Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Reviewing instructions
Helper script

Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
  • For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
  • Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
  • Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page.
Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


January 22[edit]

01:43:14, 22 January 2020 review of submission by Castor KakuWakako[edit]

Castor KakuWakako (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much for your support. We first created the Wikipedia page on 6th of Jan. 2020. Then we received the message regarding the copyright infringement from Wikipedia.*

  • For one section of our texts we used texts from

We immediately deleted the section.

After this, we received another message from Wikipedia saying

"This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement."

This page appears to be a direct copy from

It seems that this wikitia site was created after we uploaded our first text on July 6th.

Everything in our current contents is written by us in our original words and we would like to know what we should do to complete this process. We appreciate your support on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castor KakuWakako (talkcontribs) 01:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Castor KakuWakako, out of curiosity, when you say 'we', you're referring to the person who alerted you to the situation, right? I'm just double checking you're not sharing this account with anyone.
It's likely that the deleting admins, Ritchie333 and Justlettersandnumbers, will having something more to say about this than I will.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I dream of horses,Thanks for your quick reply.I have contacted Ritchie333. but have not received a reply. I will wait a reply from Ritchie333. Thanks for the advice.
And... I consult a friend. However, we do not share accounts. Is that the answer? Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 09:44:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I dream of horses, sorry. I understand now. I'm not good at English. I am asking my friends for help with some advanced issues. And a friend is writing. So friends use " We ". It is " I ", not " We ". Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 10:32:15, 22 January 2020(UTC)
@Castor KakuWakako: I did get your message, but it was the middle of the night where I live, so I have only just read it. The latest revision was deleted as being a copyright violation of the Wikia page created on 7 January, but the article here (Wakako Kaku) was not created until 14 January. The editor who tagged the article for deletion, Fram, may be able to give further insight into this. Copyright violations are one of the most misunderstood concepts on Wikipedia for new users, particularly as an administrator can delete them unilaterally and without hesitation (which they must do, for legal reasons). User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios has further information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:, Thank you for your reply. The situation changes one after another. I have a hard time understanding. I will contact Fram. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios, Is this an article written by Ritchie333? Awesome! I will read it well. Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 12:29:45, 22 January 2020(UTC)
Castor KakuWakako, recreating a page that's been deleted as a copyright violation, as you've done both at Draft:Wakako Kaku and at User:Castor KakuWakako/sandbox, is extremely unwise, and can lead to loss of editing privileges. There still appears to be a quite unacceptable degree of overlap with the wikitia page in both of those. Was the content in fact translated from here? If so, you must provide attribution.
Your username suggests a connection to the subject – do you have one? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers:,Thank you for contacting me. Originally, I should have contacted you. sorry.
Most of the duplicate text on the two pages is the Japanese publisher name, work title, event name, and award title. These will always overlap when presenting her career. What should I do in such a case? Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 16:56:03, 22 January 2020(UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers:, Finally a question about usernames came. That is a natural question.
The Japanese wiki only added text, but never posted articles. Did not know three checks. I am a fan of her creations. This is a fact. The mind of "OTAKU" = Geek has created such a username. I failed. Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 17:56:58, 22 January 2020(UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers:, Following advice, deleted draft text. Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 03:30:20, 23 January 2020(UTC)

11:55:08, 22 January 2020 review of draft by Urfavrapper[edit]

Im asking a question regarding on why my Draft:LIL MU$TARD got declined event though I am writing it about myself and it says there is false information not found from reliable sources. Urfavrapper (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by independent reliable sources so that information can be verified. Adding an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. Theroadislong (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

13:59:10, 22 January 2020 review of submission by Pratik jadhav111[edit]

My page is getting rejected even after more than 4 independent and original articles from the web. The reviewer said not many references. so i am not able to understand what is happening? it has been rejected twice and i am not getting clear understanding why it is not getting accepted Pratik jadhav111 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Pratik jadhav111, Well the page still doesn't have inline citations (see WP:ERB for help on that). Its also written like a promotional puff piece, not a formal and nuetral encyclopedia article. Wikipedia does not exist to promote its subjects. You actually only have 3 sources, as two sources are actually the same article on different websites. And the sources are not very high quality either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 16:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

