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 UY Scuti (talk | contribs) at 09:33, 4 June 2021 (→‎08:39:11, 4 June 2021 review of submission by 1armbanidt). 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


May 29

02:29:52, 29 May 2021 review of draft by Zeezoo17


Zeezoo17 (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you jest? I don't see any evidence you've ever worked on a draft under this account. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:25:33, 29 May 2021 review of draft by Jericho347


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_M._Matwyshyn - This article was rejected by @CommanderWaterford citing it did not meet the criteria for WP:NACADEMIC. Their rejection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jericho347#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Andrea_M._Matwyshyn_%28May_2%29 I have posted a reply on the article talk page that outlines why I believe this decision to be incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Andrea_M._Matwyshyn Per the rejection, it says I can ask her for additional guidance on this matter so I am requesting additional review of the page and if it meets criteria. If it does not, additional information beyond a few form-reply lines would be very helpful. Thank you.

Jericho347 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: CommanderWaterford can't respond to your concerns because he is currently blocked from editing. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented at length at Draft talk:Andrea M. Matwyshyn. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:00:32, 29 May 2021 review of draft by 49.205.82.105


49.205.82.105 (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates the claim or removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing biographical content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. None of your citations are in-line, as is required. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:28, 29 May 2021 review of submission by Sneha-SIPL


Hi, Need to request for re-review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shivani_Khetan, as the subject is having relevant references from authentic sources. She has won awards for her services and excellence mentioned below. Please review it again and let me know what can be done to improve it.

  1. Awarded Golden Book of World Records for Tarot a healing tool in modern times, as first coffee table book on tarot.
  2. Global Goodwill Ambassador (GGA) program from LinkedIn Company for volunteering program
  3. Peace 2019 International Awards

If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitin_Soni this can be published then Dr. Shivani Khetan also be as there are many authenticate references of her works and experiences.

Sneha-SIPL (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Soni never went thru AfC, making that a very poor argument. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:37:23, 29 May 2021 review of submission by Sakander batth


Sakander batth (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:21:09, 29 May 2021 review of draft by Inspirenasim


Inspirenasim (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no sources, no article, no debate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:05:56, 29 May 2021 review of draft by Ukuser691


Hello, I have made all requested changes to the draft and there are ample references and links to show that this person meets the requirements. If any further changes are required, please let me know. Many thanks

Ukuser691 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not shown how they meet the criteria at WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:06:15, 29 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Danjensen137


I'm currently creating a Wiki page for someone and heard it's possible to add tags or keyword metadata into it. I can't find any information on how to do it, so I was hoping someone might be able to explain it to me.

Thanks in advance!

Danjensen137 (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Danjensen137: Depends on what you mean by keywords / metadata. If you mean things that would normally go into <meta name="keywords" content="..."> no, you don't. If you mean Categories, you can add them by creating an internal link to the category. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:35:21, 29 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SageWRLD



SageWRLD (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:41, 29 May 2021 review of submission by Jyotsanaj03

Hello. I have been trying to publish this article for Sanjeev and I work in his team. I would like to bring to your notice that the links in the references should re reviewed. All the links come from a reliable source. There is a link in which the Prime Minister of the country is speaking about Sanjeev. There Are articles from Hindustan Times and Ted's official website. Either please specifically help me understand how do you think it is not notable. As, for the current content of the page, there is no reference that does not support what we have written. Jyotsanaj03 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotsanaj03 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing will confer notability on this person. That the PM mentioned him does not confer notability on him, see WP:NOTINHERITED.
If you work for him, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing declaration. Please also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:50, 29 May 2021 review of draft by 2409:4041:E85:520F:8BE6:DFC0:84BE:6A3C


I don't understand where my mistake for publishing article 2409:4041:E85:520F:8BE6:DFC0:84BE:6A3C (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare what you have created to WP:NPOL FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:34, 29 May 2021 review of submission by Reesashukla


Reesashukla (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what is criteria to create a page of book al wikipedia? please guide me.

@Reesashukla: please read WP:YFA and return to this sectiomn if this talk page (unless it has been archived) wioyth any further questions FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:23, 29 May 2021 review of submission by 37.153.190.90


37.153.190.90 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question. repeatedly submitting a draft without changing anything or taking advice is disruptive. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:39, 29 May 2021 review of submission by WriticBee


WriticBee (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:03:53, 29 May 2021 review of submission by 95.104.81.155


95.104.81.155 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We can't use streaming sites or online storefronts as sources under any circumstance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

Request on 05:35:06, 30 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Iamthekanadian


Here's the story. I'm new. I work for a charity, LiveWorkPlay. We had an article on Wikipedia for probably ten years. I didn't create it or edit but I was aware of it I just discovered it had been deleted. It seemed mainly because some didn't like the sourcing many of the links to media sources had expired so fair enough. I asked for undelete but this didn't seem likely. So I got the advice to create new Draft:LiveWorkPlay. I declared conflict of interest. I worked on the article for about 6 hours. I used 95% secondary sources. For my troubles I got accused of being a paid editor and also a very long message saying that the article read like an advertisement and too many internal sources - I have degrees in history education and linguistics - to me the content was blandly factual and excessively sourced - other feedback - not notable enough - too promotional - help.me understand how to demonstrate "notability" but avoid being "promotional" - the article certainly isn't going to sell anything or make money for anyone. All facts stated are sourced. I've looked at other articles for similar organizations and frankly they seem totally inferior - not nearly as well sourced and read like a brochure.

I don't understand what I was supposed to do - very aggressive comments about my being a "paid editor" I was given the advice to write the article - how else does it happen? I asked for help and other people did help edit - I feel like a criminal and I'm just not getting what that's all about. My preference was to try to fix the old article. I didn't want to write it. I thought what I wrote was pretty solid. And the criticism didn't match up to the article I am really upset and confused about the accusation of the references being self generated when they are not they are almost 100% secondary and I'm not getting paid one penny - I declared the conflict of interest immediately which seems fair but the insistence on paid editor does not. Ultimately after all this I'd just like to see an acceptable article. If someone can do that - because I clearly don't understand the sourcing and promotional issues - that would be great.


