of submission by Iayaz


Hi, i added refrence of my article (Pls refer to page 85 of https://cooperatives.punjab.gov.pk/system/files/Final%20for%20Printing.pdf#overlay-context=books , this is from website of punjab govrnment & confims existance of wapda town sheikhupura

looking forward that my article will be allowed to be published this time as i have added an authentic reference Iayaz (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iayaz, Your article was already rejected which means there is no current chance of demonstrating notability. As such, your draft will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Robochrome Gaming Society

Hello, I am writing to you as an associate for the collective of Robo. I would like you to reconsider your warning, since Robo stand for a cause that is worth looking into. Please find it in your heart to let Robo have a free individual voice on Wikipedia. Thank you for your efforts!

That's not how Wikipedia works. If you are going to edit with a WP:COI then please respect our rules. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:52:29, 14 April 2020 review of draft by AhmedKadiye


I corrected all the necessary information and also corrected the sources. So please review it and submit it Thank you

AhmedKadiye (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AhmedKadiye, the draft is awaiting review. We have rather a long backlog, and don't review drafts on request, as otherwise this page would be full of review requests, making it more difficult to help others with their drafts. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 18:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:36:00, 14 April 2020 review of submission by AwesomeAKO

Why did I get declined? Avery O (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AwesomeAKO, This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia and This 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.
This same info is found in the decline message itself along with links to applicable policy. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

04:55:57, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya


the article which I submitted for publishing, reviewed are Nepali proverbs ......... actually its used in daily lives and most of them do not have an exact English translation. as nowadays people are not using these either in writing nor in spoken.. these will disappear with time... thus I am doing this to preserve it for future generations. please do suggest how can I do it. with regards.... sudan Bhattarai.....

Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya, What article? What you linked to is just an article that says "nepali proverbs" in nepalese Sulfurboy (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:11:59, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Joseph Carrollane


Hi there, I've shortened the Wikipedia entry for the Hello Dating app. Please take another look to see if it's more acceptable.

Joseph Carrollane (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Carrollane, The article was rejected which means a fellow reviewer has determined that there is no hope to demonstrate notability for the topic at this time. As such, the article will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:59:30, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Vipinahir


Vipinahir (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I already provided the reliable sources as well valid /suitable/ independent sources so please check deeply all the link

You were requested multiple times to properly format your references and you ignored this, just leaving a menagrie of unreliable or primary sources of bare urls at the bottom of the page. You repeatedly after warnings resubmitted without making good faith efforts to improve the article. Per the rejection message: Article has an overly promotional tone that is basically a press release for the college. User has repeatedly resubmitted without good faith efforts to improve the article and clearly has not taken the time or has to the care to review our policies. Since this is clogging up our backlog and since this page is WP:TNT the draft is rejected.
The article has been rejected and as such, will not be considered further. Please take the time and care to read our applicable polices for creating pages. This will help you immensely in creating pages or making edits in the future. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:40, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Badgerbrook86



I'm looking to add and edit several cabaret and comedy prominent figures into Wiki over the next few months. I've started with Bernie Dieter who is currently one of the biggest touring cabaret artists but yet to have an article on here.

It would be great to have someone check over the revised article with the changes I've made.


Badgerbrook86 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Badgerbrook86: hi there. Your changes certainly are an improvement, though it still reads as somewhat promotional to me. One suggestion is that we don't generally do reviews like that (just listing particularly positive lines from the various reviews) - I'd suggest two facets on it. Format wise, take a look at some other articles in the same general field that are reasonably long. See how they handle their critical reception/reviews sections. If reviews are generally positive but have some common negative or concern, give that. If there are some more mixed, or even negative, reviews that are in reliable sources, include them.
The "Little death club" section has three lines on the plot, and then 9 about how successful it's been. Coupled with the fairly long positive review section, it's rather disproportinately pro-Bernie then actually summarising the subject matter.
This isn't a full review, just a few things that jumped out at me Nosebagbear (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:35, 15 April 2020 review of submission by ImPritamShaw


