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 Yankeejess (talk | contribs) at 22:32, 10 June 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

May 31

June 4

00:13:11, 4 June 2020 review of draft by Jackie Kench


When I submitted the draft, it said I can't use sites such as Youtube for resources. However, the companies used as a resource don't put a lot of their work on their websites but on their Youtube channels instead. For example, I used the Bovis Homes company (which is a professional company) as a resource. When I went on their website, hardly any of their adds are on there but instead on their Youtube channel, so did Firebird Films, 4Ground Media, and many other professional companies. That doesn't make it any less professional, they purposefully wanted the advert made specifically for their channel. So, what do you do when professional companies do professional work strictly for their social media only?

I also put an Amazon link for books that are currently being sold, and I was told that that's not a reliable source. I put a link to the author's page where she is actually selling her books. That in itself is proof that she's selling books.

Even though she's done professional work, it's hard into today's world to find examples that are not linked to social media. I've attached better links but as I mentioned before, they're not directly linked to Madeline because the companies aren't putting them on their sites but on their channels instead, channels that I'm not allowed to use. So I haven't submitted because I have a feeling it'll be denied.

Jackie Kench (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Kench Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about subjects that are shown to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(such as the definition of a notable company or a notable person). If a subject is not written about significantly in independent sources, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Social media accounts are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:11:15, 4 June 2020 review of submission by EditorF


EditorF (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:45:58, 4 June 2020 review of submission by 216.174.74.87


216.174.74.87 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:25:08, 4 June 2020 review of draft by Jimavich


I was wondering how I find out which sources used do not meet standard - and if others have met the standard. Or if all my sources are inadequate Jimavich (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimavich, Hi, well the first ref has some errors (see the red comments in the ref list) and the second one is self-published... you will need to correct this and perhaps add some more 2nd sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:55:50, 4 June 2020 review of submission by Hakkeem11988


Hakkeem11988 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hakkeem11988 Your draft(which I've removed from here, the link makes putting it here unnecessary and disruptive to this page's formatting) was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone, and you have offered no independent reliable sources showing how the person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:53, 4 June 2020 review of draft by Princesse Marissa


dear all, kindly to advise how to improve my article so it can resubmitted and approved by wikipedia reviewer, waiting for your assistance. Princesse Marissa (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princesse Marissa (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Princesse Marissa. I've commented on the draft. It doesn't look like there are independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain enough information about the subject to write an acceptable encyclopedia article. I recommend that you gain some experience as a Wikipedian before trying to start a new article. If you're especially interested in yacht clubs, try improving some of the articles contained in Category:Yacht clubs, none of which are very good. If you're primarily interested in Lebanese topics, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:02, 4 June 2020 review of submission by EditorF


EditorF (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IGNITE_INDIA_EDUCATION can someone help me in drafting this article please[reply]

Hi EditorF, please have a close look at Help:Your first article ...especially how to add sources/references to your article via the Editor. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:15:58, 4 June 2020 review of submission by Barpy

Can you please tell me what changes i have to make, to publish it. Barpy (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barpy Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further as it has little to no chance of being able to meet Wikipedia standards. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something(like your website). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has articles about subjects that have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case, the definition of a notable website. Not every website merits a Wikipedia article. In this case, you have offered no independent sources that have chosen on their own to write about your website in an in-depth manner(not just brief mentions, routine announcements, staff interviews, or other primary sources). Please read Your First Article for more information. If you just want to tell the world about your website, you should use social media or other alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13:21:12, 4 June 2020 review of draft by PeterEasthope


I've added three reliable links to Draft:Yamfo_College_of_Health page. Also commented in the talk page. I'm not asking for official draft review at this time. Just an advice from an experienced editor. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC) PeterEasthope (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PeterEasthope Your draft merely confirms that the college exists. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the college, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The sources you have offered are just brief mentions that confirm the existence of the college. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:05, 4 June 2020 review of submission by Pt8340

I have used press release as references. I didn't know Wikipedia. Don't accept press release as reference. I have improve this page . please review it Pt8340 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pt8340 Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further as in the judgement of the reviewer there is little to no chance it can be sufficiently improved to meet Wikipedia standards. You are welcome to edit in other areas of the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:17:09, 4 June 2020 review of draft by Kangarolf


Hi there,

I am trying to get a new page cleared for a piece of volunteer management software that has been used a great deal in the UK to handle COVID 19 community volunteering. I copied the format for the SLACK page and included plenty of external and verifiable resources but the page got declined for being to advert like.

I'm looking for some more guidance on getting the page accepted as I think its a valid entry.

Thanks Kangarolf (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kangarolf, Couple of things.
  1. Lotta buzzwords, which is probably why it got tagged as an advert.
  2. Remember that Wikipedia writes about its subjects from a neutral, and almost...uninterested perspective. There is a lot of phrasing here that reads promotional, such as "to to identify, train and deploy volunteers to support sport and physical activity within Manchester" , which frankly should just say something like "Manchester has used TeamKinetic to support sports programs". Present the facts without presenting puffery.
  3. No external links in the body, either move them to the end in a section titled "External links", turn them into references (if relevant) or remove them.
  4. I'm not sure if this is notable. Only subjects which have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources are able to be included in Wikipedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CaptainEek (talk)

I've edited the post, removed all the external links and converted to refs where appropriate. I've also removed anything that cannot be externally referenced. I took out the whole features section as it was really only self referencing, though the Slack page did have this in.

Thanks for your help. I'll resubmit in a few days, if you have a chance to look again and post any comments I'd appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangarolf (talk • contribs) 09:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:43, 4 June 2020 review of submission by ZARAFSAEEQ


ZARAFSAEEQ (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:27:14, 4 June 2020 review of submission by Itsanupkumar

Hi, I have edited an article on Wikipedia. It is for someone I know and it is not an autobiography. Please help me place with this. Itsanupkumar (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please help me place this article on Wikipedia. I have made several changes to content now, and it is not an autobiography.