Iamthekanadian (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I was forced into identifying as a paid editor. I have read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure over and over. I do work for the organization in the article. But I sm absolutely NOT being paid directly or indirectly for anything to do with Wikipedia. In was accused of being some sort of dark operative I never hid that I worked for the organization and I disclosed it immediately as a conflict of interest. In was told the article could not be edited or approved if I did not identify as a paid editor. I do not underhand why I was accused in this way and forced in this way. I would like this to be removed. Other editors have already volunteered to ensure neutrality. This has been a very negative and punitive experience.


Iamthekanadian (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamthekanadian You have found out the hard way that diving right in to creating an article(the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia) without any experience in editing Wikipedia in general often leads to hurt feelings and disappointment as things happen to your work that you don't understand. It would be like building a house without knowing anything about electrical work, plumbing, getting permits, or anything about the process itself. I'm sorry this has happened.
You do meet the definition of a paid editor. Any paid editing relationship with a subject you are editing about must be disclosed per the Terms of Use. You do not have to be specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit.
You have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place to merely tell about something 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(in this case) an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the organization choose to say about it. Most of the sources you have offered are not acceptable for establishing notability, because they are brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, or similar sources. Please review the notability criteria for more information, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, respectfully, I have degrees in history, education, and linguistics and have written articles for journals, and I've been a Wikipedua user for I guess 15+ years, so it's not quite like the plumbing analogy, but thanks for the help.

Where does it say that anyone who is employed by an organization is a paid editor? Like, the plumber who works for the Buccaneers can't edit the Buccaneers page without declaring as a paid editor?

I have read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure five times and that's not what I'm seeing.

As for the article itself, it seems like a few neutral people have had a go at it - I guess you are saying the third party sources aren't significant enough - that's obviously an opinion to which you are entitled but that's a far cry from the accusation that I used internal sources and was engaged in dark ops. But I get it. I'm the basis guy. Thanks again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthekanadian (talk • contribs)

Iamthekanadian I don't see where you were "accused of dark ops", but please understand that many paid editors are very sneaky and that may cause other editors to be jaded. We have no way to know what your employer has told you(i.e. whether to edit or not, whether you are "on the clock" or not) this is why any paid relationship with a subject must be disclosed- as lomg as conceivably you could be editing as part of your job duties(even if you actually aren't, again, we have no way to know this). You created this account three days ago so I was going by that history. It's still the case that many readers don't understand what actually goes into an article- even ones who are professional writers in other areas, because Wikipedia writing is very different. I've dealt with journalists and other professionals who had great difficulty here despite success in their careers. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will reiterate that I had IMMEDIATELY declared a conflict of interest, which makes sense. I even disclosed IMMEDIATELY that I worked for the organization. The policy on paid editors is not as clear as some seem to think it is - why not just say "If you work for Disney as a ticket taker, if you edit Cinderella you have to identify as a paid contributor." Seems like that would be very clear. I'm no genius but I can't be the first person to read the terms and reach a different conclusion. And yes I was accused of dark ops despite IMMEDIATELY being fully transparent. I think I was lucky enough to find at least one editor who just wants to address any deficiencies and not accuse me or insult me so hopefully it works out and it's not just a bad experience.

My mistake I don't see "black ops" only "dark hat." It was part of a very long lecture about my deficits and I musremembered it. Apologies.

08:58:12, 30 May 2021 review of draft by 178.112.35.225


Please perform a quick review of this article. It seems to be important! 178.112.35.225 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft and it is pending; as noted, "This may take 5 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,794 pending submissions waiting for review." There is no way to guarantee a speedy review; do you have a particular need for one? 331dot (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As such, Wikipedia would profit from an article about this person, so I think! Thank you. - 178.112.35.225 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Search engines and The Sun are not acceptable sources (the former is too sparse and the latter is deprecated). I cannot assess the Financial Times or Der Standard sources because they are walled. https://meaww.com/who-priscila-bergmair-pornhub-tycoon-bernd-bergmair-wife-quit-company-child-abuse is too sparse on details about Bernd specifically. Only the Dossier source is acceptable of the four I can assess. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:19:30, 30 May 2021 review of draft by SCarolinagal


How do I add a title to my draft? I started writing in sandbox and am not sure how to change the title from my user sandbox to an actual title. SCarolinagal (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC) SCarolinagal (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SCarolinagal Changing a title requires a page move; if you submit your draft and it is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. In the future, if you use Articles for creation to create a draft, you can pick the title then. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:32, 30 May 2021 review of submission by Indianheros


Indianheros (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some advice that how to improve the article

16:00:15, 30 May 2021 review of draft by JMKrasuski


I’ve created this page as a record of the history of a nonprofit organization and I followed the format of a multitude of other Wikipedia pages covering similar nonprofits, so I am not sure how to go about making the wording sound less like an “advertisement” for a business as the page rejection stated, and more like an encyclopedia article. It contains unbiased content, simple and straightforward stated facts about the organization and its history, and has a lot of resources to demonstrate the historical accuracy. I would love any help or advice I could get to bring this page to the public.

JMKrasuski (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JMKrasuski The draft is an advertisement because it just tells about your 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. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, but in what others completely unaffiliated with it choose on their own to say about it. "Significant coverage" does not include things like staff interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, press releases, any materials put out by the organization, or other primary sources.
I see that you are writing about your own organization- this is usually very difficult for people in your position to do as required by Wikipedia. Successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia- and it's even more difficult with a conflict of interest. We don't want just basic facts- any organization may give those on its own website or social media accounts. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:21, 30 May 2021 review of draft by Emat20211


Create this article please


Emat20211 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help for create this article: Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse , thanks! Emat20211 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Ezemat20211[reply]

@Emat20211: Please review all of the URL's in this draft. URL's must not contain spaces, and when they do, this needs to be replaced with %20. I don't want to use find&replace to do that because I couldn't infer the correct version for the first few URLs I have tested. When I highlight the URL in my browser and open it in a new tab, it needs to bring up exactly the page you were looking at. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: Clever! I've already corrected everything you mentioned to me about URLs and other things. Thanks for pointing me out! Now if you are going to be able to create the article Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse with peace of mind and check the references and quotes about Ezequiel Matthysse. Thank you very much again and I hope you notify me when my draft Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse is finally published on wikipedia (it takes a lot of work). Thank you very much again and God bless you!

