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 Nairji (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 21 October 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


October 15

01:06:05, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Naeem95

I am requesting a review because this player is a professional soccer player and have played for 3 professional teams in the USA and 1 pro club in Germany. He has sufficient articles that was provided and connections to professional clubs as seen on their wiki page. Thank You ! Naeem95 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless any of those professional teams were in a top-level national league (i.e. MLS or Bundesliga) or on this list, WP:NFOOTY is not satisfied. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC) (edited 06:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

01:44:37, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Sahnilbigfan

Please I want you to review this Draft again because someone else interrupted this draft. Please review it again as Sahnil is a social media influener as well as an India tv actor. Hoping the best from you! Thank you for understanding!

Sahnilbigfan (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:02:57, 15 October 2020 review of draft by Trndsettr4fire


I requested a page Trndsettr4fire (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Trndsettr4fire (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trndsettr4fire: Wikipedia is a volunteer project. People have to endeavor to build articles, not just request them. The draft linked above lacks most details, so it's not particularly useful. Sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:43:11, 15 October 2020 review of submission by FamdomFom76


FamdomFom76 (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC) 05:43:11, 15 October 2020 review of submission by FamdomFom76 FamdomFom76 (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Hi How can I Create a Article That Meets The Wikipedia Community Standards? == 05:43:11, 15 October 2020 review of draft by FamdomFom76 ==,[reply]

@FamdomFom76: You are goign to need several reliable (no user-generated content) independent(no press releases or interviews) sources with significant coverage(not yust passing mentions) to show that the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:00:38, 15 October 2020 review of draft by Jener13


Hello, can you pleaes review the new page "Jos. Kraus & Co." At the moment only exist in german language, I try to create an english page. Thank you very much for your help. jener13

Jener13 (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:48:12, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Katdot89

Hi. The previous post was created by another user. I am a totally independent reviewer interested in writing about Gaming companies in Malta. I have edited the existing draft to a totally unbiased view of the company. The comment by the first Wikipedia reviewer, was based on the first submitted draft by the other user. I'd appreciate if I can better understand what falls under 'contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia'. Thanks Katdot89 (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katdot89 It is not easy to find a draft unless you know where specifically to find it, and you have not edited about any other topics. How did you come to be interested in this topic if you are "totally independent"?
The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It just tells about the organization and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is in depth and goes beyond brief mentions, name drops, announcements of routine business, staff interviews, and other primary sources. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:34:39, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Aie555


I've take the time to go through this draft article and made several improvements: I've removed trivial sources, removed unsourced statements, and added new authoritative sources that were not available at the time of the last review. Some of the sources from outlets that are authoritative in the language technology industry or in the Czech Republic. On the suggestion of the last reviewer, I am submitting this for an additional review.

For the sake of full disclosure, I do have a potential conflict of interests: I work in the language technology sector and have had a professional relationship with Memsource.

Aie555 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Please review the comments given in the draft. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, based on your advice from my last submission I reached out to CaptainEek who reviewed and rejected the draft previously, and he suggested that I submit it for review again. Is this not possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aie555 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the reviewer that rejected the draft believes you should resubmit it, then I would ask them to reverse their rejection. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:48, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Mohd Hamdaan Ansari


Mohd Hamdaan Ansari (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohd Hamdaan Ansari: This draaft currently lacks reliable independent sources with significant coverage and as such currently fails WP:NPERSON. Apart from that, its also written in a promotional manner. Thats the exact reason why we strongely discourage autobiographys. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:50, 15 October 2020 review of draft by Rubiesar


Rubiesar (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Please I need to tag reviewers to my contribution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam[reply]

18:01:54, 15 October 2020 review of draft by 2601:243:80:E3B0:8CB3:1DDF:6C53:A4BD


Having trouble getting the article approved because there was a second Landline film that was already given the subject heading in 2017. This is a different Landline film with different credentials and articles related. I'd love to know how we can get this one approved after the previous editor denied us for having the same subject as another film. Thank you so much.

2601:243:80:E3B0:8CB3:1DDF:6C53:A4BD (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the author of the article, ChicagoFilmmaker83, please remember to sign in when editing Wikipedia. Since it is a different film from Landline (film), I recommend simply resubmitting the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:53, 15 October 2020 review of draft by Rubiesar


Rubiesar (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly Singer-songwriters to my contribution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam

@Rubiesar: It is unclear what you are asking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not social media and does not do tags. Drafts do not get categories appended to them as a general rule. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:13, 15 October 2020 review of submission by 2A02:C7D:14D2:3C00:B91C:1791:C4B8:7BFC


2A02:C7D:14D2:3C00:B91C:1791:C4B8:7BFC (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected drafts will not be considered further. Repeatedly submitting a draft without making any substantial changes to it is a waste of the submitter's time and ours. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:00:57, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Acidskater

I would like to request a review of draft:Israel Weinstein as I believe it was incorrectly denied. While there was some problematic wording which I have since cleaned up, I believe that the admin's ruling is incorrect. In asking the admin to expand on their reasoning so that I could assist the creator in editing the draft to get it published I was given nothing of substance and instead told that the admin suspected the creator of violating WP:COI "due to the article creator's contribution", which is even more vague and feels like the admin is leaning into not assuming good faith. I would be interested to hear from others, especially if anyone agrees with the original admin and can point out areas they believe are problematic. Questions to the admin who denied the draft and their responses can be found here. Acidskater (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Acidskater (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:26, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Picvdo


Picvdo (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was blatant promotion which is not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

06:32:55, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Acanga Luke


Acanga Luke (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Hello, would like to find out why my article has been declined?[reply]

@Acanga Luke: does the big pink box at User:Acanga Luke/sandbox/The Modern Academic Library not help you? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTESSAY. --Kinu t/c 02:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:34, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Maiti Meghna

The article provided by me is genuine and at present, this movement is going on in West Bengal, India. Please, I'm requesting the Wiki authority to accept my article. Maiti Meghna (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:56:59, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Ron.challinor


My submission has been moved to a draft because I have deprectaed and unreliable sources. How do I overcome these. Also, in one case I have a citation needed that I am unable to supply.