Itsanupkumar (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please listen to other users' concerns and stop writing about Anup Kumar. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

01:49:21, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Jamescarter19914

As we had the verified page and has been removed by google please review and update me. Jamescarter19914 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:21:18, 5 June 2020 review of submission by User:Liberma19

This article was labeled as UPE. I saw the talkpage has a disclosure already. Can this be moved out from draft to the main article already? Thank you.

User:Liberma19 - I've changed the tag from Undisclosed paid editing to conflict of interest. I suggest that investment in the company's web site, which you can control, is a better use of resources than trying to write something in Wikipedia that is both neutral and promotional at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Robert McClenon, thank you for your assistance. Kindly review the article and talkpage again. I have already disclosed all accounts involved in that article's talkpage and in their corresponding userpage/talkpages, including mine. Also, I saw someone edited the article to improve notability. Hopefully, someone can assist on moving this drafted article for publishing. Thank you. Antagonizer05 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:09:01, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Shajeeralinv


Shajeeralinv (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify why this is rejected

07:14:43, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Shajeeralinv


Mr. Punnayurkulam V Bappu was a great mappila poet and he wrote mapplila songs in saskrit. He was my grand uncle and I personally seen his handwritten books with my father. Also his details are enlisted at Mahakavi Moyinkutty Vaidyar Smarakam, Kondotty. Hence I request you to publish this article. Shajeeralinv (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen, at least this time:

Request on 08:06:00, 5 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Communication.scac


Hello,

I would like to get an explanation regarding the rejection of my submission of an article on Voilah! Festival on Wikipedia. Could you please let me know what I did wrong so to correct it?

Regards, Department for Culture, Education and Science Embassy of France in Singapore 101-103 Cluny Park Road, Singapore 259595

T +65 6880 7827 M + 65 9653 5069 sg.ambafrance.org / voilah.sg Communication.scac (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Communication.scac (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Communication.scac, well it is clearly explained in the declining message of your draft, please follow the links given within the message... - if you have any more questions you should contact the Decliner himself User:Theroadislong CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:15, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Feng Mantian

I don't know why my submission is declined. Could anyone help me with the adjustment? Thank you. We Love wikipedia!!!! But we are not that smart to finish this submission. Thank you for your kind help.

Feng Mantian (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Mantian You wrote a promotional page about yourself, which has now been deleted. Please review the autobiography policy as to why autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:35, 5 June 2020 review of submission by 92.249.179.89


92.249.179.89 (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hy,

Can you help me? I do not really know what is the problem with the article. I put all off the reference that has, but all of is Hungarian.

References do not need to be in English- and that is not the issue anyway. Please review the posts made by reviewers on the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:10:11, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Leckson58

Hi,

The page I submitted for review was declined due to notability and that it reads more like an advertisement than a wiki entry. I've edited the page and I added some few references too. Please help me review it before I resubmit it for approval.

The references I used include: Financial times, Bloomberg company profile, Health Business UK magazine, The National AE newspaper, Proactive Investors UK and Live trading news etc. All of which are not press releases and they discuss the subject in some detail and not passing mentions.


Leckson (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:33, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Theomarquezofficial


My Own Article must be accepted and Publish it

Theomarquezofficial (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theomarquezofficial You wrote a promotional page about yourself, which has now been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about (in this case) musicians that are shown to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your career or helping your fans. You are welcome to write about subjects other than yourself. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:20:49, 5 June 2020 review of draft by GSS


I have a question regarding notability. This author has been cited by her peers in lots of scholarly articles, I think she should pass notability. These can be verified from here. Should I need to add all citations regarding her from scholar? Only availability is enough? RRRW (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RRRW You need to provide the citations, a link to a Google search is not sufficient. If you are a paid editor or otherwise represent the subject of the article, you must review WP:COI and WP:PAID before further edits. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note as per some off-wiki evidence RRRW was hired to update Institut auf dem Rosenberg and they failed to disclose. I have shared the evidence with Yunshui. GSS 💬 11:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have any coi with Eivor_Martinus. This subject has coi with user:Alamex who disclosed on their userpage. - RRRW (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:33, 5 June 2020 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:35A1:D7B2:D5E1:551C


2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:35A1:D7B2:D5E1:551C (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a re-review as the last error said it was too promotional.


13:55:45, 5 June 2020 review of draft by SChannell


117.230.151.13 (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:55:45, 5 June 2020 review of draft by SChannell


{{Db-g7}} I was unable to upload diagrams because there is a defect with the image updload filtering that marked BPMN diagrams as unsuitable for wikipedia commons. I've published to my blog instead (https://www.cepheis.com/blog/pathwise-complexity)

SChannell (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SChannell: this page is completely unsourced. Therefore, the image problems are academic problems you can care about when the draft is properly sourced. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the mandate of wikipedia had changed from an encyclopedia to an index, I'll consider updating wikipedia once it has been published elsewhere

@117.230.151.13 and SChannell:We had this literally yesterday. Sourceing still hasnt improved. Please read WP:OR. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:10, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Hasibromi

I am requesting a re-review, Because I think the page now met the notability criteria. Hasibromi (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest which part of the criteria here WP:MUSICIAN they pass? Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong, I'm looking at the sources--god it's terrible. I didn't know that rap also had this industry where press releases and promotional writing was regurgitated in this way. This piece of puff is copied verbatim here; this is a good reason not to take Medium seriously; this "online news entity" is a joke, and the article in that "news entity" is just some promotional shit of the kind we see here on Wikipedia too. Check it:

But his huge success came with his first album release, i.e., The Travels of Marco. It had the potential of being the best upcoming star album. The content of the album is as the Title suggests. It deals with the travels of Marco. This album contains 13 tracks that follow Marco’s life through trials and tribulations.

There was no "huge success, of course, and that stuff about content and title, that's hilarious. Anyway, Hasibromi, I'm sorry, but I don't see how any of those publications are acceptable per WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I didn't know we were still this sexist in the music industry. It's pretty gross. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:55, 5 June 2020 review of submission by 173.176.137.104

This person is famous among all Iranians! I don't understand what is your personal problem with him. As I talked to you on live chat, you don't give any specific reason. if you don't know the person, it doesn't mean that he is not famous. before rejecting you can search about him. his information is totally same as the other Iranian rappers. 173.176.137.104 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is surely no personal problem but your subject lacks of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Please have a close look at Wikipedia:Notability_(music), your subject of matter does not really fulfil any of the criteria mentioned there, at least like it is written in your draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
173.176.137.104, I wish you would try to write that up neutrally. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:42, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Gidicloud


Gidicloud (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please what exactly do I need to do to make this content "sellbeta" approved? is it because no notable reference just let me know please.