20:45:09, 30 May 2021 review of draft by 2603:3023:802:8F00:71D3:85CA:2CD:9E08


My article submission keeps getting declined due to lack of citations. I have seen articles for people that are less notable than Jimmy Bontatibus, so I'm having trouble figuring out what kinds of citations I need? I have linked to many reputable film websites and reviews and keep getting my draft declined. Thanks! 2603:3023:802:8F00:71D3:85CA:2CD:9E08 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of your sources either have a connexion to subject or no editorial oversight (i.e. IMDb) and thus are useless for notability. Only the rogerebert.com source comes close to helping for notability, and it alone cannot do that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:35:18, 30 May 2021 review of draft by Hatebomb76


hello, this draft page already exists in the article space. Can this draft paged be merged, redirected to Jeff Janiak or deleted ? thanks

Hatebomb76 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatebomb76: Since all the content is already in article space, I'd recommend just clicking "edit" on the draft and adding {{Db-g7}} to the top. Once you do this, someone will come along and delete the article for you. Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

03:47:03, 31 May 2021 review of draft by Emat20211


@Emat20211: You are not asking a question, but if you are requesting a review of the draft, you have already done that by submitting the draft for review. Please stop posting to user talk pages and help/discussion pages such as this one asking for a review. (See also my response to you on my user talk page.) Regards --bonadea contributions talk 05:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:49, 31 May 2021 review of draft by Vdpankajjain


Vdpankajjain (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:16:51, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Jyotsanaj03

I have stated all the information. Provided all the references and i strongly believe that this article should be published. Please suggest what needs to be edited here so that you make sure the article gets published after that. Jyotsanaj03 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been declined 6 times and rejected twice, it will not be considered further please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Theroadislong (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion due to the history, including immediate resubmission after decline with no further improvements made and removing declines. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:51, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Dogmusic45


Dogmusic45 (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dogmusic45 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have a question, please add it to this section. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:22:57, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Muhamamd saeed meo

Dear team i make a page Muhamamd Saeed Meo that is deleted but i m confuse why this page is not approved. regards

Muhamamd saeed meo (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamamd saeed meo Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what others say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. Please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:27, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Gastion1


I'm told that: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However,I have included 20 references which include UK national newspapers, UK regional newspapers, and numerous articles from reputable foreign newspapers and magazines, plus some pieces in industry specific magazines relevant to the history of the subject of my page. I am baffled with regard to what more I am required to do, or where I am going wrong. If you could give me some clarification I would really appreciate it.

Gastion1 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gastion1 The reason for the last decline was that the citations you have provided are not in-line as required. Please review referencing for beginners to learn about how to format and place citations. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:03, 31 May 2021 review of draft by 71.187.40.39


My submission was declined because it "reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia," "needs to be written from a neutral point of view," and should refer to "independent, reliable, published sources." As far as I can tell, it is written from a neutral point of view and does refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources." Can you please tell me what specifically does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view and what specific sources need to be removed and/or replaced? Many thanks for your help.

71.187.40.39 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that the draft just tells about Mr. Burger and what he does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It isn't enough to just tell us(for example) that he has interviewed notable people(as notability is not inherited by association), but if those interviews were significant in some way, or others have written about his skill as an interviewer, something like that. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:51, 31 May 2021 review of draft by Shirish121067


Shirish121067 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. Please edit this section to add your question. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:45, 31 May 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:1823:6117:0:15:37F9:3301


2402:3A80:1823:6117:0:15:37F9:3301 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:15, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Saarif Farooqui


Saarif Farooqui (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. While human settlements are generally considered to be notable, you need to provide at least one good source that indicates the place exists to begin with. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:29, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Emat20211


Hi, could you check Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse and create it as a wikipedia article? Thanks for your help! Emat20211 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Emat20211[reply]

Emat20211 You have submitted it and it is pending. It will likely be some time, you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:34, 31 May 2021 review of draft by 217.149.171.75


Everything stated in this article is sourced! I know there is only one source, but he is long dead and it is just not possible to find more about him. However, his name is attached to an important equation in mathematical physics and people should at least be able to find out some basic information about him in this context (at least this was my motivation for creating this page). He exists on WP in six other languages (arz,es,fr,pl,pt,ru) demonstrating that other WP projects consider the present information sufficiently sourced! I tried to talk to the admin denying this page, however, to no avail. There are several similar requests on the users's talk page but this user does not seem to reply to other users questions. So does this mean my work was in vain? Mathuvw (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What other Wikipedia projects think is irrelevant - they have different standards from en.wp (which is on the stricter side in re notability and sourcing) and each other because they are all different communities. Have you even attempted to look at offline sources (i.e. scholarly books)? We accept dead-tree sources, if cited properly, and if he predates the rise of the Internet you're far more likely to find sources in print media rather than online, especially on books that cover the history of his field of expertise. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:44:57, 31 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ivan Smiljkovic


Hello! Thanks in advance for your help.

I've created a draft article for Slim PDF Reader and it was not accepted due to not showing significant coverage about the subject.

I do understand the principle of notability, but at the same time, coverage received by some of the most influential tech websites seemed good enough, especially when comparing entries from the same category (PDF freeware software).

What could I improve before resubmitting? Could you give me any example of the significant coverage → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PDF_software#Viewers ← for the proprietary, freeware entries so I could understand what is needed for the article to pass the notability test?

All the best, Ivan Smiljkovic

Ivan Smiljkovic (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:18, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Coffeefan79


Hello there, thank you for reviewing the submission again.

