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 BrigidBurgan (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 9 January 2021. 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


January 2

01:13:27, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Stephen Truscott


Hello, Concerning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stephen_Austin_Truscott I am fairly inexperienced in drafting pages and it seems I have not followed correct procedure regarding this draft entry. Would you please advise me what I need to do to correct this entry for it to be published or if that is not possible, how might I delete this draft entry?

Many thanks

Stephen

Stephen Truscott (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself. To succeed at doing so, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:11:47, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Lalisekhon

I have reviewed the Wikipedia policies on neutrality. I have editted accordingly and respectfully ask for re-review. Lalisekhon (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:33:52, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Bikiransimkhada


I've been trying to publish this article about the company but I can't get it right. Any help would be appreciated.

Draft:Mero Prasna

Bikiransimkhada (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bikiransimkhada Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about the existence of a company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. If you do not have at least three independent sources with significant coverage(not press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business transactions, etc.) this company would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every company does, even within the same field. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:40:52, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Bikiransimkhada

04:40:52, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Bikiransimkhada

Bikiransimkhada (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


08:44:09, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Ishaan 2460


Ishaan 2460 (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Why my articles are declined! I havent broken any rules and regulation of wikipedia. The information that i have entered all are correct about my self please publish it on google as a biography[reply]

Ishann 24600 Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not concerned with helping enhance search results for you. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:54:46, 2 January 2021 review of draft by Silvia Dalle Montagne


I'm asking help to adjust my draft submission "Luca Formentini", on which I got the following comment: "This still reads more like a resume" I just wanted to make sure where the specific problem is. Is it in the list of the works I've compiled or in the form I'm using? I'm asking for your help so to be able of focusing on the real issue instead of working on parts that don't need any change. Many many thanks and excuse me for my weak knowledge on submitting articles.

Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dalle Montagne The main issues are that the content isn't supported with inline citations, and the writing style doesn't match the rest of the encyclopedia. Take a look at Midori (violinist) as an example of how to structure the content, and how to properly source a musician's biographical info with inline citations. The citations there now are all music reviews, and don't include biographical info. If all I could write about Luca is what is in the shown sources, the article would be much, much shorter. Maybe try to parse it and only include sourced info - then you can add more info if the article is approved and/or you find better sourcing. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:23, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Wasimkhanofficial


I have added the authentic references in the article. Kindly review now.

Wasimkhanofficial (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Washimkhanofficial Your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further and it will only waste your time and that of others to pursue this further at this time. Wikipedia is not social media for you to tell the world about yourself. Please also see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:19:39, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Textor Alector


Draft has generated some debate, consensus seems to tilt toward recognizing notability + legitimacy but how do I get in touch with Wiki projects and editors interested in the issues involved? (STEM Women, African content etc)

Textor Alector (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Textor Alector: Draft talk:Medical Women's Association of Nigeria lists relevant WikiProjects. Each mustard-yellow box contains links to a project and to its talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Textor Alector I made some general improvements. If you properly source all the information that's there, and fill out the refs as I did with the source I just added, you'll have a better shot at getting this approved. You'll also want to check to make sure the existing refs are good, and that they actually say what the sentences preceding them imply they say. Good luck! TechnoTalk (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:29:37, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Mathematicalinstitutes


Mathematicalinstitutes (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematicalinstitutes You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:11, 2 January 2021 review of draft by Immersivearteditor


Hi, I've written a page about an artist and art director. It was declined at first, because of this message:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia".

I understand it and now I've a question, about those references. What kind they have to be? Because the subject of my wiki page doesn't have so much coverage in the internet articles, he is mentioned several times when one of his work is published, but most of the interview he gave, in all of these years, are for magazine and papers, not online. Do you of Wikipedia need proof of that? Can I submit the papers in some way? And this is because in the message above it's specified "not just passing mentions" but if you research his name you'll find only those. And it's also a reason to have a wikipedia page, to have more coverage! I can submit proofs, if it's needed Thank you!

Immersivearteditor (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immersivearteditor To merit a Wikipedia article, a artist must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. To take that apart a bit, "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond things like routine announcements or brief mentions. "Independent" means that the sources must not have originated from the subject, so no press releases, interviews, a personal website, or social media accounts. "Reliable" means that the source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control.
Sources do not need to be online, and do not need to be easy or free to access, but they must be publicly available(such as being in a library). Documents in private hands inaccessible to the public are not acceptable. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:33, 2 January 2021 review of submission by SingerSairaPeter

I don't know why my article are not publishing, let me know if I am missing any information because all content provided by Saira Peter who is the singer. SingerSairaPeter (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SingerSairaPeter First, if you are not Saira Peter, you will need to change your username; please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do that. If you represent her, you will need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing to learn how to make the required paid editing declaration(a Terms of Use requirement).
You say the information was provided by her; Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a singer, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable singer. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:25:59, 2 January 2021 review of draft by Malcolm L. Mitchell


I recently submitted a draft article, Draft:The Catch II. After review, it was deemed "insufficient content to require an article of its own", I want to ask, could anyone suggest what to add to make it a better standalone article? I truly believe it has merit to be its own article instead of just part of the 1998-99 NFL playoffs page.