Ron.challinor (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron.challinor. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you can't cite a reliable, published source for a statement, then that material should not be in the encyclopedia. If a statement cites an unreliable source, such as a self-published blog or The Daily Mail, then the content must be removed unless you can find a reliable source to replace the unreliable one. A local library or historical society might be able to suggest sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:21:15, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Glen Hodgson


I have written a page on Budapest Process which is being investigated for copyright issues. I have contacted the Budapest Process website administrators and they are happy for the material to be used. They will also send across an e-mail confirming this.

Glen Hodgson (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is no longer in draft space, but to be clear: Generally any text provided by the subject themselves is not suitable for Wikipedia, whether because it's not neutral or not reflected in credible secondary sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 14:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:05, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Kyrawalenga


I'm wondering why it "reads like an advertisement" when they are simply the facts of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrawalenga (talk • contribs) 14:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it reads like an investment brochure. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 14:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:04, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Thatoilguy

Did I correctly add citations and sources for AFC? I found many sources for my first AFC - Even linked to official london stock exchange site for citation.

Thatoilguy (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:21:04, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Francis Bea


I just reviewed the feedback and wanted to see if I could get a clarification on the reason for the article's rejection. For those familiar with the AR/MR industry, Nreal is considered to be on par with Magic Leap and Hololens and in fact typically mentioned in the same sentence as the company is the industry as the only one to have launched consumer mixed reality glasses on the market - following Magic Leap's pivot. Not to mention the founder is from Magic Leap. But on the mention regarding the criteria of notability Magic Leap had gone out of its way to sue the company, which resulted in independent, albeit unfavorable coverage about Nreal.[1]

Francis Bea (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18684164/magic-leap-nreal-light-chi-xu-lawsuit-ar-glasses-design-ripoff
  2. ^ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-ar-glasses/

16:38:06, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Nthanhou


I have authored an article on Ray Tauser that required additional references which have been supplied. I "published" this but no response, yet. Here is a link to the DRAFT article: Draft:Ray_Tauser

Would you please help me get this approved or what is needed for publication? I have just finished a documentary about Ray Tauser and having a Wiki page will be visited as a result.

Thank you, Ned Thanhouser (nthanhou)

Nthanhou (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:31, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Willairwin


Greetings! I submitted this bio on September 24, having complied -- or attempted to comply -- with the proper in-line referencing format. I was almost immediately referred to how to properly format. I believe I have done so, so I re-submitted the bio yesterday. Could please tell me the status, and if it is still not properly formatted, could you please tell me what I need to do to correct it.

Thank you very much.

Willairwin (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Will Irwin[reply]

Willairwin (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't read WP:REFB as advised and you have not re-submitted it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:20, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Pilotmichael