I have edited the draft page significantly to remove any wording that may come across as overtly promotional or be seen as advertising.

I have amended the copy to only read factual information about the brand.

Please let me know whether this is sufficient enough to request another review.

Thank you.

Coffeefan79 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is just blatant advertising and has been rejected, it won't be reviewed again. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:46:20, 31 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by S Tallim


The submission was declined by Nat on May 25th on grounds that submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Following sources were provided, namely: 1. Mahal is a published author. His books are available at Amazon (USA, Canada, UK, Australia), Abe Books, Indigo (Canada), Book Depository, Google Books, JSKS online, Dymocks (Australia) and others. His books are published by leading Indian publishers, namely: Singh Bros. (Amritsar), Sanbun Publishers (Delhi) and Munshiram Manoharlal. 2.His books are in libraries at Cornell University, University of Michigan, Columbia University (NY), University of Virginia, Library of Congress among others (https://www.worldcat.org/title/origin-of-jat-race-tracing-ancestry-to-the-scythians-of-antiquity/oclc/932121492) 3. He has published scores of articles in Sikh journals to which references are provided. 4. He was nominated to leading Canadian governmental advisory bodies (Hamilton-CCAC, College of Physiotherapists, and Governor-General appointment to Board of Referees.) Letters patnet of appointments can be made available. 5. He was awarded prestigious Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee Medal for significant contributions to Canada or to a particular province, territory, region, or community within Canada, or for an outstanding achievement abroad that has brought great credit to Canada. Medal award photo of presentation was provided. 6. He was awarded Council Award by College of Physiotherapists for outstanding work as Board member. Award photo of presentation was provided. 7. He was awarded Hamilton Community Care Centre for services rendered as Board member. He received special commendation from Minister of Health of Ontario, copy of which can be provided. Award photo of presentation was provided.

Given above I am at a loss to understand Nat's objections.


S Tallim (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S Tallim You have done a good job of telling about this person and what they've done. Wikipedia, however, is looking for more; a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. The person may be notable, but you just tell us what they have done, and not summarized what others say about them, such as what exactly their influence was or significance is(not what you say it is, what they say it is). You may be too close to the subject to be able to do that. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following type of references suffice:https://www.sikhchic.com/1984/punjab_a_cataclysmic_showdown_aftermath_and_challenges by late Emeritus Professor Gerald Barrier

http://sikhinstitute.org/july_2009/10-reviewvirk1.html – By a leading Sikh scholar and Professor, eminent historian of South Asia and Sikh Studies at University of Missouri.

I am trying to obtain another review from Dr. Pashaura Singh - Professor & Jasbir Singh Saini Endowed Chair of Sikh and Punjabi Studies at UC Riverside

S Tallim70.51.134.58 (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are S Tallim, remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following type of references suffice:https://www.sikhchic.com/1984/punjab_a_cataclysmic_showdown_aftermath_and_challenges by late Emeritus Professor Gerald Barrier

http://sikhinstitute.org/july_2009/10-reviewvirk1.html – By a leading Sikh scholar and Professor, eminent historian of South Asia and Sikh Studies at University of Missouri.

I am trying to obtain another review from Dr. Pashaura Singh - Professor & Jasbir Singh Saini Endowed Chair of Sikh and Punjabi Studies at UC Riverside S TallimS Tallim (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will the draft be improved by inserting of the paras below, three citations by eminent professors:

Dr. Norman G. Barrier, Professor Emeritus, Asia and Sikh Studies, at the University of Missouri, credits Mahal for “(play(ing) an important role in fostering multiculturalism in Canada, as well as providing leadership for health care in Ontario (and) after decades of writing for Sikh journals and magazines across the globe, he has assembled a coherent perspective on Sikhism and the Sikh community.”

Dr. Hardev Singh, Professor of Eminence (Physics), SGGS World University, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (India) and a renowned Sikh scholar, acknowledges Mahal for “writ(ing) extensively on the Sikh ethos and challenges faced by the Sikh diaspora (and) hav(ing) traveled over five continents and gained lot of experience of living in multicultural societies around the globe (which) has provided him with a platform to promote multiculturalism in Canada.”

In his editorial review of Mahal’s book (“origin of Jat Race”) Dr. Visho L. Sharma, Emeritus Professor at Western Michigan University, attests to Mahal’s “carefully researched and well written account (that) shows awareness of the dispute regarding divers origins of species and the nature of cultural diffusion….. with the raging controversy over how the Indian nation was formed…..with the consensus forming around the notion of thousands of years of wide-spread cultural intercourse (on) the Eurasian steppe full of political upheavals which constantly shifted whole groupings from one location to another; indeed, the Scythians are shown to have dispersed helter-skelter across more than a thousand miles.”

KINDLY respond S TallimS Tallim (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:56, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Ivanzarateleonel

Hi! My client doesn't understand why the draft was rejected. Hi is the founder of Prage Polo and is more relevant than a lot of people registered in Wiki. Please accept the draft or tell what I must change. Thank you. Iván. Ivanzarateleonel (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanzarateleonel Please see other stuff exists; the existence of other inappropriate articles does not mean that yours can too; otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. 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. If you are interested in pitching in to help, you can identify some of these other inappropriate articles you have seen so they can be addressed.
Regarding your draft, it was rejected, and will not be considered further, because you did nothing but (in essence) post his resume. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves(either directly or through a representative such as yourself), it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see Your First Article. If no independent sources have given your client significant coverage on their own(no press releases, interviews, or other primary sources) he would not merit an article at this time and no amount of editing can change that.
I have posted on your user talk page important information regarding paid editing that you must review. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your client may also want to learn why a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

00:23:57, 1 June 2021 review of submission by Cninzihni

Hey there, ICICB Group page was told as promotional so i reviewed the page and support every information with sources as much as possible but this time page got deleted completely. Every sentence in that page can be proven with sources or documents. Is there a way to revive that page? and if not, may i learn which parts of the page got it deleted? Thank you. Cninzihni (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected, not deleted- but that means that it will not be considered further and there is nothing you can do to change that at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, so if i make changes again to make it more suitable for Wikipedia and submit for review, it will be declined no matter what i do? Cninzihni (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse

Review and publish: Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse Emat20211 (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Emat20211[reply]

@Emat20211: Yesterday, you confirmed that you would stop making this kind of post to ask for preferential treatment of this draft. You have submitted the draft for review. It will be reviewed in due course. Either work on the draft to improve it further, or (even better) forget about the draft and edit other articles on Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 06:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Bonadea already stated try as much as possible to be patient, it appears the article has been declined today, no worries, take your time, any more quick resubmissions may lead to an outright rejection of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:25:31, 1 June 2021 review of submission by Fayedfed


Fayedfed (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:03:57, 1 June 2021 review of submission by Zoefoster


Zoefoster (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:40:05, 1 June 2021 review of submission by TrisAdler


Hello Wikipedians and editors, I want to re-publish my draft. I feel like my draft is suitable enough to become an article. I have changed many things that might be biased, I have cited more reliable and verifiable sources, and I have improved my draft more. Hopefully my draft can be accepted, thanks in advance. TrisAdler (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrisAdler The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:05, 1 June 2021 review of draft by Monujboraik2001


I made a Wikipedia Page in the name "Anju Panchi". Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anju_Panchi All required data is added. Reliable source is also added. Kindly, help me with the page.

Monujboraik2001 (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is never an acceptable source (No editorial oversight). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:40:43, 1 June 2021 review of submission by Perahenning-ntnu


I don't understand why this page was rejected. The centre where I am working is conducting important research and this page was supposed to be a more comprehensive version in English compared to the Norwegian version that is already published: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Por%C3%B8se_medier-laboratoriet English is the language used at the centre. Please advice me what can be done here to get the English version up also :-)

Perahenning-ntnu (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact you're a merc, we do not accept content that has been plagiarised or copied wholesale from another website. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:23, 1 June 2021 review of submission by Algonovi


He is a wellknown Makeup Artist in India, who did 300+ Large Works.

His Short Bio.

Suresh Pisharody (born 16 July 1982) is an Indian Makeup Artist from Cochin, Kerala, best known for his National and International works for top commercial brands in the world. Since 2019, he has been making a significant mark in the Indian makeup world through his unmatched creativity and perfection in various genres of makeup from bridal makeover, commercial and film makeup to even Kathakali (an Indian dance form) makeup. He is well known for his apt and on-point makeup techniques in the Bollywood short film, 'COLA' which had been selected for CHICAGO South Asian Film Festival; DC South Asian Film Festival; Tasveer South Asian Film Festival; LIFI India Filmosav; World Fest, Lonavia; Lexus Short Films; and Jio Filmfare awards 2018.

He is eligible to be in Wiki as he did works for clients like facebook, drishyam for Amazon

Will submit more of his works upon request.

Algonovi (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is a nonstarter. We do not recognise notability-by-association. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:02:29, 1 June 2021 review of draft by Carostar7


Hello there Can someone help me? I would like to add a picture and a video for this new article but i wouldnt let me as it says filename is not allowed. Thanks Carostar7 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:38, 1 June 2021 review of submission by Barouy13


I have cleaned up the article to remove all promotional jargon. Barouy13 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barouy13 The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further, despite your resubmission. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:17:55, 1 June 2021 review of submission by Yossi1114


StylishNoob has been collaborating with bunch of overseas streamers and professional esports player, recording the average of over 28,000 viewers. He made a new all-time-high viewer record of himself last month with 81,298 viewers. He absolutely deserves to be written on Wikipedia.

Yossi1114 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of that suggests any notability though? Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yossi1114 (ec) The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 81,000 viewers is not that many in the grand scheme of things, but their viewership is not relevant, what matters is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which this person does not have. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:41:37, 1 June 2021 review of submission by Benjiedev

I may not be famous but I have recently won an award and been nominated for other awards for my work in filmmaking. I have dedicated years to writing books and poetry. It just seems unfair that because I’m not famous, I don’t get a page on Wikipedia. Why? Despite all my efforts as a creator, you deny me a simple page to show my filmography and published works but yet you will happily add some YouTuber Pratt instead!

Benjiedev (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjiedev: fame is only one small factor we take into consideration when reviewing drafts. You personal feelings also have no bearing on the review nor does the fact that any other article exists. You repeatedly ignored the advice given to you in the decline messages which guided you to provide secondary sourcing to establish a level of notability which is the standard for inclusion. We do not accept IMDb or self published such as books or press releases as sources to prove notability. The article needs to based what others have written and published in reliable sources. If no one has taken the time to do this somewhere else that isn’t connected to you, then maybe you do not currently qualify for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world how great something is.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:00:48, 1 June 2021 review of submission by Wbeeman

DRAFT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohammad_B._Ghaffari DRAFT: Mohammad B. Ghaffari

Wbeeman (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I was quite shocked and taken aback to have an immediate rejection (after five minutes!) of my draft article on Mohammad B. Ghaffari. Mr. Ghaffari is acknowledged to be one of the world's greatest experts on Iranian ta'ziyeh, and a distinguished actor and director. There were a substantial number of external references to his work by distinguished authors and publications, such as The Drama Review and The New York Times. What more is needed in order to make this article acceptable? I wrote this because, as a theater researcher myself I have collaborated with Mr. Ghaffari, and am constantly having to provide his biography and references to other researchers because of the significance of his work. I would appreciate an answer and some feedback.

William O. Beeman Professor Emeritus University of Minnesota

Draft Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohammad_B._Ghaffari

Your draft was NOT rejected it was declined, pushed back to you for improvement. You have a conflict of interest and some unsourced content which will need citing or removing, your own personal knowledge and opinions are not required. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

01:32:49, 2 June 2021 review of draft by 107.146.244.150


107.146.244.150 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:58:00, 2 June 2021 review of submission by Dharshan Vharma


Dharshan Vharma (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharshan Vharma: the article was rejected because simply being a junior level racer is not considered to be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. You're draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not the place to write about yourself. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:20:52, 2 June 2021 review of submission by Peaceandlove243


Hello, I am trying to resubmit my article. I have proposed to split the "Harvard International Relations Council" article in two.