17:38, 5 June 2020 331dot talk contribs blocked Gidicloud talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{uw-spamublock}} <!-- Promotional username, promotional edits -->). Since the draft has been deleted in the meantime for g11, there is nothing left to see here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:45, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Sa 3003


Sa 3003 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge how the previous write-up of this article sounded biased and not encyclopedia-like as the standard is on Wikipedia. Thus, I've taken out a line of the proposed draft that seemed promotional and changed around another part of the wording. I believe that now the entry reads as more fitting to be in an encyclopedia. Please let me know if there are any other steps I can take to help get this article published. Thanks so much!


16:28:39, 5 June 2020 review of draft by Ggent


Ggent (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:24:11, 5 June 2020 review of submission by DRUMMER GANI


DRUMMER GANI (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has no WP:RELIABLE sources. The editor was twice declined and requested to provide WP:RELIABLE sources and also advised not include social-media links and references. The editor was also told and provided links on how to cite references in Wikipedia, but the editor seems to ignore all the loopholes. The present form only promotes the person. The draft is also not notable as per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:PROMOTION. ~ Amkgp ✉ 18:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:36:41, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Therahuljaiswal


Therahuljaiswal (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is only engaged in WP:PROMOTIONAL drafts. The queried draft lacks notability as per WP:MUSIC WP:NALBUM, it is released today only as per this and is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Also to be noted, that apart from this the editor is also trying to submit drafts that promotes person of not importance. See Draft:Aryan raj singh and the diff. ~ Amkgp ✉ 18:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:28:41, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Mtahir0007

Hi I have published all relevant information about a Naat Reciter Mr. Qari Zubaid Rasool, we only have his Naats uploaded in you tube, can you please tell me what other references you need? We have very limited information available about him. There is one Wikipedia article already there in Urdu Language but if you search in English you will not find anything. So I have added info so English user can also see. Mtahir0007 (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mtahir0007, Please specify the draft ~ Amkgp ✉ 19:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are referring to Draft:Qari Zubaid Rasool. The draft needs to be notable as per English Wikipedia guidelines. Please avoid YouTube as a references as WP:YTREF policy. You need to provide WP:RELIABLE sources as references to you draft to verify/prove its notability and pass the criteria for inclusion in main-space. You can visit WP:REFB if you are unaware how to add references in the draft/article. ~ Amkgp ✉ 19:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:22:14, 5 June 2020 review of submission by DRUMMER GANI


I have provided all valid information about Sanika Kulkarni with news paper articles, program links and various links that describe that Sanika Kulkarni is a sensation in singing and deserves a Wikipedia page. All the contents mentioned and links attached are 100% authentic. Request you to activate page with name Sanika Kulkarni. Thank You!!! Yours Truly


DRUMMER GANI (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well DRUMMER GANI, as the reviewer already stated Wikipedia is not the place for promoting young artists and the given references are not reliable to state any kind of notability. I would have rejected your draft, too. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DRUMMER GANI, Please refer this for the reasons for 'rejection'. ~ Amkgp ✉ 20:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read "Up and coming next big thing" and "Nobody cares about your garage band". The latter is more Western in details, but the spirit is global. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DRUMMER GANI, Are you writing the draft about yourself ? ~ Amkgp ✉ 20:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:08:47, 5 June 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA


SONGEZO SA (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:14:03, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Jxs28a


If I understand the reason for rejection correctly, I do not have a COI that needs to be disclosed. What else should I do?

Thanks. Jxs28a (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


June 6

02:48:28, 6 June 2020 review of submission by Hasibromi

I think under the WP:RS non of the links that I have used were self published sources by Marcoof500. The links are independent sources which deem them reliable. Even under the WP:RS it states that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Hasibromi (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)== 04:35:37, 6 June 2020 review of submission by Shreyastyagi1 ==[reply]


Shreyastyagi1 (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:35:37, 6 June 2020 review of submission by Shreyastyagi1

@Shreyastyagi1: First of all, writing about yourself is strongely discouraged here. Further, Wikipedia is not a social network like Facebook or Instagram. As for Draft:Shreyas_Tyagi:

04:35:37, 6 June 2020 review of draft by Shreyastyagi1

06:30:42, 6 June 2020 review of submission by Thebadnewslive


I honestly don’t what else I can do for this article. There are loads of newspaper, magazine clippings, photos of races from the 80s and 90s which nothing is online as in that period because no-one had computers or the internet. I can only find references online of what people have bothered to upload. Is that the only thing that counts with Wikipedia. If it’s not online now, it’s not real???

Thebadnewslive (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thebadnewslive Sources do not need to be online as long as they are publicly accessible(such as a magazine or newspaper in a library). As noted, it appears that the organization you wrote about does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Sources, whether online or offline, must do more than briefly mention the organization or its activities. Wikipedia articles must summarize only what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a subject. That does not include brief mentions, routine announcements, press releases, staff interviews, or other primary sources.
Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you truly feel that you can adhere to the standards I mention here and those at Your First Article, you will have to start over from scratch on a new draft.
If you are associated with this organization, you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So does this article need to be incorporated into another article? The organisation has been around for 50 years now and currently compiling a large book for the 50th anniversary documenting it's history. Members have been submitting all these old news and magazine articles, images and so forth for the book. None of this is in libraries, that I know of, it's just things people have kept over the years from the time. Have I got to put all this online as references just for a Wikipedia article? Thebadnewslive (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thebadnewslive Please make follow up comments by editing this existing section, instead of creating new sections. Please read WP:CITE for information on citing sources, including those only in print. As long as the relevant information is available to write a citation(publisher, author, date, etc.) you can cite a print newspaper article, as most newspapers and magazines are archived in libraries. You don't need to put the newspaper clippings online. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:37:26, 6 June 2020 review of submission by Mostafasafarian