ImPritamShaw (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImPritamShaw, do you have a question?
Your draft was declined, as a biography of a person who doesn't meet our general notability guideline. We require subjects to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, as without this there would be no way of reliably verifying the contents of the article. This is especially important for articles about living people, due to the potential consequences about false information in our articles. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 18:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:27:15, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Bartelomeus-123


Dear Sir/Madam, it is the first time that I am creating a Wikipedia article and I would like to ask your help. Could you elaborate on the reasons for rejecting the article?

1) Topic not sufficiently notable: are you referring to a) no sufficient coverage in the articles referred to or b) not enough reference articles? 2) Submission contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia: could you further clarify? Other streaming protocols such as HLS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming), MPEG-DASH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP) and WebRTC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC) also have a Wikipedia page

Looking forward to your feedback. Once obtained, I'll take it into account to further update the Wikipedia article.

Thanks Bartelomeus-123

Bartelomeus-123 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:40, 15 April 2020 review of submission by EmmaOldenkamp


Hello, I have gone in and re-edited the document to omit any advertorial language, leaving only factual information. Can you please re-review this and let me know if the article is still unacceptable, and if so, why? We have been trying to have our brand listed on Wikipedia for some time now and would love to rectify this soon! I appreciate it. EmmaOldenkamp (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC) EmmaOldenkamp (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "list brands" on Wikipedia, we have articles about notable subjects. Undeclared paid editing is a breach of the terms of use that you have to agree to abide by when you edit here, and we take editing in areas where you have a personal or professional interest very seriously. If you edit the page again now that you have been notified of these issues, you may be blocked. The draft was correctly rejected it is blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:06, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Thecorporateidentity


Hello,

I am just wondering how I could get my draft Julian Michael Carver to become a live article. How many credible sources would I need? I have found other authors on wiki with much less sources, sometimes with just sources to just their own website. Any advice?

Thecorporateidentity (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other stuff exists; other inappropriate articles existing does not mean yours can, too. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. Feel free to point out these other articles; we can only address what we know about.
Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:27, 15 April 2020 review of draft by 2A00:23C8:6C03:4B01:E0F6:95C4:27E:3FF5


Hi there. I wanted to know whether Companies House can be used as a source of information about professional positions held and date of birth?

I also wanted to query this bit of feedback from the original submission of this draft article: "a lot of the verbiage is copied from other biographies or original research". This is not true, as I have written this article myself, but I don't know how to prove it!

There was also the following comment on the first draft: 'The early life and education section is completely unsourced and seems to be copy-pasted or closely paraphrased from somewhere'. The second part of this is not correct - again, I wrote this text from scratch. However, I don't know how to source date and place of birth, details of early life etc., as they are simply not published anywhere. Part of the problem is that the subject of this article is a psychoanalyst, still living, and analysts are generally very protective of their privacy and personal details, due to the work they do with patients. This means I can't provide published sources for these more private details, even though they are absolutely factual. Could you help me with this problem?

I also don't understand this comment: 'a lot of the writing portrays Britton in a positive light with unsourced random supporting quotes'. I am revising the text and trying to take out anything that seems too positive and not neutral enough, but I don't see what 'unsourced random supporting quotes' refers to in the original draft. I have provided references for every quote I have used.

2A00:23C8:6C03:4B01:E0F6:95C4:27E:3FF5 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig Copyvio shoes that 77.9% of text is copied from https://psychoanalysis.org.uk/our-authors-and-theorists/ron-britton Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:35:29, 15 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Simon Aronsson


Hi there,

I'm trying to get the k6 article through for creation, but keep getting it rejected. The article has both scientific references and references from notable sources (like GitLab), yet it gets rejected?

Please advice.