Peaceandlove243 (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceandlove243 This draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:45:04, 2 June 2021 review of submission by Malappa.c



Malappa.c (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malappa.c Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume; that's what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:25:48, 2 June 2021 review of submission by Lucasbordure

It is said that my submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. How to fix this problem?

Lucasbordure (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have zero reliable independent sources and no indication whatsoever that they meet any of the criteria at WP:NARTIST. Had I reviewed it, I would have declined too. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:58, 2 June 2021 review of draft by WeWo-IASS


Hello! I had submitted several changes in September 2020 to this draft about Mark G. Lawrence after it had been declined end of November 2019 and have not heard back anything since then - it has been almost 10 months since then. It is also not clear to me if the draft has officially been retrieved after its deletion in June 2020. Could you please let me know what the status of this article draft is (i.e. deleted, in re-review, etc.)? Thank you!

WeWo-IASS (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WeWo-IASS: You resubmitted Draft:Mark G. Lawrence on 18 March 2021 in this edit. It's in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 5+ months, so you can anticipate a review by between mid-August and mid-September. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:12, 2 June 2021 review of draft by Zayasux


Hello, I need help deleting a draft page. A while ago under the account Zisawhre (to which i dont have the password to anymore nor do i know what email i used) I made the Current Year (Band) draft, and I want it deleted.

Zayasux (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zayasux: Zisawhre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not have set an email adress, or it wasn't confirmed (this account doesn't have a confirmed email adress either), so you will not be able to get a new password. Per WP:SOCKLEGIT, please indicate your previous account on your userpage. {{User previous account}} may be used for that. As for deletion, I would simply let the draft untouched, as drafts which haven't been edited are subject to speedy deletion. Maybe one of the admin folks here can also speed that up, but I am not sure. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:53, 2 June 2021 review of submission by WikiCleanerMan


I am requesting this re-review of this draft about the relations between South Ossetia and the United States for the reason it appears from the last AfD, that those who voted to either delete or redirect the article didn't either take my keep vote into consideration, where I outlined countries that don't formally recognize each other and yet there exists articles about their lack of relations. For example, North Korea–United States relations, Armenia–Turkey relations, Armenia–Azerbaijan relations, Bhutan–United States relations, and Israel's lack of relations with Arab and Muslim majority countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, Afghanistan to name a few. Wouldn't some of these articles be regarded as having a lack of notability particularly the ones concerning Israel? And the United States' lack of relations with Bhutan still exists and yet that article isn't considered suffering from a lack of notability. There is a significant matter regarding both nations in where under federal law of the United States outlaws American aid to South Ossetia. In my view, this counts as notable, since United States foreign relations legislation has a powerful effect on global affairs. I think South Ossetia is not given a second look because it seems all that matters is to stuff the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with this kind of information when clearly it deserves to be on its own page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: The argument that other articles exist is a nonstarter here. You're more than welcome to take the other articles to AFD or request a deletion review for this one. I can't say which option has more chances, but I have a feeling neither has particularely big chances. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Schmidt, but my real concern is whether or not my draft is notable. I have laid it out that it is. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do a check on Notability somewhen tomorrow, my time on this evening is somewhat limited. Maybe Robert McClenon wants to comment in the meantime. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was the one who declined my draft. I doubt his mind has changed recently. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that I have not changed my mind in the past month. I am willing to try to address some of the arguments of User:WikiCleanerMan.
  • 1. Diplomatic relations between two countries is in general a sufficient condition for notability. It is not the only sufficient condition. One or another condition was met in the cases listed by WCM. No other sufficient condition exists for the US and South Ossetia.
  • 2. The "powerful influence" of the United States on global affairs must be taken into account. But does that mean that there should be an article about US relations with every limited-recognition country? I don't think so.
  • 3. If an article was deleted very recently, a draft is essentially asking the reviewer to ignore the deletion. I won't ignore a deletion. There are cases where the situation may change after the deletion. This mostly happens with BLPs. I don't think that the status of South Ossetia has changed in the past month.
  • 4. If a reviewer were to accept the draft, it would likely be deleted again, either by G4 or by another AFD. Reviewers don't want to accept an article that will probably be deleted.
  • 5. Some other editors and I have said that DRV is an option. You will at least be given a hearing there.
  • 6. WikiCleanerMan is auto-confirmed, and can move the draft into article space, but, if so, they risk either a G4 or another AFD.
There may be no "right" answer. I think that the "least wrong" answer now may be Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:, you accepted by Abkhazia and Somaliland articles. Those limited recognized states' relations with the U.S. are significant. I do intend to create a few more because again when it's the United States it is significant because of the United States' dominance as a global power. My Abkhazia article also contains a lot of the same information in the South Ossetia draft because their relations with the U.S. intersect. I don't see why my Abkhazia article has notability and yet South Ossetia doesn't qualify under the same standard? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:WikiCleanerMan - I did not accept Abkhazia–United States relations. Another reviewer did. Please be accurate, and do not try to confuse the review process any more than it already is confused. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did accept Somaliland–United States relations because I was undoing a non-consensus cutdown by an editor who has since been banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am finished discussing here. If you want to continue discussing, there are various options, but the best place would be Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:02:32, 2 June 2021 review of draft by 110.37.226.94


Hi! I hope you doing well. I was trying to create Muhammad Saad Uddin but wikipedia is not accepting this, i don't know why. Kindly can you tell me why my wikipedia age is not acceptable and what exactly i need to change in my wikipedia page?

110.37.226.94 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularely impressed by the reliability of the sources used in the draft. Crunchbase is unreliable, so is Goodreads. The Amazon sources aren't particularely reliable either. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


June 3

01:18:54, 3 June 2021 review of submission by LordGriot


LordGriot (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Helpdesk, Since we cannot use Youtube links as they are not certain that they respect Copyrights. But is Spotify links acceptable? those have the rights to the songs they display? Asking for a friend?