I have edited citations and references, I've also edited the content to match wikipedia's criteria. Please re-review this article. Thanks in advance. Mostafasafarian (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafasafarian Your draft has been rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further as there is little to no chance that it can be improved enough to meet Wikipedia standards. In this case, it appears that the person you wrote about does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:25:42, 6 June 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA


SONGEZO SA (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SONGEZO SA You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It appears that the musician you wrote about does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:04, 6 June 2020 review of submission by Shraddhaaa1702

As I wrote a biography of myself it does not promote any thing in that Biography. please help why it got rejected. Shraddhaaa1702 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shraddhaaa1702, unfortunately no matter if you are promoting or not autobiography articles are not allowed on Wikipedia. Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Have a look over here Wikipedia:Autobiography. Regards, CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommanderWaterford Shraddhaaa1702 It isn't exactly correct that autobiographies are not allowed, but they are strongly discouraged. It is very hard to successfully write an autobiography. In your case, Shraddhaa1702, your draft did little more than state your existence, and had no independent reliable sources to support its content and indicate how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:17, 6 June 2020 review of submission by Shani-tej-pratap-singh


Shani Tej Pratap Singh 15:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, do you have any question? Looks like your draft had been declined because you wrote an autobiographical article about yourself which is strongly discouraged, please have a close look at Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:53:47, 6 June 2020 review of draft by Timothconrad


I need help with my submission, i don't know what else should i do? Because i submitted twice it is declined, can you help me how to do it right?

Timothconrad (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timothconrad. You are not forbidden from continuing to edit Draft:Timoth Conrad Kachumia, but autobiographies are strongly discouraged because of the conflict of interest they create. "Strongly discouraged" means the draft might be deleted, and you might be blocked from editing, if your edits are seen as an attempt to publicize yourself rather than purely to benefit Wikipedia. Many of the sources cited in the original draft are not reliable, and the remaining ones do not contain significant coverage of you. As your career progresses, more may be written about you in independent, reliable sources, but at the moment no one can help you "do it right" because the necessary sources simply don't exist. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:13, 6 June 2020 review of submission by Shashanktiwari9487


Shashanktiwari9487 (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:02:02, 6 June 2020 review of submission by Shashanktiwari9487


Shashanktiwari9487 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shashanktiwari9487, You are not supposed to write articles about yourself. This is highly discouraged. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:PROMOTION. The draft fails notability as per WP:ANYBIO. Social media mentions are not WP:RELIABLE sources. ~ Amkgp ✉ 17:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

01:09:56, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Namanibarra


I have taken out the in-article links and removed anything that sounds like bias and advertising. This article should be notable now as well, if not, please continue to advise! Namanibarra (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namanibarra (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Namanibarra. Rejection is meant to convey that you should stop, because the topic is hopeless. It is not an invitation to re-arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. No amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. So volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to consider alternative outlets for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:36:21, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Davykamanzi

My draft submission was rejeced for failing to meet WP:GNG and WP:ARTSPAM. The tone of the draft could be altered, but Luton Today (source for 3 of the draft's 5 references) is an established news source in the Bedfordshire area; I feel other similar institutions, even in the same area, have articles in the mainspace despite receiving a smaller amount of significant coverage (e.g. the Stella Mann College of Performing Arts, which I assume is able to remain on the mainspace thanks to some brief coverage on one BBC News article, though admittedly that is a more reputed source than Luton Today). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 02:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davykamanzi, part of the issues is that Luton Today is a local paper, which usually isn't sufficient for notability. Local paper mentions can help push a subject towards notability, but you really need some regional or national mentions to supplant. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: As far as I'm aware, nothing in WP:GNG mentions any requirement for regional or national coverage to establish notability. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 13:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Davykamanzi: What constitutes trivial coverage varies by subject domain. Schools fall under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It's section WP:AUD says: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media ... is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary."
As you probably know, school articles have long been required to be notable in order to be included, but for many years there was a parallel contradictory practice that as long as they were high schools or above and could be proven to exist, they would not be deleted. The inconsistency was more or less resolved a few years ago, and substandard school articles are gradually being improved or deleted. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines does not mean they are "allowed" to remain. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to dealing with them yet. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why they are not a good excuse to create more such articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:21:41, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Hexa Pyro


Hexa Pyro (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hexa Pyro, Because the subject is not notable and thus not suitable for inclusion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why my article isn't publish?

Request on 05:30:22, 7 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Tabbyindian


I need help in getting this Film Wikipedia page up. I have added the 3 different independent sources, Yahoo, iTunes, and few news coverage. The film has also been screened at few film festivals. What other details and sources should I include?

Thank you.

Tabbyindian (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabbyindian: no Declined for the reasons stated on the draft. After the film is released, more may be written about it in independent, reliable sources, thereby making it possible to write an encyclopedia article. At present, however, it is WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:37, 7 June 2020 review of draft by EliaMssawir


I tried to submit a page for my artist, but the reviewer didn't give me much info on why is it rejected? and what am I suppose to do so it get approved. Thank you, Elia

EliaMssawir (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EliaMssawir, well he did indeed - your article does not show sufficient notability for your artist to be listed within Wikipedia. Have a look at the link he provided in his Denial and try to add several, reliable references/sources to your article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:EliaMssawir - As User:Theroadislong said, it is disruptive to resubmit a draft repeatedly without significant changes and without addressing the concerns of the reviewers. Read the musical notability criteria and explain, on the draft talk page, which of the criteria the subject meets. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:CommanderWaterford,User:EliaMssawir- Simply adding sources is not always sufficient. Read No amount of editing will compensate for a lack of notability. There is a myth in Wikipedia that, because we require sources, adding more sources is what is needed to get a draft approved. Sometimes it is, but usually the problem is that the subject isn't notable. If the subject doesn't meet the criteria, the subject isn't notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:59, 7 June 2020 review of draft by EndlessSound301


I am working to write a new article. The article is on a scientist whose work was covered by the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, US News, and many other sources. But the article was rejected for not having significant coverage in independent sources. Could anyone help explain why these sources are insufficient, and how the article could be improved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jason_Sheltzer