Best regards, Simon

Simon Aronsson (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:47, 15 April 2020 review of submission by CRZ Clintzy

It is a good book and I want the world to see it and review it

CRZ Clintzy (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this is not a forum to distribute books. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:23, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Juliemb54


Could someone help me understand why an article I created was sent to draft, then declined by the same editor? I have 23 reliable sources cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fobazi_Ettarh

Juliemb54 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juliemb54. On Draft:Fobazi Ettarh I've explained some problems with the cited sources, which I hope helps you understand why it was draftified and declined. Contrast the draft with your earlier works, such as Star Montana and Harmonia Rosales. Note how certain sources in those articles are used over and over throughout the article - they support numerous statements about the subject. That suggests they contain a depth of information about their subjects that is absent from the sources cited by the draft. Perhaps it is too soon for an encyclopedia article about Ettarh.
From your editing history, I surmise that you are part of the galleries, libraries, archives, and museums community, have participated in one or more edit-a-thons, and may be interested in addressing systemic bias in Wikipedia content. Creating biographies in under-represented categories is useful and important work, but is not the only way to improve the encyclopedia. You may wish to save a copy of your draft on your computer, set it aside for a while, and explore other facets of Wikipedia.
If you've been involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, you might want to graduate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green. If you have online access to sources out of reach of the general public during lock-down, you may be able to add missing references in the spirit of 1Lib1Ref. Or, within the bounds of fair use, you may be able to share through the Resource Exchange a portion of a source that another editor needs. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that lead to many other ways to contribute. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:56, 15 April 2020 review of draft by TealTortoise


I think that my subject meets the criteria for notability on the following grounds:

Nomination for a significant award: British MBE The subject has been featured in at least three national media outlets over a period of over 10 years (for a living subject)

I'd appreciate some assistence with how to improve the 'Neutral Point of View' requirement in the article. Please join me on the talk page.

TealTortoise (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TealTortoise (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading around some more I can see that there are issues with adverts - I've got no personal connection with the subject of the article - I stumbled upon her and thought it was really cool to see a high-profile plumber. TealTortoise (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article to remove as much fluff as possible. I also agree she is notable enough for an article, would love to see the article expanded. I have no dog in the game here either, she just seems like an interesting person for an article and she does appear to be notable to me! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:32, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Royalty clothings


Royalty clothings (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising, Wikipedia is not for promoting your business. Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:52, 15 April 2020 review of submission by AviCicirean


AviCicirean (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AviCicirean, do you have a question to ask?
Your draft was rejected as it was clearly an advert for an event.
We have neutrally written articles based on what reliable sources have written about a topic, not adverts based on what businesses say about themselves.
If we just hosted what businesses said about themselves, it would just become an advertising site. We would find that after a week we would have no readers left, making the website somewhat useless. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 18:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:33:55, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Smithstella2001


Stella Smith (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


April 16

01:33:12, 16 April 2020 review of submission by 2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421


What is the exact threshold for a content creator to be deemed eligible for a page. It seems to be rather up to individual mods to approve a page without any precise criteria. Lots of "less know" creators have pages. Thanks for helping clear this up!


2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421 (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are few exact thresholds in Wikipedia. You may find the essay WP:NYOUTUBE informative. Novice contributors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their subject. The draft cites no such sources, and the reviewer is confident that no such sources exist. If Wikipedia articles without such sources exist, they should be improved or deleted. They are not a reason to create more articles that don't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:22:13, 16 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by ChristinaL.P.


I have made changes to my article according to reviewer comments. How do I resubmit?

ChristinaL.P. (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChristinaL.P.. The draft was already the pool to be reviewed when you posed this question. You can tell by the large mustard-yellow box, presently at the bottom of the draft (later you may see it at the top, it doesn't really matter where on the draft it is). --Worldbruce (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:29, 16 April 2020 review of submission by BharathSD

I have added more references to prove notability.