Thanks in Advance

03:14:18, 3 June 2021 review of submission by Askkaty2write


Hello! My initial submission was rejected by a Wiki editor, who was very very helpful in making suggestions on how I could make the page better, as was another person. I followed their direction and made their suggested edits, and think ended up with a good article on Center for Italian Modern Art (which I visited and was delighted by). I've asked them both to re-check my work but they've not been able to get back to me (understandable). I just wondered if someone would be able to take a look at it and see if I had made the correct adjustments. Thank you!Askkaty2write (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Askkaty2write (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:17:57, 3 June 2021 review of submission by Bootkinero


Bootkinero (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:34:18, 3 June 2021 review of submission by Vanessa nkhethoa tsotetsi


Good day, my article was recently rejected because "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Please assist with this. Thank you

Vanessa nkhethoa tsotetsi (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa nkhethoa tsotetsi Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where an article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. To put it another way, Wikipedia is not interested in what people want to say about themselves, but in what others choose to say about them. Please note that autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being psychic, you should have seen this coming. Theroadislong (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:22:42, 3 June 2021 review of draft by AllenJossy


I would like you to help me out on the referencing, I have tried to adhere to the reviewer's comment but it seems I am still not getting it, and then I am stuck. The reviewer mentioned reliable source and not just passing comments, I would like an expatiation on that too because all the reference cited are from third parties and picked from their respective websites and to the best of my knowledge they are one of the most reliable sources you can have around here.Thanks AllenJossy (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the AkomolafeBlog one doesn't appear to be anything better. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
would you I rather remove them? and doesn't it mean blogs citations are not allowed?
Hi AllenJossy. Newspaper and magazine blogs may be as acceptable as content published by the same news organization in a more traditional format, but see WP:NEWSBLOG for cautions to observe. A self-published blog (such as oldnaija.com) may be used for uncontroversial descriptions of itself according to WP:ABOUTSELF, but otherwise is not a reliable source for facts. The Nigerian Tribune piece makes only passing mention of Wells Radio as the organizer of an event. Pacesetter News merely quotes a statement by Wellsradio about another topic, it is not arms-length coverage about Wellsradio.
Internet radio stations are not presumed notable just for existing. They are eligible for a standalone article only if they meet the WP:CORP or WP:GNG notability standards, which few do. Continuing to push for creation of an article about Wellsradio when they are plainly unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia will not end well. The draft might be deleted, and you might lose your editing privileges. There are millions of other topics to write about. Choose another, and forget about Wellsradio, or consider an alternative outlet for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:01:44, 3 June 2021 review of submission by NeilDavidB84


Hello - Neil From Wired - We'd love a wiki / feel notable enough to have a presence. I understand one of our team originally tried to create with support from a couple of our community mods. full declaration I work for the company. I'm keen to rebuild and resubmit, but completely understand the feedback that it reads too much like a product catalogue/sales text. Not the intention at all. I did submit a request a few years back for someone to help build a simple and Wiki, as we have many of our games already here. I'm more than happy to strip back the page, my team tells me they may have miss understood previous feedback and I think we just keep missing what is being asked.

I'm happy to edit/strip it and would more than welcome advice to ensure the page is suitable NeilDavidB84 (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are obligated to formally disclose your relationship on your userpage; see WP:PAID for details. Second, the reason it keeps coming out reading like a product catalogue is almost certainly because of your (collective) conflict of interest, even the best writers let their biases show in their writing, and it is incredibly difficult to write neutrally with respect to something or someone you work for. This might explain the feelings that signals have gotten mixed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I completely agree - I really don't want any sort of sales page at all, simple the better. If there is a way to pay for this service or having an unbiased edit that just related to the information that is of note, I would be happy to sort - clearly I am a novice and gone about this wrong for which I apologise. OR I'm happy to completely stip the page back. Please advise what is best. I will read the instruction on how to disclose my relationship. NeilDavidB84(NeilDavidB84 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Paying for a Wikipedia article is usually a scam, if not in intent than in practise. (Asking about where to get mercs is also a very good way to torque us off, and they would also be obligated to disclose and would still have a conflict of interest.) My suggestion is to look at how featured-level articles are written, particularly those on businesses, and to review the manual of style for Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Am I safe to research more and complete a new edit on the page / submit as I did previously? What are the next steps I should complete once I review manual of style for Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your contribution and help. (NeilDavidB84 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

You can always do more research for better sources; having a conflict of interest doesn't preclude that. Your issues have primarily been with promotion, rather than criticism of your sources (though once that is addressed, I would expect your sources to be assessed almost immediately after). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilDavidB84 I've left a set of useful comments on your own talk page. Research is fundamental to article creation, and should be complete before writing your first word. Your existing, rejected draft may be abandoned. It contains nothing of true value for you.

FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jéské Couriano Thank you for your input. (NeilDavidB84 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
User:NeilDavidB84 - Haven't you learned anything from your previous experience in getting your draft rejected? It was rejected because, first, it was a sales catalog, and, second, the disclosure of conflict of interest was lost or dropped. And now you ask about paying for the service?! At this point, in my opinion, the main reason you do not have an article on your company is that you and other employees have been too busy pushing to get an article on your company. You would be better off to spend your money improving your web site, which is under your control, and then let a neutral editor write an article. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon I will accept we clearly approached this with naive glasses on. But we have made edits in good faith on the advice or feedback given and it’s clear I miss-understood some of this. I wasn’t offering money in form of bribery but in service of having a page edited by an expert. Clearly, this isn’t something that is correct and I withdraw, again. I’m clearly naive. I learnt from User:Jéské Couriano who gave clear and reasonable feedback that has been very helpful. I’m using this help desk for honest advice to not just get a wiki page created, but to do so in the proper manner. Once again, I can only apologies as I have clearly offended you which was not an intention. (NeilDavidB84 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

09:29:36, 3 June 2021 review of draft by Flavius AstraFilm2021


Flavius AstraFilm2021 (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:33, 3 June 2021 review of submission by Www.Vijay kumar.M

My pag is not coming in Wikipedia Www.Vijay kumar.M (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate (we do not cite images). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:30, 3 June 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:1827:B415:0:12:50E0:7901


2402:3A80:1827:B415:0:12:50E0:7901 (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. None of your English-language sources are any good (I can't assess the Tamil ones due to the language barrier). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:48:33, 3 June 2021 review of draft by 98.37.144.210


Hello, can you tell me what edits I need to make to this page so that it is not declined? Grand Rounds has had a wikipedia page for a number of years. I made sure to take out all of the advertising language and promotional language. I am also happy to take out any more language, but am curious what needs to be edited.