Trying to get this article published and there are questions of reliable independent sources. Pilotmichael (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilotmichael: please list your WP:THREE below. Keep in mind that we are looking for sources that meets all of these criteria:
  • They are reliable. Commonly unreliable sources include user-generated sources such as most social networks. There is a non-exhaustive list of sources which were frequently discussed regarding reliability at WP:RSP.
  • They are independent of the subject. Not regarded as independent are interviews with the subject (or the subject's employees), and press releases
  • They offer significant coverage of the subject. One of two paragraphs should be enough, thoug more is always better.
I dont realy want to generate a full source assesment, because I dont consider it worth the time needed to create it. You may also want to look at WP:CSMN. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. The sources do meet all three of the criteria. They are reliable, independent and significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC) And, there are numerious sources sited that are reliable, independent and significant. So I do not understand the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilotmichael: Which are the numerous sources cited that you think are all three: reliable, independent, and significant? Most of the sources appear to be coming from exploringwineregions.com. Of those sources, some are potential copyright violations, since it's unclear whether there is adequate permission for the republication of that material. Having looked at a few, I don't see anything specifically in-depth. The Vancouver Sun one, for instance, includes a few sentences about one of the books. Same with the Chicago Tribune's four sentences. Also, even if you were able to demonstrate that one of the books might meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you are writing an article about a series of books, and notability is not inherited. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cyphoidbomb Thank you for being specific about this. Of the 35 sources cited, 34 are independent. I am understanding that reliable is not an issue. Regarding significance. Some are short and some are long; however, all are significant in terms of quality. Quality is more important than quantity, correct? You mention Chicago Tribune for example having just one paragraph. That one paragraph is quite significant when you consider that the Chicago Tribune receives and reviews thousands and thousands of books and this book was chosen as one of six winners. That is actually very significant! Regarding inherited notability, I understand. And not concerned. The second book is quickly becoming even more notable. For example, today, the book won a major book award against the books of the big publishing houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C850:4760:8823:FCAD:8D98:AA4F (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ones that appear on exploringwineregions.com are simply photographs of the articles being memorialized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C850:4760:8823:FCAD:8D98:AA4F (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to login. You wanted me to make a special assesment, well, here we are:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://exploringwineregions.com/news/#1475592880668-aeb4fc2d-9c06 No HTTP 404 No page not found No page not found ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04bL9NpfLCU No Interview No Seems to be WP:UGC ~ 6:41, ✘ No
On Show Live ñ Rudy Maxaís World (Americaís #1 travel radio show) ? Unverifyable, neither a link nor anything given ? Unverifyable, neither a link nor anything given ? Unverifyable, neither a link nor anything given ? Unknown
A Kind Voice on Books, by Host Erin Rae Daniels ? Same Problem as #3 ? Same Problem as #3 ? Same Problem as #3 ? Unknown
On The Air with The Wine Guy - Talk Show Guest on The Good Life Show, with Host, Mike Wreyford (The Wine Guy) No Same Problem as #3, howewer, appears like interview ? Same Problem as #3 ? Same Problem as #3 ✘ No
Featured Guest on The Donna Seebo Show - On BBS Radio, broadcasted worldwide ? Same Problem as #3 ? Same Problem as #3 ? Same Problem as #3 ? Unknown
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/GrapeExperiences-Review.pdf No Written by the book author ? I haven't assesed the website yes, but It looks like a fail Yes 4 pages ✘ No
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/news/#1475592880679-7057fa8c-efb9 No 404 Not Found No 404 Not Found No 404 Not Found ✘ No
https://theprovince.com/category/life/ No Another 404 No 404 No 404 ✘ No
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/about-us/ No Very much dependent No Subject's self description. WP:COI ~ a lengthely paragraph ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqFOf5cMcZk&feature=youtu.be ~ Interview Yes Television show Yes about 30 minutes ~ Partial
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/IBPA-Indie-Titles.pdf No Looks like a vanity publisher * No No ✘ No
https://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/drink/sc-wine-books-food-1007-20161005-column.html Yes Apeears to be independent Yes Newspaper ~ One paragraph about one book ~ Partial
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/EWR-ChicagoTribune.pdf Yes this is a scan of the chicago tribune newspaper * Yes No ✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/OutTraveler-Review.pdf ~ Yet another scan * ~ No not even a full paragraph ✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/HonestCooking-Review.pdf Yes Another scan * ? I havent looked at the source No One specific book, not so much about the book series ✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/BoozeMuse-Review.pdf Yes * ? website could be affilated, but sicne this is a scan it is not determineable No About the same book we had ~10 times before ✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/LuxuryTravel-Review.pdf ~ another scan * ? Looked at the source, author missing Yes this is more what we look for. ? Unknown
https://books.apple.com/us/book/exploring-wine-regions-argentina/id1187444781?ign-mpt=uo%3D10 No Largely written by the book author or closely affilated No Largely written by the book author or closely affilated ~ coverage ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqFOf5cMcZk&feature=youtu.be No Interview or liekwise No Channel name-> Affilated with author Yes 30 min ✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/HighEnd-Vol6.pdf No Largely what the book author said * No Source affilated wiht author Yes 1 page of text ✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/VancouverSun.pdf Yes Appears to be independent * ? I havent yet looked at the source No 1 short paragraph ✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/PW-Cover.pdf Yes appears to be independently published in original * No Immediate source affilated with book author No virtually none ✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/BooksForWinelovers-Review.pdf Yes likely independent * No No indication of reliablity, see also WP:RSP ~ 1 paragraph ✘ No
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/THRILLIST.pdf Yes appears to be independent * Yes likely reliable ~ 1 text page, many images ~ Partial
http://exploringwineregions.com/pdf/American-journalist-travels-the-Ruta-del-Vino.pdf ~ See below. * ~ ~ ~ Partial
Higgins, Michael C. (2016). Exploring Wine Regions: Argentina. ISBN 978-0996966016. No One of the books this article talks about ? Unassesable right now. Probbably reliable ? I would need to get the book to check that. ✘ No
Higgins, Michael C. (2020). Exploring Wine Regions: Bordeaux France. ISBN 978-0996966023. No One of the books this article talks about ? Unassesable right now. Probbably reliable ? I would need to get the book to check that. ✘ No
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Readers-Favorite-Review.pdf ? Appears to be independent * ? No so sure. With all this glory words. Yes definitely significant coverage ? Unknown
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Departures-The-Ultimate-Book-for-Wine-Lovers.pdf No Book announcement * No This website appears to be affilated with the author -> WP:COI Yes would be decent coverage ✘ No
https://flyingadventures.com/about-us/ No CMon. Affilated with the book author ? Affilated with the author No Not realy coverage of the book series ✘ No
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/FranklinAward.pdf Yes Appears to be an independent source * ? Independence of the award is t.b.d. ? Yust a certificate. can be enough if the award establishes notability. ? Unknown
https://www.exploringwineregions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/NABE-Award.pdf Yes appears to be an independent award * ? independence of the award is t.b.d. ? If the award is mayor according to WP:NBOOK this could be enough for notability ? Unknown
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6295110/ ? IMDB can be edited by anyone, thus, independence cannot be determined No WP:UGC No directory listing ✘ No
http://www.tcpalm.com/story/specialty-publications/your-news/indian-river-county/reader-submitted/2017/02/28/lights-camera-taste-check-out-best-fest/98470680/ No reads like a press release/advertisement Yes Seems to be a reliable news website No no coverage of the subject whatoever ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I do the last few assesments later when I've got more time. *Note for all uploads to exploringwineregions.com: I am not so sure if exploringwineregions.com has the rights to republish those texts. They appear to be from at least 15 distinct sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and completed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we resolve this and get this article published? Reading you say you are not so sure if exploringwineregions.com has the right to republish those texts. We are absolutely sure we can republish those texts per the Fair Use Provisions and backed by EWR's registration with the US Copyright Office. Besides, this is of no issue for Wiki and you show exactly why it is necessary as you say the last source has nothing to do with EWR. That is because the publisher changed what was on that page. You nor we have the ability to keep the text we want because they are independent. Independent! And further, they provide the necessary source documentation.

You go on to say you don't like what journalists write. That is not for you to critique, they are independent, and if they like to write like a press release or have lots of glory words, then, if anything, that further indicates the true significance of the books.