BharathSD (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BharathSD I assume from your username that you work for Spark Databox. You are required by the Terms of Use to formally comply with the paid editing policy and declare that relationship. Your draft just tells that your company exists; that is not enough for an article- and in fact Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself(as you are free to do that on your own website). Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not press releases, brief mentions, or routine announcements) say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Your assumption is wrong. I am not working for Spark Databox. I have no connection with that company. In the past, I have had a user name created for Wiki and its lost. My preferred username Bharath was not available so I added SD as I started writing this article about Spark Databox. Again, Spark Databox is not my company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BharathSD (talk • contribs)

BharathSD so how is it that you have no connection yet very clearly state that not only did you upload their logo as your own work but that made a point to manually type that you created it yourself in photoshop? Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae You are right. I will have to change that setting.

06:35:13, 16 April 2020 review of submission by Piuskerala

Seven references were added. Many external links were added.One figure clarifying the process is added. Several internal links were added. Twelve more equations were added. Six paragraphs were added for clarity of the subject. piuskerala (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piuskerala The draft was rejected because it reads as an essay of original research on the topic, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources state about the topic- and it was rejected(not just declined) because the reviewer sees little chance the draft can be improved to meet standards. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:41, 16 April 2020 review of submission by 1.186.197.15


1.186.197.15 (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected because there is no indication that the person you wrote about meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You would need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person(not press releases, interviews, or brief mentions) showing how they meet that definition. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:23, 16 April 2020 review of draft by Mgrodzins


How do I deal with the fact that my subject, married three times, goes by many different names over the course of her lifetime? For example, if someone searches for "Rita Matthias", can they be redirected to "Marguerite Julie Strauss"?Mgrodzins (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Mgrodzins (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgrodzins:, if and when it passed review and becomes an article, redirects can be created (if there isn't an article of that actual name) from other names to the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks.

13:23:34, 16 April 2020 review of submission by Smokethatskinwagon


Smokethatskinwagon (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I added that he is now a syndicated radio personality. which was one of the suggestions to resubmit for from previous moderators. He did not win the ACM award.

13:28:48, 16 April 2020 review of submission by M.Saiful Mridha


M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:28:48, 16 April 2020 review of submission by M.Saiful Mridha M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:45, 16 April 2020 review of submission by Antoniobasha


Antoniobasha (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC) help me create an article about me on wikipedia[reply]

16:33:44, 16 April 2020 review of submission by M.Saiful Mridha


M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:44, 16 April 2020 review of draft by M.Saiful Mridha

16:34:26, 16 April 2020 review of submission by M.Saiful Mridha


M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)  Done M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question about Name of submission

Hello, WikiProject Articles for creation! I'm M.Saiful Mridha. I have replied to your question about Name of submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:40, 16 April 2020 review of submission by Chascal


The article I created regarding CodeLaunch was rejected due to "not sufficiently notable for inclusion" and "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" with the moderator stating "this is entirely based upon press releases and mere notices".

I added 38 individual third-party references, including several .edu and other educational domains, prominent news sources and business journals, and relevant articles from other technology publications. This article is not self-promotional and the event itself does not profit, it is fully funded by sponsors and community contributions, similar to any other nonprofit organization. CodeLaunch is a vehicle for early-stage startup organizations to launch their product without taking on any financial risk.

Additionally, I have seen several other comparable business and startup competitions with articles on Wikipedia - I'm curious how CodeLaunch differs from these?

If you could provide additional clarification and steps I could take to get this article published, that would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Chascal (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chascal - First, do you have a conflict of interest? Are you being paid by CodeLaunch? (If not, why are you working so hard to get the article accepted?)
Second, you have reference-bombed the draft, by adding a very large number of low-quality sources. There is a myth that, since sources are required in Wikipedia, adding more sources is what needs to be done to get an article accepted. Sources are necessary but not sufficient. You can always find low-quality sources, but you cannot make a non-notable subject notable by adding low-quality sources. That is a myth. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:34, 16 April 2020 review of draft by Ayamaraben