EndlessSound301 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EndlessSound301 If it is the person's work that is written about, and not themselves, they would not merit an article even if their work does. The person themselves must get significant coverage in independent reliable sources to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), the #1 criteria for academic notability is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Isn't that what the NYT article, Time Magazine coverage, etc., demonstrate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EndlessSound301 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EndlessSound301 It would mean that he is notable, but there still needs to be sources that discuss him personally, otherwise any article about him would be discussing his work, and not him. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:03, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Cjzulaa

Hello there. Could you check my last changes, please? Jargalsaikhan is one of the great representatives of Mongolian culture and art. In the case of Mongolia, I would like to draw attention to the fact that reliable sources are not always available in society. However, all possible information is included. Help me improve my Wikipedia. Thank you. Zul.L (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cjzulaa. If reliable secondary sources containing significant coverage do not exist, Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. Rejection is meant to convey that a topic is hopeless. No amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. So volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to consider alternative outlets for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:14:46, 7 June 2020 review of draft by 31.202.23.82


31.202.23.82 (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero reliable sources.

18:37:25, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Ellisongardner

As you must know I am new to this! I wrote the article on Carol Jenkins that should go with the photo of her in the Sandbox - but you only got the photograph. I need to move the article so it is in the sandbox but do not understand how to do this. If it's not too much bother can you please explain simply how I can do it. I would appreciate that. Thank you

CJ730 18:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, well now that you have added the necessary content you will need to have a view on the format and layout, especially on citing your references, please have a look on the hints and tips I left you on your talk page, especially here Help:Your_first_article. Hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:49:25, 7 June 2020 review of draft by Boltaso


Boltaso (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:30:21, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Iayaz

NIP is under Ministry of Production [1], Government of Pakistan & is reliable resource of information Iayaz (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Iayaz, as far as I see the reviewers gave you lots of information why the Draft had been rejected, the NIP Website is a self-published website, have a look over here Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#The_problem_with_self-published_sources. br, CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:30:38, 7 June 2020 review of draft by StOuen


I have inserted the inline references now as requested, but I cannot remove the weird list of the same references below in the reference section. I should add that I have never done any coding.

StOuen (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StOuen. I've removed what I think you meant by "weird". --Worldbruce (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

06:01:08, 8 June 2020 review of submission by Andy Phung 1992


Hi, I am writing about a new social network call "Empow" which I recently used and did some research about it to write my first Wiki article. This article has nothing to do with the old one, please take a look and tell me if my article can publish or not. Thank you very much.

Andy Phung 1992 (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Phung 1992 Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. You have offered no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this social network, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable website. If it is new as you state, it may take time for such sources to develop meaning it is too soon for an article about it. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:14, 8 June 2020 review of draft by J.mins


My article was declined. However, i can't understand why my article was declined. Actuallly, my article is based on facts and has a reliable sources. I don't understand that my article was declined because it was neologism. 'Persons of distinguished service to science and technology' is official word in Korea and i don't creat this word. I just want to upload my article in English Wikipedia. So please let me konw how to upload my aricle as soon as possible. J.mins (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J.mins Perhaps it is a translation error, but if you are writing about an award given by the Korean government or someone else, the article does not make that clear; it appears that it is just your opinion as to who notable scientists or technology experts are. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:13:16, 8 June 2020 review of submission by Joyceliloksee

The wiki page is declined by reason of references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article, if i remove all passing mentions articles and reference and insert only independent articles of the subject will this page be accepted? Joyceliloksee (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joyceliloksee: probbably, unless there is some other thing that will prevent it from getting accepted (which I am not going to predict now). Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:56:33, 8 June 2020 review of draft by Harshit00111


I want to know that what more changes do I need to make to make this page well enough to be published as an article. I would feel glad if get to know this. Harshit00111 (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshit00111: You need to provide reliable sources to support your edits and also must disclose if you have a conflict of interest per WP:COI. GSS 💬 07:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:52, 8 June 2020 review of submission by Trisha1983


Dear how should i move this page to article space, what things required to move Palak Sidhwani to article space?? Trisha 12:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Trisha1983 Your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further as in the opinion of the reviewer it has little to no chance of being able to be improved enough to meet Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about people; Wikipedia articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about subjects that meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable actress. It appears that this person does not meet that definition. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:12:06, 8 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by MarkEStanger


my first time making articles on wikipedia and the steps for publishing are confusing MarkEStanger (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC) y MarkEStanger (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this article currently has one source. WP:NPERSON requires at least three. 17:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

17:57:07, 8 June 2020 review of submission by 167.102.136.34


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} his is a notable musician. 167.102.136.34 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:44:57, 8 June 2020 review of draft by Drashti R Joshi


I have edited the draft post the submission has been declined on 5th June. I would like to know when it will be reviewed.

Drashti R Joshi (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drashti R Joshi, Well it still reads like an ad, and needs better sourcing to show notability. If you want it to be reviewed again, you will need to press the resubmit button CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:07:31, 8 June 2020 review of draft by Atlastucco66


Hi, I am trying to set up a Wikipedia page for a musical group from Montreal. My first draft was not accepted. The band is from the 80s and not very well known outside their home province. Although I have scans of their press clippings and photos etc, I have been trying for years to find online articles to link to make my page more credible. Is it considered appropriate to incorporate scans of articles in order to authenticate the information on the page?

