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 PsychoPinball (talk | contribs) at 14:04, 9 January 2021 (→‎13:24:27, 9 January 2021 review of submission by PsychoPinball: typo). 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 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]


January 9

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]

04:51:40, 9 January 2021 review of draft by Msmmsm1990


My edits are not displayed on the infobox of draft: Hassan Mohammadi Nevisi; please help me

Msmmsm1990 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:16:44, 9 January 2021 review of submission by Sean Solie


Happy New Year! The article I submitted on Sean McCoshen was declined as result of improper sourcing, specifically the lack of credible sources. Can you please point out which of the sources I am using are not adequate? I recently was on a different Wikipedia page about someone that contained only one link in it, which was no longer functional. How can it be that the eight sources I provided are less credible than a non-existent source?

Any information and assistance in this arena would be greatly appreciated, as I'm at a loss here in terms of how to strengthen my article.

Thank you :)

Sean Solie (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:26, 9 January 2021 review of draft by Swag man 456


I am able to find the reason behind not approve this article.

Swag man 456 (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Swag man 456 (talk)

(removed article copy) Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:48:25, 9 January 2021 review of submission by Balasaheb Salunke

Sir, I am requesting now because we have edited all the contents of this draft,as per your Terms and conditions, now there is no any matter which is copy pasted from other sources.This information is unique and is applicable to our institute only.as our sister concern institute already have Wikipedia pages hence we also wants to have Wikipedia page for our institute also .This information is useful to students who are searching the institute to take admission in diploma engineering .so I kindly requesting to publish our page . Thanking you Balasaheb Salunke (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, it is just an advert, not an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:27, 9 January 2021 review of submission by PsychoPinball

I wanted to show on my user page what I'll be working on. Is the problem that the content is too explicit? I understand that these subjects aren't the most pleasant ones but if there are questions about abuse, I'd like people to know that I'm somebody who will engage discussion about these subjects in a serious manner. PsychoPinball (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PsychoPinball: Hello PsychoPinball, Your userpage is User:PsychoPinball. You can directly create it, there is no need to first create a sandbox and submit it. If you wish, I could move the page to User:PsychoPinball. For content permitted on userpages, see WP:USERPAGE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I was trying to do. I started out on my user page but then was re-routed to some different draft pages... If the content is proven not to be offensive, please do overwrite my current user page. PsychoPinball (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you could have seen that. The creation notice (Template:base userpage editnotice) Speficially says "If you want to draft an article,...". This is evidently not an article, so it can go there. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm so confused... Just tried to overwrite my user page, got the message An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. PsychoPinball (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:56:29, 9 January 2021 review of submission by Anavya


There seems to be a huge misunderstanding here. The subject in question is not only an established and notable personality in the martech and ad tech space but is also an Youtube, Amazon and Spotify verified music Artist. The links to Hansaj's verified artist pages are as follows:

https://open.spotify.com/artist/6Yu6b18ho7Tv2OFl4z9EnQ?si=23TIW0rxQ06H5zPQ6mlGFA https://music.youtube.com/channel/UC-4jpVvEXnoItoL0cVXbhmA https://music.youtube.com/browse/MPREb_5WPp7RFralw https://music.amazon.in/artists/B08RSMW9MQ/ekalavya-hansaj

The link to his google knowledge panel is https://g.co/kgs/zydNmj.

I strongly believe above links prove beyond doubt that the subject deserves a wikipedia page and meets the standards required to be on wikipedia.

Requesting you to guide me with an example if you still believe I am not able to prove the informations sought.


Anavya (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Links to "Hansaj's verified artist pages" confer zero notability, Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=999302159"