Ayamaraben (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert Mc Clenon declined my submission, but he suggested that I did have an article, but remove the text above it as it may be hiding it. Where do I edit the article and resubmit? I do not see it anywhere. There was a message that said edit below the line. Can you tell me how to access the article and resubmit properly? Thank-you, Ayamaraben

User:Ayamaraben - Is the draft that you were trying to submit Draft:Carlos Escalona Cruz? You did submit it also. It was declined, and you were told to reformat and resubmit it with better sources. Do you have any more questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:01, 16 April 2020 review of submission by Donmirdas


I removed the things you claimed to be advertising. Is the article now okay?

Donmirdas (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Donmirdas - Now that you removed the advertising, there is very little left, and it does not establish musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:59:21, 16 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by The 0utsider1


My post was denied can u tell me why my post - which is based off of the history of the school district on a school building in the very same school district and one i actually attended so i know it was there... was denied? This happens to alot of posts of mine. Why can the page "Paul W. Dillon Home" get posted with NO references what soever and mine- which is on the web page of the actual school history get denied???

The 0utsider1 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The0utsider1 Your draft was declined because it is sourced to nothing other than the school/district website. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Independent sources need to have written about the history of the school in order for it to be on Wikipedia.
If any article is posted without sources, you are welcome to propose its deletion or otherwise point that out. As this is a volunteer project, we can only address what we know about. It is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


April 17

01:23:36, 17 April 2020 review of draft by Saffario


Hi there I've recently had this entry requested. As it didn't have the right tone for an encyclopedic article. I've since gone in and made some edits. Could someone please check it out and let me know if anything is standing out as needing attention before I resubmit. I appreciate your experience and knowledge in helping with this page.

Kind thanks,

Saffario (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saffario, Well for one it needs more sources. A mere two references is not enough to prove notability. But don't just add any old website, such sources need to be high quality. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:37:36, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Blobbie1838


Blobbie1838 (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC) hi so the first time i submitted it you said that i need to include footnotes and that there were to many links at the bottom so when i changed that why was my article denied, as surely i can use as many references as i need so when getting rid of some ot them and having the part that it was liked to included why was my request still denied?[reply]

Blobbie1838, Much of the article remains unsourced. You need to provide inline citations. Also, the use of interview quotes is way overdone and reads pretty awkwardly. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if it my article why cant i use interview quotes i have written in. my style so why is it not acceptable

@Blobbie1838: Draft:John McCrea is not your article. One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that no editor owns any page and all contributions can and may be mercilessly edited (within the bounds of the community's other policies and guidelines). Also, the draft isn't an article. If you continue behaving the way you have been, it will never become an article.
The referencing is better now than it was in your first draft, but only because other editors have improved it. You've received good advice from several reviewers regarding the density of inline citations, the overuse of quotations, the inappropriate tone, and the non-neutral point of view. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting a draft accepted that expresses the opinion in Wikipedia's voice that he is a "great actor". Instead of acting on any of this feedback, you've resubmitted the draft without addressing these problems. That is a recipe for getting the draft deleted and getting yourself blocked from editing.
To establish notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia) the page should cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic. Furthermore, the bulk of the article should be based on such sources. In addition to all the other problems, the draft is based on three interviews. They are primary sources, and to the extent that they're merely McCrea talking about McCrea, they lack independence. The interview by The Times is the only one that contains significant independent research and analysis by the interviewer. It's the only one that helps demonstrate notability, and is not enough on its own. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:32:30, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Cbirchallroman


On my page, the feedback said that I was not citing reliable sources and that it was formatted more like an essay with references to unrelated works from my own train of thought. I've since removed those superfluous references and added headers so it's an organized summary of the topic, but what else can I do to make this good quality for publishing?

I'm doing this as an assignment for my seminar class. Originally I was going to make contributions to the article for The Myth of the Machine, but my professor saw my notes and preferred me to use the content to make a separate article. Is it better to add onto the existing one, though?