Malcolm L. Mitchell (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:57, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Page Representative


Page Representative (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Representative You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many such articles on wikipedia. Why this article is being rejected. Kindly provide space for it on Wikipedia Page Representative (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Representative Please edit this existing section for any follow up comments, instead of creating new sections.
Please note that as this is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you'd care to point out some of these other articles, we can address them if they are indeed inappropriate. Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that yours can too. Please see other stuff exists.
As noted by reviewers, this topic does not seem to meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir why my Draft:Kakkay Abbasi is not published while I have seen many such articles on Wikipedia Page Representative (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Representative Please read the above. As I said, please edit this existing section to ask further questions, do not create additional sections. This is easier to do with the full version of Wikipedia in a browser on a computer or phone, you can click "edit" in the section header. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:33:33, 2 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Daniela De Rentiis


I'm Daniela De Rentiis and I'm trying to put on english wikipedia the exaxt traslation of a wikipage in italian language: the biography of Santino Spinelli. This fact was pointed out 10 hours ago: This article was translated from the Italian Wikipedia article it:Santino Spinelli by Daniela De Rentiis. Subsequently, [1] is using the English translation without attribution, in violation of the terms of Wikipedia's license. If someone could bring that to the website manager's attention (it sounds like the translator is in contact with them?), that would be great. As Victor Schmidt pointed out here, material in Wikipedia is licensed in a way that it can be re-used with some conditions. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for a guide on the topic. Thanks all for bringing this to WP:Copyright problems. Sorry for the slow response. Ajpolino (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC) My question is: how could I pubblisha simple translation of a biography from Italian to english? I'm hete to officially ask for help.


Daniela De Rentiis (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela De Rentiis It's important to understand when translating articles on other language versions of Wikipedia that each language version is its own project, with its own editors, policies, and standards. What is acceptable on one language version(say, the Italian one) is not necessarily acceptable here. As the English Wikipedia is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, it has more developed standards for inclusion than other versions. As noted by reviewers on the draft, you need to show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that this musician meets the English Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:52, 2 January 2021 review of draft by Csoconn


Csoconn (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I am a college professor and this semester my students did a project researching influential academics and writing wiki pages about them (we did not use the Wiki Edu infrastructure, which was purely because I'm new to wikipedia and didn't realize we could - apologies). My student wrote a page on Dr. Jeanette Davis under Draft: Jeanette Davis (2), which was recently declined because Draft:Jeanette Davis exists. However, Draft:Jeanette Davis was declined in Summer 2020 for not having enough sources. Draft:Jeanette Davis (2) has many more citations than Draft:Jeanette Davis and I think is much more likely to be considered a biography of a notable scientist. Can you let me know what the best next steps are? Should we transfer the text from Draft:Jeanette Davis (2) over to Draft:Jeanette Davis? At that point could it be reconsidered? I also reached out to the editors who declined Draft:Jeanette Davis and Draft:Jeanette Davis (2) to ask for their preferred next steps. Thanks for any point in the right direction - I am new to wikipedia but excited to see Jeanette Davis represented in a biography. Thanks for your help! Csoconn (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Csoconn, I have copied the text as well as requested the history-merge on the AfC. MarioJump83! 00:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarioJump83 Thank you for your help! Much appreciated and happy new year! Csoconn (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

11:15:33, 3 January 2021 review of submission by 46.205.199.23

The article is current and reliable. Please clarify why it is being rejected 46.205.199.23 (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes, YouTube, blogs and Vimeo are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:20:24, 3 January 2021 review of submission by 46.205.199.23


46.205.199.23 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. MarioJump83! 14:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:25, 3 January 2021 review of draft by Footlessmouse


Hi, I got a request on my talk page from Fergyman about the draft article Draft:Nancy Thorndike Greenspan and wanted to raise the issue. Note: I previously created a draft that I never completed: User:Footlessmouse/Nancy Thorndike Greenspan. I just have no good experience with bio articles. I have created both Atomic Spy and The End of the Certain World, which are both authored by Greenspan. I had also previously had this conversation with User:David Eppstein here. I am under the impression that, per WP:AUTHOR criterea 3 and 4, Greenspan is notable and the draft should not have been rejected. If it was not an oversight, could I get more details on why it was rejected and what needs to change? Thanks.