Why do you think the one paragraph with the Chicago Tribune is not significant (for example)? Are you saying that quantity is the determining factor, not quality? The one-paragraph (acceptable by Wiki's written standards) represented the significance that this book was chosen out of thousands of books. That is very much significant and does not need the rambling of paragraphs that you seem to feel is what makes something significant.

You show many of the sources withOUT a "no" for meeting the standards. That is because they DO meet the standards, so do many that you say no to unjustifiably.

So, how do we get this resolved and get the article published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to jump in to briefly explain "significant coverage": Per WP:GNG, this does not mean that you or I find it significant that the Chicago Tribune mentioned the book. Significant coverage, as described at WP:GNG wants the content article cited to talk about the subject in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention is what the guideline states and notes that The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. While book-length material about a book series is not going to be the threshold for this article to exist, the sources cited will need to talk about the book series in abundant detail, which the four sentences at the Chicago Tribune do not do. The types of questions we'd expect to see answered: Who wrote the series? When was the series written? Who published the series? How many units were sold? What events inspired the series? How long did it take to assemble each book? Did the series win any awards? What impact did the books have on wine tourism? Etc. This is a non-exhaustive list. My point is that significant coverage would provide lots of details, not just a quick synopsis of what one book is about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Strikethrough "content" as bad word choice. Changed to "article cited". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cyphoidbomb for the information, especially the type of questions that need to be answered. I will go back to the article and update to make it more complete. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 14:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilotmichael: Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that the draft article you are writing has to have this information, I was saying that a reference that the Wikipedia community would consider as providing "significant coverage" would be one that talks about the book series in great detail, providing answers to questions like the ones I raised above. It seemed to me that you were confused about what we consider "significant coverage" to be. A four-sentence acknowledgement in the Chicago Tribune would likely not be considered significant coverage by the Wikipedia community. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Chicago Tribune is just one of 35 sources. Others have lengthy information. I do feel some of the questions you raised would be good to have in the article and that was what I planned to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmichael (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:24, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Floridaracingnews


I am requesting help to make sure the copyright release for photos has been received as well as making sure the layout of the article is uniform with other auto racing articles.

I would also like an opinion on the citations and links provided to make sure they are what is required to verify the information.

I have received notice on the copyright release for the photos used on this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridaracingnews (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floridaracingnews (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

02:20:41, 17 October 2020 review of submission by S.H.I.V.A.M.P.A.N.D.E.Y12


S.H.I.V.A.M.P.A.N.D.E.Y12 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S.H.I.V.A.M.P.A.N.D.E.Y12: no sources? Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:21:09, 17 October 2020 review of draft by Esther KATO


Esther KATO (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes must be cited to a strong secondary source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:53:17, 17 October 2020 review of submission by 85.210.104.25


85.210.104.25 (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a resume, not an encyclopedia article. --Kinu t/c 06:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:45:51, 17 October 2020 review of submission by Fade258

Hello administrator ! I recently created the page called Birendra Multiple Campus and that page was deleted . I don't think so that i had made any mistake to create this page and after the deletion i had made an few changes to my page.If that was correct then kindly moved this article to articles mainspace. (Fade258 (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Fade258: First, I need to correct you: Its not "your page" in the sence that you can decide who is doing what with it. After a first look at the draft I detected that it uses two pages as a source, which both end up at 404 Not Found error pages. as such, the draft currently fails WP:V and will not be accepted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:14:53, 17 October 2020 review of submission by Hari4123


Hari4123 (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been rejected (and subsequently deleted) and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a billboard. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:27, 17 October 2020 review of submission by Fade258


Fade258 (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Theroadislong ! If i add 50% same this content and 50% other with strong sources and good category then can i create the article again. (Fade258 (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

08:46:33, 17 October 2020 review of submission by Fade258


Fade258 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Theroadislong ! If i add 50% same content and 50% other with strong sources and good category then can i create this page again. (Fade258 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Fade258: If you add 50% same content again, 50% of the draft will still not meet Wikipedia's rules. Please be aware that no amaount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. What would be required right now is your WP:THREE take as much time as you need. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hellor it's me there again .That means noone can't create this page with this name. (Fade258 (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

If no sources that meet WP:THREE can be found, yes, then an article with this topic cannot be created, at least today or tomorrow. What happens in the future cannot be determined. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:03, 17 October 2020 review of draft by Cairek007


I would like to ask for your help with writing of the wikipedia article. I try it for the first time and I choose topic about the use of smart phone to determine the quality of food. The name of the article is FoodSmartphone and that is the name of European public project, so as I wrote the wiki article for my first time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FoodSmartphone), I was inspired in other wiki articles, which write about some type of projects. I also read all kinds of FAQ, advices for beginners, technical help, mistakes to avoid etc., but it did not help me. When I tried to submit it, Wiki-reviewers had problems with this topic. I am looking for a way how to write this article correctly, how to show your reviewers, that the topic is not commercial. I have no personal interest on it, but I am convinced that this topic could be interesting for the wiki users. Cairek007 (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It reads more like it's advertising or promoting the subject. There is such a thing as being too detailed, and lists of objectives, number of associated groups, etc. is utterly irrelevant to the sort of person that would be looking in a general encyclopaedia for background information on the topic. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 00:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:19, 17 October 2020 review of submission by 1pragnan


1pragnan (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note: Deleted by Materialscientist for failing Wikipedia's purpose as an advert. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:41:47, 17 October 2020 review of submission by OMGShay 92


OMGShay 92 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC) 16:41:47, 17 October 2020 review of submission by OMGShay 92 Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/OMGShay 92 Why was my Wikipedia article unaccepted just because I don't know how to add references? OMGShay 92 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:34, 17 October 2020 review of draft by Naijabroads


I need help on adding tags to a draft

Naijabroads (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Naijabroads: Appropriate WikiProject tags have been added to Draft:Icon Spielberg. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

00:05:04, 18 October 2020 review of submission by Tuesdaymorning20


Tuesdaymorning20 (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Sophie Santos is an American comedian and writer. There are notable references including on Amazon Publishing's site. I am a non biased individual.