Thank you!

Cbirchallroman (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbirchallroman, I would say that its better to add to the existing article, as I don't think there is enough for a standalone. As an additional note: you really shouldn't use Mumford's book as the source about Mumford's own book. You should find some independent sources that discuss the topics and ideas found in his book. If no sources discuss Mumford's work, then clearly no source thought his work very important, and thus we don't either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cbirchallroman I would also note that it is pretty unfair to you for your professor to require you to write a Wikipedia article as an assignment, especially using this AFC process, which can take months. Your professor may wish to review the materials for educators at the Wikipedia Education Program. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:29:02, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Littlepawan

This page has been reviewed and the decision is made for the speedy deletion. I am a new Wikipedia writer. This page is created by me without any profit or promotion purposes. I would like to improve this page so that it can get accepted. I want to ask other users here to assist me with improvement tips. I tried to write it as neutral as possible. If you can suggest me how to improve this, I would be very thankful. Littlepawan (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:25:45, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Piuskerala

My article was rejected in march. The reason given was that, it had less references. Later I have modified the article considerably. I feel that the field is very useful for those who work in agricultural field. Once rejected, what is the method to put it for further review? piuskerala (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piuskerala - User:331dot already answered you. Please do not ask the same question several times. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:46, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Jasonhogarth

I have added all relevant and necessary citations to this page. Please could you re-review. No money has exchanged hands for this work and I do not know the individual I am editing the page for, I am simply an art enthusiast who would like this page to be published as I believe the work of this individual is wholly important, relevant and notable.

Jasonhogarth (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonhogarth, Unfortunately the article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further at this time Sulfurboy (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:52:41, 17 April 2020 review of submission by 210.212.72.157


210.212.72.157 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? I'm afraid the draft is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, it is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:09, 17 April 2020 review of draft by Sforsunting


Hi, I want to ask on how to make my articles accepted by Wikipedia and which part I did wrong when I write mine.

I tried many times but the editors always said that it's just an advert, even though I feel like I already write it neutrally.

This is the article,(User:Sforsunting/sandbox) can you point out which part to fix so it will be neutral?

For the record, I took a similar business as a reference : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveloka

Sorry if it's plain to see for you, because before submitting this I already asked some other people and they said it's not an Ad, but they are amateurs and not professionals, so I hope you can point it out to me.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Sforsunting (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sforsunting What you wrote (which can be viewed in your sandbox and is unnecessary to post here) does little more than tell about the company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable company). The sources you have offered merely cite the existence of the company and what it does, not the significant coverage others unaffiliated with the company have chosen on their own to say about it.
You should not cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. It could be that the other article you cite is also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only deal with what we know about. In this case, it seems that the article you cite has at least some sources with significant coverage.
If you work for this company or are affiliated with it in any way, you must read and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:01, 17 April 2020 review of draft by Claireatwaves


All of the references in my submission are print ones which I have seen myself. I can't find anything notable online yet - Mark was significant in the 1980's/ 90's design scene so nothing's online yet.

The references I've given are all verifiable - not sure why Vogue and Interior Magazines wouldn't be considered good sources for a designer.

What should I do?

Thanks for your help


Claireatwaves (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claireatwaves It is not required that sources be online(it helps, but is not required). It is difficult to know what your sources are citing as you have no in-line citations(i.e. citations next to the information being cited). Please see WP:CITE for information on citing sources. If you have a connection to this person, you must read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first 9 sections have no cited sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:59, 17 April 2020 review of submission by 223.176.97.114


223.176.97.114 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:36, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Blobbie1838

my article was denied as it wasn't in the correct style of writing however if its my article should it not be acceptable as its my work not anyone else's, also to start with it was denied as the links didn't have footnotes to the part of the article that it related to however throught the article there were footnotes to the link where i got the information from, so i would like to know why i cant write in my style? and how it can be changed so that i can get it published? Blobbie1838 (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like 'great British stage and television actor and singer" and "John is a great actor" may be your style of writing, but it is not Wikipedia's style, we write in a neutral tone here and it is NOT your article it belongs to Wikipedia so will need to conform, I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:27, 17 April 2020 review of draft by MarieFranklin427