  • (3): The person has created... a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (plenty of reviews in both books)
  • (4): The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (both books won "significant critical attention")

So I was just wondering where to go from here, and wasn't sure what else to do but ask for help. Thanks all! Footlessmouse (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footlessmouse (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:12, 3 January 2021 review of submission by Doo271

My request for a page on this document was rejected citing a lack of reliable supporting sources. The problem is the document has never been published online so it is impossible to find it in an internet search. That is why I felt it was important to create a page on it so it would be preserved and searchable. Having said that, over the years since it was written, there are several newspaper articles citing it. In my article, I included one such article AND a photo of a poster of the pact that hangs in the office of the Connecticut Parks & Forests Association. I am new to this! Any suggestions are welcome! Doo271 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doo271: offline sources, such as newspapers are accepted, as long as they are published, compare Wikipedia:Offline sources. When citing offline sources, please make sure to include enough offline information to find it. Primary templates that can help assiist you are {{cite news}} and {{cite book}}. When citing books or anything that is way longer than a couple dozen pages if I were to print it out, remember to give page numbers or an equalivent. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:05:06, 3 January 2021 review of draft by Medeopedia


Hi, I submitted the page SciLine to Wikipedia and it is waiting for review. If you search SciLine, it currently redirects to the AAAS Wiki page. Would anyone know how make sure that it now does not do that and goes to my page if it is accepted?

Medeopedia (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeopedia: the reviewer will take care of the redirect for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:09:47, 3 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by DynaGuy00


I recently submitted a draft for Rod Dreher's book The Benedict Option for review and it was rejected. I am just looking for clarification on why that decision was made, since the justification given was "Needs Critical reception and acknowledgement from news sources, magazine reviews, journals, etc." It also stated that the subject was not noteworthy enough, and may have received passing mentions. This was despite the fact that I provided links to multiple articles in reputable news sources (though not academic journals) that were focused on the book, not just referencing it once. Additionally, the Rod Dreher page lists The Benedict Option with a link, despite no article being created. I took this is a sign that there was enough material for an article to be created on it, it just had not happened yet (though this may have been speculation on my part). I have not gotten an article through, so I am very new to this and am not looking to prove myself right, just looking for some more feedback on what the exact specifications are. Thanks! DynaGuy00 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


DynaGuy00 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DynaGuy00. The existence of a red link means that at least one person thinks maybe an article should be created on the topic, but doesn't necessarily mean anything more.
Reviewer AngusWOOF is correct that the page should describe how the book was received. Plenty of reviews of it exist, however, so I believe it is notable and would not be deleted if discussed at Articles for deletion. I don't see a major problem with inline citations, either, only the last quote is missing one. Therefore I've accepted the draft as is.
If it is not rapidly expanded, however, it will likely be merged/redirected to the biography of the author, Rod Dreher, which already contains several meaty paragraphs about the book. On Talk:The Benedict Option I've added 14 reviews that could be used to improve the article. You may also copy from the article about the author, so long as you follow the rules in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The new article needs to be significantly longer/better than the section about the book in the author's biography to justify continued existence as a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:26, 3 January 2021 review of submission by KaimkhaniKamal


KaimkhaniKamal (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Could you tell some good reasons why Amir is not notable for Wikipedia. Amir is the FIRST Pakistani born wrestler, the FIRST, to be in World's 1st wrestling company WWE, he is a trainee of former famous wrestler Lance Storm, he took was one of the first wrestlers of WWE NXT UK, he took part in the 2018 NXT UK Tournament, the first tournament of NXT UK and see the sources, the citations, references on the page which include WWE's official website, wrestling's #1 website CageMatch, Wrestling Inc. If you compare this Amir Jordan page and Kenny Williams (wrestler)'s page, they both are literally the same, actually Amir's page is much bigger than Kenny's than why does Kenny's page get accepted while Amir's doesnt? And how is Amir not notable

Hi KaimkhaniKamal. He isn't notable because there aren't multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of him. The WWE webpage is neither independent (they have a vested interest in promoting him), nor significant coverage. Cagematch is an indiscriminate statistics database, so not significant coverage. Maintained by 30+ volunteers, it isn't clear how reliable it is either, since the degree of editorial oversight and reputation for fact checking and accuracy are unclear. WikiProject Professional wrestling classifies it as "marginally reliable." The Express Tribune is a primary source interview, so to the extent that it's Jordan talking about Jordan, it isn't independent. Wrestling Inc is tabloid gossip. WikiProject Professional wrestling warns that it is an unreliable source.
What makes you think Kenny Williams (wrestler) was accepted? Because it exists? It never went through the Articles for creation process. Anyone can write anything in Wikipedia, so there's an awful lot of crap out there. Ideally it gets noticed and removed quickly, but if no one notices it can linger for a long time. That doesn't mean it meets the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, and it isn't a good reason to fill the encyclopedia with more unsuitable material. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

01:45:39, 4 January 2021 review of submission by Xander Wu

Hello!! This draft was first created in 2016 but was redirected in 2017. I undid the redirect and moved to the draft space for further development. 2016 version of that draft lacked citations for verifiability (ruled in October 2016), and another unspecified problem on being incomplete (ruled in November 2016). I'm asking for a re-review of the changes made to the draft.