Amazon is not an acceptable source under any circumstance, and a author's publisher is not a reliable secondary source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:34:54, 18 October 2020 review of submission by Aamirabusy

Hi! As I can see Sahnil Bhatnagar has more than a million followers as well as he is into acting. How can I get his page on wikipedia? could you please help me because his all other co-actors have their own wikipedia page and he deserves to be here. Please guide me.

I could find 7 news articles about him, I was able to manage to find his IMDB links. Please help! Thank you! Regards Aamira

Aamirabusy (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:14:43, 18 October 2020 review of submission by Aamirabusy

Hi Zooden, I guess you are not from India but in India, Sahnil videos are very viral and he s having a good amount of fan following. I also got to know about him through my younger brother who is a big fan of him and then I searched about him and found his videos very cool. He is an actor I have started watching his show MTV Warrior high on youtube and he is doing great. I see all his co-actors having their wikipedia. I suppose you should give him a chance and keep him on wikipedia for sometime to see. My brother told me that on his live he mentioned that he is going to some web series soon. Anyways it would be great if you go through all of his videos,work and pictures. I saw a fan making a permanent Tattoo of his name that means he is notable. Because if someone is making permanent tattoo that means he is a notable person. Please have a look at these videos which i just found on his instagram handle https://www.instagram.com/p/B5pmRisAY5R/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BsdZnQLnTVj/ https://www.instagram.com/p/B1oMmP9AoaZ/ https://www.instagram.com/p/B_89uLhgoY4/ Wow! We done even need proof. These pictures and videos says it all. This guy deserves. Please let me know your advice. Generally I guess editors focus on news articles but videos and pictures are the best proof. Thank you for your time! Just sharing my feelings. Oone his profile is on wikipedia. I'll message him on instagram. I hope he replies. Best Regards Aamira HR Consultant

Aamirabusy (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aamirabusy: I'm afraid that you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia contains. Wikipedia does not contain profiles, not a single one. Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles about topics that satisfy Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case a noteable person. Please also be aware that nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article in the sence they can say what's on there. Intagram and other social networks are commonly regarded as an unreliable source. The linked draft was deleted today morning. If you want to get it back, please ask at WP:REFUND. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aamirabusy, the article you have re-created was the same one that the sockpuppets have persistently added and resulted in the draft space being create protected. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sahnil Bhatnagar. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aamirabusy, why are you contacting Sahnil? This reeks of conflict of interest and paid editing. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not paid to edit anything, I am just doing this for my younger brother because he admires him a lot. As I had mentioned above that I got to know about this through my brother. Sahnil doesn't even know me and I had said I will message Sahnil, I HOPE HE REPLIES , I wanted Sahnil to reply me if I am able to create his wikipedia because this is the only way my younger brother can talk with him. I am working as a HR Managar and I am earning good. I dont want this money Sir. You are taking me in a wrong way. I am a 28 years working lady. Since, This s all messed up here I just hope Sahnil doesn't gets to know about this. I still request you guys to reconsider his article. God bless you! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamirabusy (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aamirabusy, you need to rewrite the article from scratch, not use the old ones that keep getting resubmitted and therefore deleted. Do not source IMDb. That is user-generated and not a reliable source. As I discussed in the MFD, he is borderline not notable. He only has one recurring role in that Warriors show. Wikipedia requires entertainers have multiple significant roles in major productions. This role is not discussed in detail in any newspaper articles presented so far. Elovator Pitch is not a major role, but a minor/guest role as a participant. Other than that, he had a brief event fame for dating a woman in Brazil over Likee. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 AngusW🐶🐶 OK I will rewrite everything. Please open this draft so that I can rewrite again and I will just post relevant articles. Thanks for understanding! I will try again . MTV Elovator Pitch I have seen it was a great show and he was one charm in that show, as well as MTV Warrior high I am watching, even you can watch to see him. He is doing great there too. Talking about his LIKEE experience well yes I saw his videos and he is quite famous in India and Brazil. Now will you please allow me to make a new article from scrath here? Should It be a stub article only na? Because it will be a short article about him.

Please guide me! Best Regards Aamira

I reframed everything. please make the desired changes. Draft:Sahnil_Bhatnagar_(Actor) Thank you for your suppot. It means a lot, finally my younger brother will be happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamirabusy (talk • contribs) 21:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP has been indef-blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sahil9610. --Finngall talk 03:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:29:03, 18 October 2020 review of submission by Carthex

Hello Wiki, I just made some changes on my Talk page, Kindly preview and let me know if it meet up for your approval, have been working on this several times but my Talk page was not approved Carthex (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carthex: still no evidence how this subject meets WP:NPERSON. If you come to this help desk another time, please bring your WP:THREE with you. If you have questions if a particular source would meet the criteria, try looking at WP:RSN archives, WP:RSP, or ask here or at the teahouse. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:15, 18 October 2020 review of submission by PaulGorduiz106


PaulGorduiz106 (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:44, 18 October 2020 review of submission by Aryanfanpage24

I have created this page for Aryan Rao pippal and everything on this page is real and genuine, I 100% believe that if this page go live ,it will get the very good amount of attention because of the popularity of Aryan Rao Pippal in hong kong and India, so it is a humble request from the fans of Aryan Rao Pippal to allow this page. Thank you Aryanfanpage24 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aryanfanpage24: Wikipedia isn't interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim you want to make will need to be backed up by a reliable source. We dont make exceptions for verifyability. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:06, 18 October 2020 review of submission by Rbshadow


(talk) 16:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rbshadow You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. This is because it is a blatant promotional piece for the colleges, telling about its offerings. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the college, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:13, 18 October 2020 review of submission by Aminuddinshroff


Aminuddinshroff (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Moin-ud-din is my late father and notable personality. Unfortunately, there are no references available online than what I have mentioned in the article. Esmayeel Shroff is his brother and I had created his article as well which had references. You may check the films tagged under his name has his name on it. Any help in getting this page/article published would be helpful. It is currently sitting in my sandbox.