Requesting assistance with the Mermaid of Hilton Head Draft Article. I am not associated with the business, however I am conducting a study on businesses focused on eco-conservation and the public's growing interest in for-profit businesses whose business models are focused on being eco-friendly. I have added citations from notable sources such as Nat Geo and Coastal Living, but not sure why I am unable to get approval for this article? MarieFranklin427 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


MarieFranklin427 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:46, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Karen Pinket


I would really like to get this information on "Mr.Krusty out on the web. This is my first time making a Wikipedia Project, so I might mess up. Please excuse that and tell me what I can do to improve. Thanks have a good day! Karen Pinket (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, there isn't really anything you can do, the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:25:36, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Karen Pinket

Just wondering why you declined my Submission. Karen Pinket (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karen Pinket - There were two problems. First, you did not provide any references. References are required. Second, the subject was not notable. Most YouTubers are not notable. Most people are not notable. Just adding references is not likely to help. No amount of editing will overcome a lack of notability.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:13, 17 April 2020 review of draft by FalteringArc2


I was told that the colors would all have to represent Democrats but I was under the impression that in a primary the candidates would be assigned a color.

FalteringArc2 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FalteringArc2, Yes, everyone does get assigned a color, so I think Sulfur's feedback there was a bit incorrect. Compare your article to 2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses or 2016 Iowa Republican caucuses. However Sulfur's other feedback was quite relevant. The article had insufficient sourcing, and prose. You should find some news coverage from the time (Newspaper archives may be necessary) and use it to explain things, such as how the heck Bill Bradley had 4 delegates and zero votes. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:09, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Iayaz


Hi, i gave 3 references & yet my article is not allowed for publishing . I suggest that let it publish , more people will contribute by providing references Iayaz (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iayaz, The article and sources were not formatted correctly. But thats irrelevant: a housing project is very rarely notable, and the sources you provided definitely don't show notability. Writing a Wikipedia article from scratch is very hard to do. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:02:18, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Eholder


hey, si;finpu, i am always getting confused by the other Eric Holder, the former attorney general. when i saw my colleague, holly lang's wiki entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Lang). i thought i could do the same. did i somehow use the wrong approach? many thanks for your advice, eric


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eholder#April_2020 Eric Holder 20:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eholder Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. Only people who are notable, i.e. have recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources can have pages. If you are notable, someone will eventually create a page for you. But making an autobiography is not gonna fly, as its impossible to write a neutral article about yourself. Also, your colleague may not be notable either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:06, 17 April 2020 review of submission by CherLloydOFG

This is an article directly about a song by Cher Lloyd. I put in lots of time and effort to get the article how I like it and I referenced her other oricle for 'None Of My Business' as a template. If there is any way we can get this article out there that would be great. Thanks CherLloydOFG (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CherLloydOFG The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved to meet standards. With the promotional language in it, I must agree. Not every song by a musician merits an article. If you work for Lloyd, you are required to comply with the paid editing policy. Probably you shouldn't have their name in your username, either. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:03, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Tokidoki232

I recently drafted an article about Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture. The current draft has been declined, and the reason provided was because it was written like a marketing piece and did not have enough supporting evidence. May I ask for some additional guidance about what I could modify or eliminate that would make it seem less like a promotional article? I carefully reviewed the tips on how to write a Wikipedia page. The article is written in a neutral tone, was fact-based and referenced third-party sources in every section. Citations came from well-established publications such as the Chicago Tribune, Crain's Chicago Business, Architectural Digest, etc. If you could provide any specific advice about problematic areas and what I could rectify, I would greatly appreciate it.