Outside of this request, I want to ask a question. Because I removed the redirect for the draft article for improvement purposes, would there be any consequences to occur in violation of any of Wikipedia's regulations?

Hoping for a favorable response on this matter. Thank you!!

Xander Wu (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a conflict of interest or the book was redirected after a formal discussion, I don't see the problem. If it was ever up at WP:AFD under any title or if it was the subject of a formal discussion elsewhere, then there could be a problem getting it back into the main encyclopedia.
The usual rules apply - if you can't convince yourself and readers that the book is notable, then you are going to be wasting your time and the page with its history should be put back, then it should be turned back into a redirect.
Now that I've updated the left-over redirect at Stupid is Forever, you'll need to go to WP:Requested moves when you move the page - either as a real article or as a redirect-with-history, back.
If you have a conflict of interest you will need to submit it for review through AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:49:10, 4 January 2021 review of draft by MirachBeta


Is prabook.com considered a reliable source? I haven't seen a consensus

MirachBeta (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MirachBeta. For future reference, the place to ask about the reliability of a source is WP:RSN. Past discussions of Prabook, with a few choice comments, are:
  • Archive 191 - "User-created content. Not RS." - AndyTheGrump
  • Archive 211 - "Prabook should never be referenced ... random websites of no authority whatsoever." - Mewulwe
  • Archive 229 - "Not a good idea to use it. Anything it says should be traceable to the original source, and an assessment can be made about that source's reliability" - Sitush
  • Archive 268 - "Obvious unacknowledged copy/paste from Wikipedia is a clear sign of unreliable source. This certainly should not be used" - Pavlor
    "This is an open-source project that accepts biographies by anonymous submission. Definitely not a reliable source." - Simonm223
Consensus is clear that it should not be cited as a source. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:59:27, 4 January 2021 review of draft by Xander Wu


Hello!! This draft was first created in 2018 but was deleted in 2019 for being under sourced. I asked that this draft be restored in 2020, and I made further improvements. For this purpose, I'm asking for a re-review of the changes made to the draft. Hoping for a favorable response on this matter. Thank you!!

Xander Wu (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:05:49, 4 January 2021 review of submission by RedstoneFox

Hello, the new Wikipedia page for TUF was just declined for not needing its own article. We are wondering why. TUF is a decently sized community and we were planning to put tons of edits and information into it. For a while now we have been wanting to make a Wikipedia page to put in all of our lore for new people to see and learn. RedstoneFox (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RedstoneFox: Wikipedia requires reliable sources to show notability. In this case, the notability of TUF would most clearly fall under the WP:GNG (the default if no other specific notability guideline applies), though WP:NORG and WP:NWEB may also apply. Regardless, it seems that TUF is not notable by any of these measures. Neither of the sources currently on the draft show notability, nor are they particularly reliable (See WP:PSTS for more on primary sources and reliability). I hope this helps, please either WP:PING me here or leave a message on my talk page if you have any further questions. AviationFreak💬 02:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:15:30, 4 January 2021 review of draft by Birdielea


Birdielea (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Snakes_and_Hawks_Card_Game Can someone please tell me what I should edit to make this article publishable?

@Birdielea: Wikipedia has a number of notability guidelines that are used for evaluating whether or not a subject is notable enough to qualify for an article. the WP:GNG, which is the applicable guideline in this case, relies on significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. The only source on the draft at present which might show notability is the BGG page, though it's unlikely. "Directories" or "registries" of subjects (in this case, board/card games) do not show notability. Primary sources are also not useful for showing notability, as anyone can publish information about them. My advice to you would be to be patient and wait - This card game is quite new. If it picks up steam and is covered in multiple reliable sources (ideally something like game reviews or news articles of some kind), go ahead and add those to the draft. If and when the draft meets the WP:GNG, it will be accepted. WP:PING me here or leave a message on my talk page if you have any further questions. AviationFreak💬 02:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research and found that it's extremely unlikely that this topic is notable at this time so I rejected the draft. Please do not submit a new draft about this topic until such time as it's been covered in-depth by reliable, independent sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:44, 4 January 2021 review of submission by 2409:4050:2EC0:37FE:0:0:5FC8:C10


2409:4050:2EC0:37FE:0:0:5FC8:C10 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


08:08:10, 4 January 2021 review of submission by RESHU IND


RESHU IND (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


08:12:10, 4 January 2021 review of submission by RESHU IND


Added More information with citations. RESHU IND (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchbase is not consiered a reliable source and is considered depricated by the community. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:06:15, 4 January 2021 review of draft by SwanComm13


I am checking in on the Status of my Wikipedia Submission for Artist George Gadson. It has been in Review since September 2020.