It would appear that, if that is the case, that your father would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. If independent reliable sources write about his work, he might in the future. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:10, 18 October 2020 review of submission by Abonenti


Abonenti (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abonenti You don't ask a question, but your draft was not an encyclopedia article and was promotional. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


October 19

01:33:30, 19 October 2020 review of draft by Recyclingright


Hello! I have tried several times submitting my draft AfC, however the 'submission-received' box has not appeared at the bottom of the page. I believe that I have authored the article correctly with very notable sources, but it does not seem to be pending review. I just want to confirm it is on the waitlist to be reviewed.

Thank you for your time! Recyclingright (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried submitting the draft for you, and I also could not get it to work. I'm not sure what's going on here, but someone more experienced than me should definitely take a look. AviationFreak💬 03:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recyclingright, I resubmitted the draft under your name. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Recyclingright, AviationFreak, and AngusWOOF: There is an unclosed html comment on the page, preventing anything below from appearing. I will fix it as soon as possible. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:50:10, 19 October 2020 review of draft by ImranAaýan99


ImranAaýan99 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked a question, but your draft lacks any sources. Please also see WP:AUTOBIO. AviationFreak💬 03:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:27:59, 19 October 2020 review of submission by Robertleyva2002


Robertleyva2002 (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked a question, but your draft was declined because it does not show WP:N. AviationFreak💬 03:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:30:43, 19 October 2020 review of submission by Karthik CL


Dear Sir,

I have included some more information which should boost the notability of the subject. Please have a look at the page and suggest changes if required.

Karthik CL (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:17:57, 19 October 2020 review of draft by Henry Cuevas


I would like to request support regarding an article that I wrote. The article is about a medical device company that develops and manufactures mesh nebulizers. I added references to describe events related to the company and information from websites and publications; however, the article has been rejected twice because references from news outlets and other websites are not considered valid.

I will very much appreciate some guidance on how to overcome this issue, as I have noticed that other articles contain the same type of references, but have been successfully published.

Thank you for your support.

Henry Cuevas (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Cuevas Note that other similar articles existing is not a reason for yours to exist, see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. Standards also change over time, so that what was once acceptable is no longer. If you'd care to point out some of these other articles, we can address them; we could use the help.
Regarding your draft, it is sourced to nothing but press releases or routine information. That does not establish notability as defined by Wikipedia, for companies that is defined at WP:ORG. A Wikipedia article needs to summarize significant coverage found in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the subject. That does not include press releases(which are not independent), announcements of routine business transactions, or brief mentions(such as basic company information). Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you work for or are otherwise associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on disclosures you could be required to make. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:33:45, 19 October 2020 review of submission by DipSagarregmi12


DipSagarregmi12 (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been rejected and as such will not be considered further. Repeatedly submitting a draft without making significant changes to address the reviewers' concerns is a waste of their time and yours. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 11:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:50, 19 October 2020 review of submission by Captilia


Captilia (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:50, 19 October 2020 review of submission by Captilia

Hello I'm have hard times to publish any article .. Kindly advise

@Captilia: I assume this referes to User:Captilia/sandbox. I have so far seen the following problems:
  • The page reads like an advertisement, but Wikipedia does not host advertisements. It contains peacock terms. If I were to grab a red pen and mark everything that falls under this pint, there is not much left.
  • The page makes excessive use of <big>-Tags. Normally, you shouldn't need to use them at all.
  • The page makes excessive use of bold text. use it sparingly.
  • The page currently fails WP:V. If I were to determine where the information in the draft comes from ,I would need to grab google myself.
  • In conjunction with the previous point, the draft also fails to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG.
  • The draft uses external links in the article body. this is not allowed. Plain external links are only allowed in a specific section, usally called "External links".
  • Upon a routine investigation, I also determined that a substancial amount of text is identical to the organisation website. Please never do that. Even if we could get the legal aspects resolved, 99% of the texts not written for Wikipedia is also unsiutable for Wikipedia (see the first point).
For future attempts, try to follow these steps:
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:41:50, 19 October 2020 review of draft by BettyKong


Hi, I am Betty. I would like to see if this article now is up to standard. Most of the references are in Cantonese or Chinese and we believe due to the nature of the subject it should have an English page.

Please let me know what could help to improve the article.

Thanks


BettyKong (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BettyKong, If you want a review, please submit the article. Snowycats (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:44, 19 October 2020 review of submission by Athousanddaysbefore


Thanks so much for your assistance, Snowycats. I removed the header that was mistakenly placed near the bottom of the article.

Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:39, 19 October 2020 review of draft by Chouhan777

Hello , I would like to add the Bio data of a scientist Known to me who is working Indian film and television industry. Please let me know the process of Successfully Adding such profiles. Thanks In Advance



sanju (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chouhan777 Please understand that Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not one. Wikipedia has articles. You've been given comments about your draft; please heed them, and if you have questions, please ask by editing this existing section. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should also review the autobiography policy; Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:27, 19 October 2020 review of submission by Excel23

The article on Western Telematic was previously not sufficient as it was poorly made. However, upon further inspection of the company, its products and overall history I have determined that it is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I have reworked the entire article so that it is better sufficient to meet Wikipedia standards.