Tokidoki232 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:02:48, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Cubical


I believe this article should be published because it contains a lot of pertinent and useful information about this road's history & importance in Ottawa. I included nine sources, most from different publishers, which in my eyes add a lot of credibility to the info. Many other pages about major Ottawa roads which have far less information are still present on Wikipedia which is making me question the consistency of the reviewing process. I believe this article does have a place on Wikipedia, since it is instructive and follows the guidelines. For the notability concern, I do believe the information I provided, like Jeanne d'Arc having its own Transitway station on Ottawa's Rapid Transit network, being home to one of La Cité's major campuses (the largest French-language college in Ontario), and being one of the largest roads contributing to the huge population boom of Orléans and East Ottawa in the 80s, makes it an important part of the capital's road network.

Cubical (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cubical, 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. We are in the process of finding and cleaning up or deleting many of those old articles. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Taking a look at the sources, they are pretty primary. There isn't substantial news coverage of the road that shows it is a cultural landmark. You may wish to inquire at WP:WikiProject Canada to see if folks there are willing to take a look, but I would first suggest you find newspaper coverage. If it cannot be found, then the road is not notable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

00:24:52, 18 April 2020 review of submission by Sahagunethan


Sahagunethan (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:00:57, 18 April 2020 review of draft by Susleman


I've been informed that the notability of the BLP is in question due to the fact that roles to date have not been leads. Both Brandon Hardy in "Good Boys" at the Pasadena Playhouse, and Brad Kirchoff in "When the Streetlights Go On" for Quibi are considered leads. What can I do to prove this other than what is already provided? Susleman (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susleman, The decline message should likely have been expanded to say lead roles in notable productions. If the film they had a lead in is not wiki notable, or if the play they were in wasn't in one of the premier playhouses or part of a touring broadway show, then it will do very little if nothing to establish notability. The decline was appropriate. Notability has not been estabslihed for this subject and it's likely they are not notable at all at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:09:57, 18 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by PHansen.Research


I recently published a draft for a wikipedia article on an Academic Research Journal where the major references were the journal itself, its SCImago and Resurchify Data, and information about the founders from the University of Canberra website. My draft was declined and I received feedback that the references weren't credible enough to warrant publishing the draft article. So, my question is how can I find references that are more credible than academic peer reviewed sources? PHansen.Research (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PHansen.Research Most of the sources you have offered merely cite the contents of the journal; the journal itself would be a primary source and not establish notability. A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the journal, showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable academic journal. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:15, 18 April 2020 review of draft by SunnyBoi


Hello AfC Help Desk, I am hoping for some help with an article submission which has been declined because of the original author's COI. Most of the content of the page has been rewritten since they created it, I have added most of the references and removed promotional and unsourced material. Would it still be considered as not being NPOV because of the original source? I do not have any links with the organisation so would my edits be considered NPOV? Thank you for your advice and time. SunnyBoi (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SunnyBoi (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:14:27, 18 April 2020 review of submission by THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER

11:14:27, 18 April 2020 review of submission by THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER}}

THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i just created an article for Nikka Starr and i want you to re-review it.

11:38:02, 18 April 2020 review of submission by Paintitkid


Hello,

Have added the relevant news articles covering the person. The subject has won 2 awards and has been featured in all major news outlets in the state. One could classify him as a 'celebrity'. He is a notable personality in the state of Kerala, India (population 32 million). Please do reconsider.

Paintitkid (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:09:21, 18 April 2020 review of submission by THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER


THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, the topic is not notable and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:41:40, 18 April 2020 review of submission by THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER

12:41:40, 18 April 2020 review of submission by THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER

THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so i have done some edits and im so sorry for the picture i am not the person i write in and i am not paid i uploaded the pictures because i want to show the public who i am wrting about but i will find another image that is not my own work and i am sure and i will tell to you that i am not person im writing i am just a biography writer of a notable person

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=951704230"