SwanComm13 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SwanComm13 You may check the status by examining the draft itself. As the yellow submission notice states, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,683 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to continue to be patient.
If you represent Gadson, you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have rejected the draft because of undeclared paid editing and sock puppetry see User:SwanCom707. Theroadislong (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:35, 4 January 2021 review of submission by Tmreborn

Hello! I understand why he may not have been "notable" enough and I apologize for my lack of experience. I added a few more sources and cleaned the article up a bit. He is mentioned in a Yahoo Entertainment article for the 2015 Grammy nominations. Also he is quoted and has a small feature in a Rolling Stone Magazine article on Mariah Carey from 2018. Please let me know if that is sufficient! Thank you! Tmreborn (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tmreborn The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Brief mentions and quotes from the subject are not acceptable for establishing notability' what is required is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:57, 4 January 2021 review of submission by 186.96.210.100

I am seeking advise on a Rejection of Article for George Gadson. Is it because the subject is not Noteable? Or is it because there is no Disclosure. And Can I still make a Disclosure? The subject has forty-five plus references.


186.96.210.100 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected, meaning the draft will not be considered further. It was indeed rejected because it appears that Gadson does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. If you represent him, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to declare that relationship irrespective of what happens to the draft, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected the draft because of undeclared paid editing and sock puppetry, please do not edit whilst logged out either. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rajveer90/sandbox/Samreen Kaur

I have submitted the draft of actress Samreen Kaur and provided good media links but it has been around three months since the draft is not accepted yet. I have sent requests many a time but haven't received any response from editors. Rajveer90 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft here User:Rajveer90/sandbox/Samreen Kaur has not been submitted for review yet? Theroadislong (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit the draft? Can you tell me?

Sorry, my mistake. I haven't added submit on the top of the draft. I just submitted two drafts for review. One is for actress Samreen Kaur and the other is for a best-selling novel titled "WHY DOES A MAN RAPE?" Can you cross-check them?

January 5

06:17:48, 5 January 2021 review of submission by Daniellesmall247

Can anyone help as I previously asked this question and it was archived without a response. I resubmitted an Article for Creation and the article was deleted because I unintentionally 'blanked' the article. The article has now been restored but if anyone could explain what 'blanking' an AfC entails so that I can avoid repeating the same mistake. Thanks for your guidance.

Daniellesmall247 (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniellesmall247 (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniellesmall247: in essence, blanking a page on WIkipedia is defined as opening the edit window, deleting the most part of the contents (or all content) and hitting save. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:03:46, 5 January 2021 review of submission by United World President


This page is about an Indian journalist. United World President (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United World President The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that this journalist does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources you offered are not such sources. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:58, 5 January 2021 review of draft by Eergh


I would like to write an article on a public figure mac ferrari who created an event called bikestormz to give the youth something positive to do instead of persuing crime and violence. I have made a draft but need help with the rest of the article

Eergh (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



14:15:28, 5 January 2021 review of draft by 130.132.173.252


130.132.173.252 (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I am happy to re-do the sources in footnote fashion. However, does this address the decline that Dan submitted -- stating that Dr. Tamborlane's work is not significant? His colleagues in the field, with less credentials, have been granted pages.[reply]

Please read 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. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate. We can only address what we know about. If you'd care to point these other articles out, we can address them or see if they are appropriate.
For this person to merit an article, you must summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:43:52, 5 January 2021 review of submission by PriyaKE


Would like constructive feedback on how to improve the article, because I feel it deserves to be published.

PriyaKE (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:30, 5 January 2021 review of submission by 103.121.62.127


103.121.62.127 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@103.121.62.127: You didn't ask a question. None of the references provided are reliable sources (And they aqre also inappropiate, while I am sure that www.facebook.com contains something about Mehedi Hasan Shahed in one of its billions of pages, the start page does not, making the link useless. The same goes for the other ones). Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:15:32, 5 January 2021 review of submission by Music biograpiez


I have added reliable sources including a newspaper article by the national newspaper of India mentioning the subject's education, designation, other information and also added multiple references and also a google search result showing the subject is Notable and has a knowledge panel in his name.