Excel23 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excel23, Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,763 pending submissions waiting for review. Snowycats (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:25:46, 19 October 2020 review of draft by Ishanshah012


Hello! I am requesting help for my draft "Clinical Practice and Cases in Emergency Medicine". This Wikipedia page is for an emergency medicine journal. It is affiliated with another journal, Western Journal of Emergency Medicine (WestJEM), which has its own published Wikipedia page. I followed a similar format to that of WestJEM's and other medical journals, but the draft has not been accepted. What else can I add/change to the draft. Thank you so much, I really appreciate the help! Ishanshah012 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ishanshah012, "Inadequate attempt has been made to address previous advice". Read the advice from the previous reviewers, make changes, and then re-submit after those changes have been completed. Snowycats (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snowycats! Thank you for your feedback! I believe I have addressed the previous advice by adding the references under "Abstracting and Indexing". Those references are published journals and journal databases in which Clinical Practice and Cases in Emergency Medicine journal is included. If this is not enough information, can this article be accepted as a stub? Thank you!Ishanshah012 (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ishanshah012, I don't believe that WP:WEASEL has been addressed. Snowycats (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snowycats! I have made those edits and believe have addressed WP:WEASEL. Is this suitable to re-submit? Thank you! Ishanshah012 (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ishanshah012, You are free to submit an article at any point after you have made substantial changes since the past review(s). =) Snowycats (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:00, 19 October 2020 review of draft by Tabrez123


Tabrez123 (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tabrez123, It already exists. Please read the comment from the reviewer. Snowycats (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:57:19, 19 October 2020 review of submission by Tabrez123


Tabrez123 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tabrez123, It already exists. Please read the comment from the reviewer. Snowycats (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My article has been declinied. please help to get it published.

23:58:53, 19 October 2020 review of submission by 2604:2000:E010:1100:3048:49B9:5798:3217


Zero explanation given for rejection, which doesn't seem cricket.

2604:2000:E010:1100:3048:49B9:5798:3217 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spike 'em, could you provide clarification on this one? Snowycats (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what happened here, as I definitely typed out my decline reasons, which were: He is a cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC (his only listed appearances on Cricinfo are in 6-a-side games) and the references added seem to be WP:ROUTINE coverage of cricket matches. Spike 'em (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. another discussion about this: WT:CRIC#Help?. Spike 'em (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
p.p.s. Have added decline reasoning to draft. Spike 'em (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

00:43:42, 20 October 2020 review of submission by FutureEnterprises

I am trying to find the balance between the suggestion to not brag too much or make it sound like an advertisement, with also showing Davey Miller's importance to the surfing world. I wonder if someone familiar with the surfing world of the 80s and 90s might be found to review it and help me word it to match what would fit Wikipedia? It is my first time. Many of Davey Miller's contemporaries that he has actually ranked higher than and had shorter surfing careers have Wikipedia pages. He is sort of a top quarterback that made some amazing records that those in football world admire and respect, but he didn't ever win the superbowl. He is respected by the surfers in that he was after "some good surf" more than being the highest champion. Many of the surfers who tried some of the stunts he has done died, etc. I am waiting for the archives of the surfing magazines to get back to me. He was in the cover and had articles about him at least seven times that he remembers. I could show the covers, they are on his Facebook and Instagra, but we want to verify we have the rights to share them in the Wiki Commons system. When Davey Miller walks on a beach in California and Hawaii people still come up to praise him and tell him how amazing he is, so he is well known and has some "minor fame". His art is starting to become "a thing" in the art world, so I and many others think he is fitting of a Wikipedia article. Maybe we have to wait until the archives of the surfing magazines return our emails (if they have anyone employed to do that). Help and guidance and ideas on how to include or use the magazine covers with possible "rights" issues would be appreciated. If those covers would help establish he is worthy of a Wikipedia article. I see Alex Frey and other people I know have one and Davey Miller is just as famous, if not more. FutureEnterprises (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Literally none of the claims your draft makes is cited to a credible secondary source, and it's due to that that your draft is getting declined. The citation requirement is not optional. The draft itself also reads like it's promoting him, which is not acceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 00:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:48:55, 20 October 2020 review of draft by 24.229.146.136


24.229.146.136 (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed comment was left... Hi, the article needs references to significant independent WP:Reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, reliable websites, books. At least two good references are needed. Snowycats (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why denied the sources are from her self directly and are real legit sources I am wondering why keep denied? If anything could be added to help be accepted please let know

WP:SELFCITE resp. WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:10:55, 20 October 2020 review of submission by Rbshadow

This college is a well known college in Bangladesh. Here this article is not written to do advertising. People around Bangladesh search this college and didn't found much information about it. People seeking reliable information sources like Wikipedia. So for this purpose the article is created. Thanks (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rbshadow, It is written like an ad. Read this: WP:NPOV Snowycats (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:34, 20 October 2020 review of draft by Ervikasbhargava


Greetings, I need help just finishing this article up. The previous Article was created by another user and it was declined by the reviewer. I have edited the existing draft with some more notable references Including those of Lootcase, TVF Tripling, ad films, movie details, personal life[1]. The comment by the first Wikipedia reviewer was based on the first submitted draft by the other user. Yesterday when I submitted the article again, it got declined. The response was "The rejection said that it could be discussed before resubmission". I would greatly appreciate it if you kindly give me some feedback on this article and review this article. Thanks

Ervikasbhargava (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. You still have claims in the article which require cites to credible secondary sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 14:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'Comedy is going to be a big part of my life: 'Lootcase' director Rajesh Krishnan". Theweek. 1 August 2020. Retrieved 2 August 2020.

07:00:32, 20 October 2020 review of draft by Godbillywilly


My wiki article has met the criteria for speedy deletion. However I have already fixed it. May I know how to get rid of the notice box?

Godbillywilly (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Godbillywilly, Your article has been deleted as it was clearly an advertisement. Snowycats (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:14:05, 20 October 2020 review of draft by P4muz


Tried adding tags to the article for a speedy review but would not accept it as they said there is no draft title to that name :( I'm editing "Tutoroo" to add tags "Language", "Education", and "Companies"

Thank you!