Atlastucco66 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlastucco66 Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. You don't need scans of articles, you just need to be able to cite the publication and its information (author, page, etc.) so that a reader could locate it if desired (in a library). Sources do not need to be online, they only need to be publicly accessible. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:49:25, 8 June 2020 review of draft by Malbrec92


Help me understand what else I can include to support Steven's notoriety, and how I can overcome the conflict of interest. Steven Beschloss has over 97,000 followers on Twitter, was nominated for a Pulitzer, has produced movies, written high-profile op-eds in major media outlets, and has had scholarly work published as well. Yes, I work with him -- and I took pains to keep to just the facts and dig up sources to support them. What's next, please? Malbrec92 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malbrec92 I think you mean notability, not "notoriety". As noted by the reviewer, Mr. Beschloss does not appear to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. The closest he comes might be being nominated for a Pulitzer, which would indicate he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", but only if he had been awarded one. Most of the sources you offer merely confirm the existence of his work; what is required is independent reliable sources with significant coverage where the sources has chosen on their own to write about Mr. Beschloss. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


June 9

01:50:03, 9 June 2020 review of submission by David.11.2002

I have put a lot of certified references such as Wikipedia and many international sites (books and news) that have written about this company! I wrote this article with a good writer and this company actively participates in Egyptian society .. Please re-review this article because it does not contain wrong information or about a small company and it applies the conditions of notability! It is a popular company in Egypt and it participates in the community

David.11.2002 (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David.11.2002: Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered for acceptance. You are welcome to contribute elsewhere in Wikipedia. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:24:04, 9 June 2020 review of submission by Myfirsts

"This is advertising" and the reviewer has nothing else to say. what a vague response to an article with facts verified by adequate references. The purpose of wikipedia is to share information and that is what this article intends to do. Please suggest a proper way to improve the article.

Myfirsts (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myfirsts Actually, you are incorrect; the purpose of Wikipedia is not to merely share information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case the definition of a notable person. Your draft merely told about the doctor and his services, with a brief mention of his brief appearance in a records book. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:31:56, 9 June 2020 review of submission by JonathanBrott


Hello there!

First time editor here. I've been working on an article for the Swedish indie band Mama Sonic. Article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mama_Sonic My first submission was understandably rejected, as I at first thought I could piece together some first-hand information from my own experience with the band and just add a COI tag. After this, I've completely revised the article and it is has improved substantially.

I have worked with this band on multiple occasions and am an off-and-on member of it (non-profit artistic collaborations). I understand the COI policy is applicable in most commercial situations, but right now I'm confused, should I not have claimed a COI at all? The band has a growing following, yet information about them has yet to be collected in the form of a Wiki entry. The draft article is based on public interviews and reviews as well as record label listings. Some of the material was promotional biography from the band, and I can see that that needs revision.

Perhaps my question is: is this article suitable for Wikipedia? I've seen many similar listings of Swedish bands, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Cone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Perro_del_Mar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Johansson_(musician)

Basically, I'm not sure if the draft is too unsubstantial or if the citation needs more work at this stage. I'll take another pass at it before resubmitting! Any suggestions are welcome!

Best wishes Jonathan

JonathanBrott (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JonathanBrott You need to declare a COI if you have any association with an article subject that could be perceived as influencing your work. You don't have to have a commercial relationship or be paid(being paid or any financial relationship would trigger the stricter paid editing declaration). In terms of the draft, as long as the band meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band and your sources are independent reliable sources with significant coverage, the article will get past a review. I don't do many formal article reviews, but from a quick glance it seems like it is at least possible the draft would be okay. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:47:48, 9 June 2020 review of submission by AkleshJatavNSUI

dear wikipedia, please upload my article. AkleshJatavNSUI (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:53:26, 9 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by IqbalBarbhuiya10



IqbalBarbhuiya10 (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:13, 9 June 2020 review of submission by Joshua989898

So my article was recently rejected for not being a sufficiently notable topic. But I have now found the links to four newspaper articles that have been written over the years on the subject (one from the Washington Post, one from the Washington Times and two from the Deseret News). Would including these as references for the article help it become sufficiently notable? Joshua989898 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to answer you without knowing what exactly the sources say. If they are independent of the organization and give it significant coverage(not just a brief mention, routine announcement, press release, staff interview, etc.) they could be sufficient. Any article about this organization should only summarize what independent sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:49, 9 June 2020 review of draft by S09748


Hello, this is S09748 speaking. I am asking help about how to make a proper table in my article. See, there are four cells in a row, and the one under is about a summary. I would like for the cell under to take as much area as the four above. Can you please tell me how i could achieve this? Thank you. S09748 (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S09748. It sounds like what you want is the colspan attribute. See Help:Basic table markup for more information, and see the climate table in Bern for an example. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:34, 9 June 2020 review of submission by 70.29.26.190

Hi, 

 Looking for for ways to make this article seem less like an ad.  I do work for a marketing company that represents signal hill whiskey and originally copied and pasted the copy they wrote for wikipedia, it was declined because it read like an ad. I read over the original and pulled a bunch of unnecessary branding adjectives, while leaving enough info to accurately describe the product.  I'm thinking it may be the taste profiles getting flagged, but I would like to kmow which lines of text are reading too much like an advertisement.

Thanks, Ben Buschke Morrison Digital


70.29.26.190 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:23:56, 9 June 2020 review of draft by Willairwin


Willairwin (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:11:40, 9 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Dr. GuptaDeepak


Deepak Gupta
Born (1970-02-12) February 12, 1970 (age 54)
New Delhi, India
NationalityIndian
Alma mater
Known forStudies on skull-base surgeries and neurooncology
Awards
  • 2002 [[1. Best poster award: Recurrence in Pediatric Craniopharyngiomas: analysis of clinical and histopathological features (14th Annual conference of the Indian Society of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of MedicalSciences, Lucknow, India.2003]]
  • [[2. Best paper award: Recurrence in Craniopharyngiomas: Clinical and histological features, 2nd Indo Japanese Neurosurgery conference at AIIMS, DELHI, INDIA, 2004 ]]
  • Outstanding Paper Award
  • [[Split cord malformations: a new clinicoradiological classification in International society of pediatric neurosurgery CME course and 16th annual conference of Indian society of pediatric neurosurgery held at India habita Centre,New Delhi, India from 4th -7th November 2005]] Best Poster Award
  • ISPN Best Paper Award
Scientific career
Fields
Institutions

Deepak Gupta (born Feburury 12, 1970) is an Indian neurosuregeon, Prof Deepak Gupta is Secretary of Indian society for Pediatric Neurosurgery [ INDSPN] • Member Neurotrauma Committee World federation of Neurosurgical Societies • Faculty AO Spine, AO Neurotrauma, ATLS, Past Secretary Delhi Neurological Association ( 2015-2018)

Biography

Born on Feburury 12, 1970 in New Delhi, Prof. Deepak Gupta, MS MCH, MNAMS, PhD (AIIMS), is Professor of Neurosurgery, Faculty Incharge Neurotrauma-2, JPN Apex trauma Centre, AIIMS. He is also associated with IIT (Indian Institute of Technology ) Delhi as Adjunct Faculty. Also he serves the Pediatric Neurosurgery Fellowship Programme , AIIMS Neurosciences Centre & JPN apex Trauma Centre, Delhi as Faculty in charge.