Music biograpiez (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches are not a reliable source, because they may change at any time, things that are on a google search today might already be gone tomorrow. The thehindu.com article is virtually no coverage if I were to remove the quotes, and if I were to leave them it would be a primary source and don't contribute to notability either. You may want to have a look at WP:CSMN. I haven't specificiely checked out the Google Search, because I don't currently have time to search for a needle in a full granary (about 13,6 million sources to check out is a bit far beyoynd my limits...). Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


18:20:38, 5 January 2021 review of submission by Gsgle


Gsgle (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gsgle: Since the channel URL in the Draft leads to nowhere, I assume you meant to link this channel. Long story short, I currently see no evidence of Esparnia Edna meeting WP:NPERSON. The draft is currently unverfiable. The draft's text combined with the play count of the Youtube Videos makes me think you might have a WP:COI with this subject. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:29, 5 January 2021 review of submission by Jgmbennett


Jgmbennett (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC) African Solidarity Fund[reply]

I do not understand why this important, fully well researched and accurate article has been transferred into the "sandbox".

This article is especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic when many small and medium-sized enterprises in Africa are struggling to survive.

Investment guarantees and refinancing arrangements are important tools for such firms to overcome the crisis.

I remain committed to fulfilling Wikipedia's high standards, but also feel thwarted in my efforts to understand the standards themselves.

I prepared important information to add to the article, but the transfer from the draft to the sandbox status is very frustrating.

I would be happy if anyone cound explain to me why this downgrading has happened.

JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgmbennett (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of filling out the template assuming you were referring to your own sandbox at User:Jgmbennett/sandbox. This page was created by you in your sandbox, it was not moved there by anyone else.
If you are referring to African Solidarity Fund which was moved to "draftspace" in August 2020 then deleted after you blanked it, the reasons are explained on your talk page.
If you are referring to another page, please add a new request at the bottom of this page, putting the name of the page in the proper place in your request, right after |link= and before the closing }}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slight clarification @Jgmbennett: After the article was moved to draft, Draft:African Solidarity Fund was deleted because you slapped a {{Db-g7}} template on it. The sandbox article was something you created in April 2020. That's the entirety of it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why my draft of book Why does a man is declining?

They don't show only mention if you clearly read the Policy Times article or Diverge Media, it clearly shows about book. Like in the policy times article it talks about the book and says that ‘Why Does A Man Rape?’; Uncovering the Dark Truths behind the Heinous Act of Rape. Moreover, other articles also talk about the book it's just they have mentioned the author in the beginning and then they have talked about the book but that doesn't mean it is only a mention. In addition, every article shows that what is inside the book and why the author has written it like "This book addresses some taboo and controversial issues related to rape. Why do people rape? Who to blame for rapes? Is rape confined to the human race? Is this new in this generation or are there any references to such incidents in our history? Such questions are answered fluently in his book, 'Why does Man rape'. Kindly tell me your review on this so that I can resubmit it @Bilorv Rajveer90 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajveer90: The explanation for the decline is in the big pink box at the top of the draft. Two major issues: it sounded like an advertisement to one editor, and another editor or editors felt that you failed to establish that the subject meets our General Notability Guideline (GNG), as most of the references you used appear to be press releases, meaning, they are not independent of Jasbir Singh, which is one of the requirements that must be met to pass our General Notability Guideline. Further, six of the references you used have the exact same press release content, which is just ridiculous. Surely you don't think we just count references and pass articles that have 8 or more? It is also odd to quote The Times as having said that Singh 'has revealed truth on rape in this book', when that phrasing may have come directly from Singh or his publishers/publicists.
Of the last three sources, neither are reliable sources. Policy Times appears to solicit contributions from the public, which makes it seem like there is no clear editorial standard, and likely conflicts with our guidelines on user-generated sources, and the last is just a posting on an LPU alumni page, which isn't the press.
So, those are the reasons why the article fails to meet our GNG. As a more minor point, you call the book a novel, which means that it is a fictional work. If it is supposed to be a book representative of research, that would likely not be called a novel. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


January 6

00:55:17, 6 January 2021 review of submission by Kevin Andrews - CEO of Hula Girl Foods


It's my first time on Wikipedia and it's my first time to write an article,I don't have conflict of interest, I don't know Kevin Andrews personally I'm just interested to write about him.Please help me and guide me if how to write an article without conflict of interestKevin Andrews - CEO of Hula Girl Foods (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Kevin Andrews - CEO of Hula Girl Foods (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:57:12, 6 January 2021 review of draft by Jason Fermino


Jason Fermino (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Fermino: you didn't ask a question. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:25:28, 6 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SCDW Marketing


Hi I am trying to upload an article for my nonprofit but I got a message saying I was flagged for speedy deletion. I wanted to know what actions I should take so I can post here and avoid any issues.