P4muz (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P4muz: I have added them for you. Note that the Inputbox on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Add_WikiProject_tags expects the drafts title including the "Draft:"-Prefix, so "Draft:Tutoroo" in this case. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why may drafts not improved be deleted after six months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.64.170 (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase Wikipedia is not a webhost for material found unsiutable for the encyclopedia. If one of the drafts edited by you have been deleted due to that, please go over to WP:REFUND/G13. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:08, 20 October 2020 review of draft by Bryan103A


Hi, may I check what is lacking on this page in order to have it published? I have tried multiple times to edit and add information but it seems to be declined all the time. I will appreciate some clarity and guidance on the matter. Thanks!


Bryan103A (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan103A, If you want a review and you have made significant changes since your last submission, you can submit it for review. Reviews are not completed in any particular order and we have a large backlog at the moment. Snowycats (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:57, 20 October 2020 review of draft by Danishom


Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia. I created an article about Prof. Shabtay Dikstein, a globally recognized scientist, innovator, scientific author, founder of the Unit of Cell Pharmacology at the Hebrew University Hadassah medical school, founder of international committees and magazines, with multiple medical drugs on the market, and on and on.

When I submitted the draft (I think; working with Wiki is quite unintuitive :( ), I received a bunch of comments (not from a reviewer) on unverifiable sources, and the fact that he was still alive, and so on. I tried to understand how can I verify biographical events of his childhood in Fascist, then Communist Hungary, but received no reply.

The 90 year old Prof. is now suffering from cancer and I don't know how much longer he will live. I was hoping to present to him the Wiki article before he is gone, but I don't know what to do now. I was so frustrated by the process that I abandoned it for many months. Now, that the prof is somewhat recovered from the cancer therapy, I hope that I can complete the process.

Please help me out Thank you Dani Danishom (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. I sympathise, but even if he were to perish at this very moment you would still be obligated to have a credible secondary source for every single claim the article makes, as our biographical requirements apply to recent decedants as well. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:08, 20 October 2020 review of submission by Lewjon

I do not understand why the page does not respect the aim of a publication. I tried to follow as much as possible the structure of every software developer, from Autodesk to Graphisoft. I added references, removed them when it was said that it was too commercial. I just want to add a piece of information about this software developer that is well known in the BIM industry and deserves to be part of the free encyclopedia, not ot mention that it is the most successful software developer in Italy in the AEC sector. How am I supposed to do so? Lewjon (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lewjon, This is clearly an advertisement and you did not make substantial changes from prior declines, leading to the rejection. Snowycats (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:19:28, 20 October 2020 review of submission by THE STORY TELLER INDIA KIDS


THE STORY TELLER INDIA KIDS (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. We are not a creative writing site, we are an encyclopaedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 16:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:32, 20 October 2020 review of submission by Athousanddaysbefore

I'd like to request a review of notability. There was a previous reviewer who rejected the article, but then decided that the subject matter being written about and awarded by the Austin Chronicle did in fact give suitable notability. Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Athousanddaysbefore, You have not made any meaningful edits since the previous revision. The article was rejected because of the minuscule edits that were made between previous declines. Do you have additional sources you can contribute? Snowycats (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:05:16, 20 October 2020 review of draft by Oyindebrah


I am currently writing this page and a reviewer says it is not in an encyclopedia tone.

I would like someone to review and give me specific feedback on changing the tone. Thank you

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

I actually used Total as a guide to write this and that is why I am confused

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_SE

Oyindebrah (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oyindebrah, If you want a review and you have made significant changes since your last submission, you can submit it for review. Reviews are not completed in any particular order and we have a large backlog at the moment. Snowycats (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:01:19, 20 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Robert Adamski



Robert Adamski (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Adamski, You did not ask a question. Snowycats (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:07, 20 October 2020 review of submission by Djb2183


Djb2183 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I changed some of the sourcing. I believe the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia, and the article is in no way an advertisement Djb2183 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djb2183, There are many other submissions pending. Please wait for a review. Snowycats (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:52:30, 20 October 2020 review of submission by HarveyYaz



I have been earnestly trying to prepare an entry for Dr. Boris Berenfeld. In response to feedback, I have made many changes. Yet, I'm told the entry still doesn't conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. I very much would like some concrete feedback as to how I can edit the entry so it will be approved and published. Please, can I get some assistance? Thank you.

HarveyYaz (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Yaz The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It reads as a PR piece. Do you have an association with this person? 331dot (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:39:38, 20 October 2020 review of submission by Mikey Corey Goodwin


Mikey Corey Goodwin (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Corey Goodwin Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

04:20:05, 21 October 2020 review of draft by Aidspored

Hi there, can someone help me understand why this article was rejected. Trying to understand the reason & fix the issues. I'm kinda new here so any advice is highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Aidspored (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aidspored, Review WP:NACTOR. Snowycats (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:02:03, 21 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Amirnofit


I received a rejection of "Michal Alberstein" and revised according to the general comments - not enough citations and not a neutral tone. I changed the tone and structure and added numerous citations (over 41 citations from journals and websites), and it was rejected again with the same general comments. I would be grateful for more specific advice on how to fit the text to Wikipedia. Many thanks, Nofit Amir


Amirnofit (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:00:46, 21 October 2020 review of submission by 112.198.11.115


112.198.11.115 (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:02:23, 21 October 2020 review of draft by Nairji


The article created for Sarva Yoga which is now at Draft:Sarva Yoga, was moved because of inadequate citations. There has been decent press coverage, directly of the subject as well as independently which was included as citations.

Would require help in improving the citations and to publish for review.

Kindly guide and help.

Nairji (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=984670776"