Dr. GuptaDeepak (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:50, 9 June 2020 review of submission by Booklover35


Hi there, I would like to request a re-review for the article on TV personality and K-Pop artist, Oli London. Please let me know if I need to make any changes. I have updated his TV credits to include his most recent shows Dr. Phil, Botched and Daily Mail TV and added more reliable sources.

Thank you,

Jo

Booklover35 (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:16:04, 9 June 2020 review of submission by WikipediaNewContributor


WikipediaNewContributor (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:31, 9 June 2020 review of submission by Mckaylagrace

My article submission for GFA Canada was declined because it didn't show significant coverage. I appreciate the feedback from Sulfurboy and just have a few questions. My original intent was for this to be a stub and more of a work-in-progress sort of page. Is there a different procedure for creating stubs as opposed to full articles? If not, would my article be accepted if I were to submit more proof of significant coverage from news outlets like CBC and CTV? Thanks for the help! Mckaylagrace (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mckaylagrace, Notability needs to be established with reliable, independent sources. The length of the article, or whether or not it is a stub, does not change that fact. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:53:33, 9 June 2020 review of submission by Alyssattran


If I'm publishing a wikipedia page for my company is it okay if i source some of my information directly from my company's page or is that considered being biased.

Alyssattran (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssattran First, you must read and formally comply with the paid editing policy, a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. You should also review conflict of interest. Any article about your company should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about your company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself. Certain indisputable factual information like location, number of employees, prominent staff, can be sourced to the company itself, but that's all; please see WP:PRIMARY for more information on that point. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:47, 9 June 2020 review of submission by Willairwin


I do not understand why the article was not able to be submitted. Perhaps because I copied and pasted from a Word document draft?

Willairwin (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Willairwin It isn't necessary to post text from your draft here, we can see it at the link I placed as well as in your edit history. You should be able to submit it by clicking the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button on the screen. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:39:31, 9 June 2020 review of draft by AengusB


Hi!

I have two questions:

1- How do I change the name of my article-to-be? I submitted it from my sandbox and it did not let me input any title, and it seems that the user who reviewed my article knew how to do it and input the title with a typo.

2- After I reached out to Reddit for sources about Kyle Hill, the man himself saw my post and offered to answer my questions. How should I quote the information he will send me by email? (I know it is actually him because I sent the email through a form on his website).

Thank you

AengusB (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AengusB Don't worry about the title, as if and when the draft is accepted, the reviewer will handle the placement of the draft in the encyclopedia; you may want to leave a note on the draft talk page that the title is currently misspelled. As for the information from Kyle Hill, Wikipedia cannot accept information in an email; all information must be sourced to a publicly available independent reliable source for verification purposes(as Kyle cannot sit by a phone for as long as Wikipedia exists taking calls or emails from readers). Perhaps Kyle Hill can direct you to reliable sources where the information he has provided you with has been published.
Since you are in communication with Kyle Hill about your Wikipedia editing, you will need to review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your swift answer. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I do not think I have a conflict of interest since I do not know Kyle Hill personally and will not receive benefits in any shape or form for the article. My article is still a draft, but could you give it a quick look and tell me whether there are already obstacles to the publication of the article, please? Thank you

June 10

00:09:03, 10 June 2020 review of draft by AviationFreak


I'm not sure what needs to be done to improve referencing on my draft. I received a AfC denial after submitting a draft for Holly Grove Christian School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Holly_Grove_Christian_School). I did what I thought was necessary in the way of reliable sources and adding inline citations. I tried not to overload the reader with inline citations and placed references that applied to an entire section at the end of the first sentence in that section. I'm not sure if I need more inline citations, more references, sources that are more reliable (though most of the sources are directly from the school's website), or something else. Thanks in advance for your help. :) AviationFreak (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:17:27, 10 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Yankeejess


Dear Help Desk,  6/9/2020

Here is the Update that still needs to get done right away On The New Web Site at www.en.wikipedia.org On The WKCI-FM Page On The Old KC101 Logo needs to get taken off right away thats because its an outdate it one already that station does not have that Logo anymore & The New kc101 Logo CONNECTICUT'S #1 HIT MUSIC STATION thats On The New Web Site at www.kc101.iheart.com thats on the top middle needs to get put on right away & Would you please keep that in mind & don,t forget to go On The New Web Site at www.kc101.iheart.com The New kc101 Logo CONNECTICUT'S #1 HIT MUSIC STATION is on the top middle needs to get put on right away & don,t forget to take care of this right away & don,t forget to let me know when its all set & done with & don,t forget to get this problem fixed big time right away & don,t forget. Please Write Back to my New E-mail address is (Redacted)


Yankeejess (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankeejess: please don't post your email address on a public Wikipedia page. Most communication will happen on the website anyway. If you really want, you can check out Wikipedia:Emailing users for how to set an email address in your preferences. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:42:38, 10 June 2020 review of submission by MEMBER SG

artist name its naked on its own on goole without info,so i hope you could accept this as commom creativity cause the name is in use everywhere like play store music and now goole recognise it, just need to verify that name MEMBER SG (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MEMBER SG: this was an advert and will never be a part of Wikipedia in the form it was deleted. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:44:15, 10 June 2020 review of submission by MEMBER SG


MEMBER SG (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


03:30:58, 10 June 2020 review of draft by Sachi1307


Hello,

My submission is neutrality, which provides references, and no other same article existing. However,I find an article which is not reliable resource, it became an article. :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosto_Kingtee I am confused about the review of wikipedia. Please let me know how to do.