Kind Regards,

SCDW Marketing (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:51:33, 6 January 2021 review of submission by Plecostomas

I would like to know why my article has been declined so I can improve it to what the standards are. Here is the link to my article.

  • @Plecostomas: The answer is in the pink box at the top of the draft, but I will copy it here for you: Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Ancistrus instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 03:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:53:50, 6 January 2021 review of submission by Maikel714


Maikel714 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maikel714: You didn't ask a question. This topic does not appear to get even remotely close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:NWEBSITE. The current draft is promotional in nature("wilnews provide only best positive news from all over the world."), but we do not allow promotion. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And block evasion. Pahunkat (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:01:53, 6 January 2021 review of submission by Jessyalgar

I have submitted a page AsharqNews, but it has been redirected to a completely different page called El Sharq TV. These 2 entities have nothing to do with each other. Redirecting one to the other is not good for Wikipedia readers. Why was this done? Please bring back the version I have submitted and let it have a page of its own.

Jessyalgar (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asharq News redirects to El Sharq but your draft is still there at Draft:Asharq News and is awaiting review by an experienced editor. If it is approved then it will replace the redirect. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:03:19, 6 January 2021 review of submission by Yasercs89


Yasercs89 (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:03:48, 6 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Justdilip


I am requesting assistance for publishing this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pinkky_Rajgarhiya) article i have tried to format similar to other article which is already live on wikipidea, and i have tried to use the wikipedia guideline to rewrite this article, but unable to get published, please help me to get this article through, this article is of an women social worker from India, who is helping underprivileged children & girls educating to live hygienic life

Justdilip (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:11, 6 January 2021 review of draft by Eergh


I need help writing this article

Eergh (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:29:29, 6 January 2021 review of submission by Mathematicalinstitutes


Mathematicalinstitutes (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathematicalinstitutes: I assume this is about Draft:Syed Faizan Azeem. I could not find any evidence in the draft that this subject meets WP:NPERSON. Google Searches are no reliable sources, as they might change at any time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:07, 6 January 2021 review of submission by Tw1tterpicasso

I would like advise to get this page published. This page is an actual public figure verified on social media platforms. I am just not familiar with how Wikipedia works. Tw1tterpicasso (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being on social media platforms, confers zero notability I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:54:20, 6 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by WriticBee



WriticBee (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WriticBee, the subject of the draft is extremely unlikely to be notable enough for inclusion as he has only released a few videos on YouTube/Tik Tok. The sources provide are absolutely unreliable: Republic is an infamously bad source and the other sources look unreliable to me as well. From what I can see, the subject has very little significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject which is not run-of-the-mill. It is this type of coverage that is needed for demonstrating notability, and the subject does not have this coverage. JavaHurricane 03:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:43, 6 January 2021 review of draft by 2001:8003:C55E:2300:F4D3:2351:67E3:8672


2001:8003:C55E:2300:F4D3:2351:67E3:8672 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I keep getting told to add more resources, which i have but doesn't seem to be working. Am i doing everything correctly? I believe i have shown substantial evidence to prove this individual's identity and credibility with many online articles and publications.

Thanks!2001:8003:C55E:2300:F4D3:2351:67E3:8672 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

05:05:31, 7 January 2021 review of submission by Ranjansharma23


Ranjansharma23 (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjansharma23 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:34, 7 January 2021 review of submission by Majid Saleem78

closing, see Comments related to User talk:Majid Saleem78#Draft:Asif Tariq for help and advises offered by experienced editors. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Majid Saleem78 (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Saleem78, This is being discussed on your talk page at User talk:Majid Saleem78#Comments related to Draft:Asif Tariq. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What changes i have to make, please tell me i need i had made some changes but still the draft was declined. Tell me what to do?

Majid Saleem78 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

13:47:48, 7 January 2021 review of submission by 86.60.58.57


86.60.58.57 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


14:39:56, 7 January 2021 review of submission by DKtruster


DKtruster (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


16:28:10, 7 January 2021 review of submission by LOlilikethings


LOlilikethings (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was deleted as vandalism. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:28:40, 7 January 2021 review of submission by Geroge Mason

I am requesting a review because my article is removed for no reason i have also given sources from the website like IMDb Geroge Mason (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is never a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geroge Mason: Tha same goes for the Quora.com source. The subject's own website (or at least I assume m-zaid.my-free.website is something like that) can only be used in limited ways. Also, I have noticed that all of the URLs in the draft actually end up at the Facebook redirection lounge, asking me "if I want to leave Facebook". Make sure you use the actual URLs, i.e. https://www.example.org instead of https://l.messenger.com/l.php?u=http%3a//www.example.org Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:21, 7 January 2021 review of submission by Geroge Mason