98.37.144.210 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:23:31, 3 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ashram molter


This article was rejected two previous times for reasons I understood and have tried to correct. But now this third time it has been rejected for reasons of “notability” and says there aren’t enough independent sources. I quote multiple journalistic articles that are solely about this musician, including in The Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, The La Crosse Tribune, St. Croix Valley Magazine, and more. Is that really not enough?? Can I get a second opinion? Thank you. Ashram molter (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content like "Mayer’s songwriting explores the themes of spirituality, science, the natural world, the cosmos, and the meaning of life." "Mayer’s songwriting and fingerstyle guitar skills have garnered praise from critics" is not required, it's just marketing puffery. Performing in coffeehouses, churches, theatres, and concert halls is nothing notable, neither is releasing 9 albums on his own label. It's not clear how he passes WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:59, 3 June 2021 review of submission by UIExpert

I don't understand why this article is being rejected for a lack of reliable sources. I have included several sources. My best guess is that the problem is me writing a short version of the Steady Castle Tragedy. I could just take that out.

Michael E Duffy 16:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft was declined not rejected, I have edited it for neutral tone removing the shortened version of the story and other flowery prose. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:50:51, 3 June 2021 review of submission by Hamza Al Rehman


Hamza (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the large red boxes at the top of the draft, your submission was rejected because it did not meet our guidelines on the notability of companies. The draft will therefore not be considered further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:35, 3 June 2021 review of submission by 144.253.25.246

I believe this topic meets the criteria of notability with multiple independent sources. This draft is written from a neutral point of view (with nearly every statement backed by independent sources) on a notable topic. I don't understand how it's "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". From everything I researched, I don't see anything within this draft that goes against Wikipedia policies or guidelines. 144.253.25.246 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is blatant advertising for a company. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a subject such as a company. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. A Wikipedia article summarizes 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. Significant coverage does not include staff interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions like the commencement of operations or the release of a product, press releases, or other primary sources. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

02:17:52, 4 June 2021 review of draft by Vtranz


I submitted the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:P._D._Shah It was declined for: references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

I have referenced: 

- California Institute of Asian Studies
- Claremont Courier
- The Record (Stockton California)
- Pacific Review (University of the Pacific)
- The Pacifican (University of the Pacific)

Those are reliable sources. What do I need to include or add, to have the article published?

Vtranz (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vtranz As a musician, you must show that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. I'm not seeing that based on the sources you have offered. Which aspect of the notability critera do you assert that this person meets? 331dot (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:38, 4 June 2021 review of submission by Smithcameron100


Good morning,

My only intention is to bring the article on Exact Editions up-to-date. Currently, it only goes up to 2012. Exact Editions has seen a lot of change since then - one being the company now works in new areas.

For instance, add to the fourth sentence that Exact Editions, in 2016, began to offer digital books to institutions.

See “Exact Editions launches digital books service” from InPublishing (“In partnership with four publishers, Exact Editions are using their expertise to deliver books in a new digital format, specifically aimed at the institutional market”).

And

“Exact Editions launches a replica service for books, targeting the institutional market" from Talking New Media, (“The replica magazine platform Exact Editions announced today that they launched a book service, creating the same sort of exact replicas of books as they do for magazines”).

Suggested citation:

Along with its digital archive service for magazines, in 2016 Exact Editions decided to launch a digital book service for book publishers that would be tailored towards institutions.


References:

Inpublishing.co.uk. (13/05/2016). Exact Editions launches digital books service. In Publishing.

Hebbard, D (12/052016). Exact Editions launches a replica service for books, targeting the institutional market. Talking New Media @Theroadislong:


Smithcameron100 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Talk:Exact Editions#Requesting assistance.. @Theroadislong: FYI. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smithcameron100 Since the article already exists, the better place to discuss this would be the more general Help Desk, but since you are here- Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Significant coverage does not include press releases, announcements of routine business activities, staff interviews, brief mentions, or other primary sources. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about the company, not what it wants to say about itself. If you have sources unaffiliated with your company that are not just telling about what it does, that are not simply annoucements of the company's activities, please offer them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:11, 4 June 2021 review of submission by 1armbanidt


My draft entry for Yale University professor Jasjeet S. Sekhon was rejected for not meeting the notability criteria. However, Jasjeet S. Sekhon meets the criteria for notability for academics laid out on Wikipedia's Notability (academics) page. In particular, Sekhon objectively meets criteria #3 (he is a fellow of the American Statistical Association) and #5 (he holds a named endowed chair at Yale University, the Eugene Meyer chair). I have edited the page to note both of these.

1armbanidt (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might need a second opinion on this, but by virtue of holding a named chair (Eugene Meyer) at Yale, this person might satisfy #5 of WP:NACADEMICS 09:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

08:52:28, 4 June 2021 review of submission by HIlde Wischinka


HIlde Wischinka (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I need help. My submission has been rejected. 'The ferret Coat Colour Book' is my work. I guess the format was not suitable for publication on Wikipedia. Please give instructions how to go about it to make is suitable for publication. Yours sincerely, Christina Bernhard08:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)HIlde Wischinka (talk)

HIlde Wischinka The draft is a large body of text that has no sources; nothing can be done to improve it. Wikipedia is not a place to publish a book or other form of original research. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1026800361"