Sachi1307 (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:29, 10 June 2020 review of submission by Tbiw

I don't understand the references doesn't meet the criteria of article,please other reviewer help me to check. I am not the beginning writer of this article I just try an helping hand,please cross-check it again.review again, Tbiw (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:30:17, 10 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by RealIK17


Hi WikiProject,

Please help me understand the refusal for my submission. I just translated this page from the German Wikipedia. Surely the German editors were satisfied with the German sources of that German article. I also translated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aracillum, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Iplacea, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Askaukalis from Polish and Spanish Wikipedias. Thx.

Best regards, S RealIK17 (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RealIK17, You just need to add WP:RELIABLE sources in references. Visit WP:REFB to get acquainted on how to cite sources in references in English Wikipedia ~ Amkgp 💬 13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:36:42, 10 June 2020 review of draft by Sbmnlaw


I am unable to understand why Draft:QuickX was declined when it is notable technology related topic has ios application for apple store and Worldwide operations and other pages of similar nature are there. Sbmnlaw (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:13:36, 10 June 2020 review of submission by Rasel Shahid Siddique


Rasel Shahid Siddique (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasel Shahid Siddique: Wikipedia isn't your way to promote a buissness. Note that if you are affilated with the organisation in any way, you must read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:40:01, 10 June 2020 review of draft by J stapling


Hi,

Thanks for reviewing the submission - is there anything I can do to help this get somewhere towards publishing. I appreciate the concerns about paid editing, but I think the subject matter does still pass the threshold for notability given that two other UK-based retailers of equivalent size have their own Wiki articles: Jessops and Calumet Photographic, the latter of which is actually now merged with Wex Photo Video (which is even mentioned explicitly in the Calumet article.

I appreciate that this is deeply not your problem, but if there's anything I can do to get this page publishable, please just let me know. Happy to add more sources etc

J stapling (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:49, 10 June 2020 review of submission by Juniorrohan

14:39:49, 10 June 2020 review of submission by Juniorrohan


Juniorrohan (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juniorrohan: the draft currently lacks reliable independent sources. It therefore fails WP:NPERSON. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:09, 10 June 2020 review of draft by Lauratheschit


Hi, I want to know what kind of sources we need to give the show credability?

I have included a source where the show was advertised on BBC Radio 4 (a huge national radio station) which should be more than enough to prove it's real and credible?

The show is being published on Youtube, so will linking the Youtube channel help boost credibility? I can also link tweets and the individual Youtube videos for each episode to give each episode/guest credability. Would this be sufficient?

What else can be suggested to enable this page to be published?

Lauratheschit (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, for notability you are going to need at least three sources that satisfy all of the following:
I failed to find any such sources in the draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


19:15:39, 10 June 2020 review of draft by ShadowBee


A submission of an article I've wrote has been declined - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mish-mash_(food) "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

Ok, first of, this is an existing article in Bulgarian (BG) Wikipedia - "https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%88-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%88" and Hungarian (UK) Wikipedia - "https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%88-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%88" that I have translated. It is also on this (EN) Wikipedia disambiguation page - "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mish_Mash"

Second, this is a very popular Bulgarian dish, like Banitsa - "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banitsa" - all the tourists try it, etc. It is one of the 50 most popular dishes in Bulgarian cuisine, according to some sources. But where is this dish referenced? Food blogs, local cooking shows (all in Bulgarian), local cook-books (that I don't have access to, all in Bulgarian, too), etc. Where can one find significant coverage of a local dish, if I might ask? Look at the Banitsa pastry article I've mentioned above - terrible references - one of a Russian dictionary explaining the origin of the word, and two local recipes on Bulgarian blogs, even not in English. No one would remove the article of this famous pastry, though. My point is, there are just no reliable sources when it comes to local cuisine, unlike many other topics.


ShadowBee (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get help with the page: "Georges Kugelmann" that I created. It was rejected for the lack of citations, which is quite logical, and it was my fault. I added citations and resubmitted, but now I do not see where is it and don't know if it has been accepted or not. Please tell what to do next. Thanks for your help. Sergei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svarshavsky (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Svarshavsky (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georges_Kugelmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowBee (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:58:49, 10 June 2020 review of submission by Kconstalie


Hello, and thank you so much for reading! I believe that the article I wrote about Conduit Magazine has not been fairly evaluated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Conduit_Magazine) This article seems to meet and exceed the objectivity standards set forth by Wikipedia. It is written in a straight-forward, matter-of-fact style. Yet this article was recently rejected because it contains links to Wikipedia's own pages for Best American Poetry and Pushchart Prize and these pages don't contain reference to the magazine. That these pages should mention Conduit Magazine is not a realistic expectation. For example, if an author has written for the New York Times, the Wikipedia article may have a link to the New York Times, but the New York Times article is not expected to mention the author. That would not be realistic.

This is an informative article about a literary subject. Please consider that it is fit to publish. Please notice that is plainly and objectively stated. If technical changes with the layout are necessary, I will be happy to make them if I can receive some guidance.

Thank you sincerely! Kconstalie (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kconstalie, to make it short: Your draft lacks tremendously of reliable sources, see over here Wikipedia:Reliable sources - lots of sections in your draft are totally unreferenced. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:13:31, 10 June 2020 review of draft by Jujiang


Jujiang (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:32:22, 10 June 2020 review of submission by Yankeejess


Dear Help Desk, 6/10/2020 

 Here is the Update that still needs to get done right away On The Web Site at www.en.wikipedia.org On The WILI (AM) Page The Old Wili GOOD COMPANY 1400 AM Logo needs to get taken off right away thats because its an outdate it one already that station does not have that Logo anymore & The New Wili GOOD COMPANY 1400 AM and 95.3 FM Logo thats On The Web Site at www.wili.com thats on the top middle needs to get put on right away & Would you please keep that in mind & don,t forget to go On The Web Site at www.wili.com The New Wili GOOD COMPANY 1400 AM and 95.3 FM Logo is on the top middle needs to get put on right away & don,t forget to take care of this right away & don,t forget to let me know when its all set & done with & don,t forget to get this problem fixed big time right away & don,t forget.

Yankeejess (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=961882787"