My Article is being removed for no reason and i have mentioned some huge sources like IMDB Geroge Mason (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geroge Mason: IMDB isn't considered a reliable source. See WP:USERGENERATED. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It isn't a free place for you to boost this boy's YouTube channel subscribers. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:08, 7 January 2021 review of submission by 86.60.58.57


86.60.58.57 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


20:23:03, 7 January 2021 review of draft by Pastormikeu


How do I add photos to my Article entitled Clay Millican, or must I wait until it is published? It rejects the images I select, which are my own. Pastormikeu (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Pastormikeu (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must wait for it to be accepted before you can add images. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:32:16, 7 January 2021 review of draft by DoNothin69


The article I created for submission was rejected as the references I included were deemed to not show significant coverage. I have reviewed the references and added an audio reference from a leading Irish sports news website, and a link to the 2021 podbible awards as well as the existing BBC news audio reference & Welsh news website WalesOnline's article. If these are not enough references to demonstrate significant coverage could you please advise the nature and number of references I need to include? I have looked at other, similar articles for guidance and as far as I can tell, for the most part, the references included in those articles are of a similar nature and amount but would appreciate further guidance to ensure I am providing the right references.

DoNothin69 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

05:42:38, 8 January 2021 review of submission by Majid Saleem78

Duplicate case ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Majid Saleem78 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

06:53:56, 8 January 2021 review of draft by Pratyush Chowdhary


Hi Team, please help with my draft to adhere to Wiki Standards. Could you highlight the areas where edits need to be maintained. I am not aware of the references which can and cannot be used as per standards.I have used the peer company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awfis as reference. Any little help would be great.

pC (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pratyush Chowdhary Your draft just tells about the company 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 company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Independent reliable sources do not include press releases, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, the company website, or other primary sources. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about the company, not what it says about itself, and not routine business.
I see that you declared a COI, but if you work for or represent this company, you must review the paid editing policy and make the stricter paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot (talk), thank you for your remarks. In that case the reference which I have used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awfis does it passes the requirement ? Could you please provide 1 expample in case of Smartworks.

Also as mentioned earlier, I have recently started working with the company and when I saw the wiki page missing, I took upon myself to make it. I am not paid directly non instructed to do so, this is purely voluntary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratyush Chowdhary (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:35, 8 January 2021 review of draft by Theniommusmamu


I need to have this as an official article. This has been my work for two months. I need to know why you keep declining this. I also want to improve it.

Theniommusmamu (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC) How can I improve it? What should I add to James A. Janisse?[reply]

Theniommusmamu No one "needs" an article. What is your urgent need? You have been given the reasons for it being declined on the draft itself; do you have questions about that? 331dot (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I want to know , why this many declines? Why did you do it?Theniommusmamu (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, none of the sources are reliable and independent. Lets see what we got:
  1. https://the-dead-meat.fandom.com/wiki/James_A._Janisse is a Wiki entry and unreliable due to WP:UGC.
  2. https://youtube/RLgCPXHDxQg is not a valid URL. Assuming you meant https://youtu.be/RLgCPXHDxQg, which is a Video on the subject's Youtube channel and therefore a primary source
  3. https://www.famous.birthdays.com/people/james-janisse.html is another nonexistent URL, I assume you meant https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/james-janisse.html, which is considered unreliable and blacklisted already (I assume thats why the extra dot is in the URL)
  4. https://biographyhub.com/james-a-janisse-wiki/. I don't know much about the reliability of this site, but it does set off my alarm bells
  5. https://www.famous birthdays.com/people/james-janisse.html, which is another variant of the afroamentioned famousbirthdays page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theniommusmamu: I think you'd have a better chance getting an article for Dead Meat, and you could then include a (brief) section about him. I looked and couldn't find any reliable coverage of him, but did at least find this about Dead Meat [[1]]. It actually looks like something I'd be interested in watching. If you can find a few more decent media sources, give it a shot. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:31:03, 8 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Subratkumar01



Subratkumar01 (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subratkumar01 Your draft was blatant promotion, which is why it was rejected and deleted. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:12, 8 January 2021 review of submission by Nabajit Karmakar


Nabajit Karmakar (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:44:26, 8 January 2021 review of draft by SRSchreiber


SRSchreiber (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Can you give me more information about verified sources? I have included references for all of the data and the article was still rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRSchreiber (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:00:28, 9 January 2021 review of draft by BrigidBurgan


My submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omnisafe_fittings) was rejected because it "is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I have referenced (3) major industry periodicals and notations from (3) conferences that addressed this fitting. I cannot think of any resources that are more reliable in this industry. Please let me knw why these references are not reliable and where I might look for examples of those who are. Thank you for your help.

BrigidBurgan (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=999209073"