21:18:08, 22 January 2020 review of draft by Peter.corke[edit]

Peter.corke (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter.corke, Reads like a resume, not a neutral encyclopedia article composed of formal prose. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

22:04:24, 22 January 2020 review of submission by FactsOnlineUS[edit]

I really wanna publish something about my friend on Wikipedia! FactsOnlineUS (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

FactsOnlineUS, I'm afraid that you probably shouldn't write about your friends, as that is a conflict of interest. Also, most YouTubers are not eligible for articles. Subscriber counts are meaningless on WIkipedia, only significant media coverage counts. Most YouTubers don't meet that standard, alas. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

RayanTDM YouTuber who sells pirated songs like Muffin Time or O banana he also wants to make a video of every game in the world!

22:33:43, 22 January 2020 review of submission by John Johnson Gallery[edit]

John Johnson Gallery (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Just what I did this account and I started this article about this artist that seems worth considering. In the future I will contribute to the improvement of articles on wikipedia.

January 23[edit]

10:57:19, 23 January 2020 review of draft by Rathee nag[edit]

Rathee nag (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

11:15:40, 23 January 2020 review of draft by HP7wiki[edit]

I am requesting help as I don't know specifically what I have done wrong or how i can better the article in order for it to be published. Could i please get additional help and guidance as I am confused. HP7wiki (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi HP7wiki. The bulk of any article should come from sources independent of the subject. Fourteen of the draft's eighteen sources are the company's website or YouTube channel. Three more are from an organization that partnered with them. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites only one. So you need to find at least two more, throw away the text you've written, and rewrite the draft using the independent sources.
Also, the only independent source so far,, fails verification. That page doesn't say won the Best Website Award at the UK national Asian Media Awards for 2013, 2015, and 2017. Possibly you can find a deeper link on that site that does support the claim. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

12:58:58, 23 January 2020 review of draft by Saharraz98[edit]

I am requesting for an update on my re-review, published about 3 weeks ago. Thank you.

Saharraz98 (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Saharraz98: Please be patient, drafts may take five months or longer at this point to be reviewed. JTP (talkcontribs) 15:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

14:27:28, 23 January 2020 review of draft by Tlaserx[edit]

I'm requesting help because I have two questions. I am a published author in the industry that I work in. Published in multiple industry magazines that are in print. So my Wikipedia edits typically revolve around the industry as a whole. However as I understand it, Wikipedia editors need to be broader in their choices for edits? I was encouraged to speak on more topics perhaps unrelated to the industry. Is that a requirement or is that more to prove I am not a shill for a particular company?

Next, one of the articles I wanted to create was about a new device in our industry that one of the manufacturers released. It has a US patent and is currently only sold by one company. How do I source and provide reference for the article without referencing the main page where the information on the device is contained? Any advice would be very appreciated. or even a link to some good training videos maybe? Sincerely, Tom... Tlaserx (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

16:50:28, 23 January 2020 review of draft by Kunigonde[edit]

I do not understand how to get my article from the user page where it seems to be currently to the sandbox for publication. NotTheFakeJTP wrote "We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer."

I do not understand what "extra text above your entry" means. The heading?? Thank you for your help!

Kunigonde (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Kunigonde Your draft submission here User:Kunigonde/sandbox has no content. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kunigonde: Is it the article on Tatjana Masurenko that is on your user page, User:Kunigonde? If so, someone can move it to a better location, such as User:Kunigonde:Tatjana Masurenko. This will create a redirect that you can then edit to make a user page, or simply to remove the redirect and give yourself a blank user page. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

22:08:38, 23 January 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:1221:8C47:1066:B82C:8189:9D61[edit]

2605:E000:1221:8C47:1066:B82C:8189:9D61 (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Topic is not notable, fails WP:BAND. Theroadislong (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

22:27:43, 23 January 2020 review of submission by Jordan.miller296[edit]

Jordan.miller296 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi David, you rejected a page I was trying to create last month on the basis of not relevant. Recently, the group in question crossed 100,000 streams and received mention in several online articles. I believe they're as relevant as many artists with pages. Given the new information, I ask you reconsider.

Thank you so much for all you do.

Hi Jordan.miller296. If you wish to communicate with a specific editor, use some type of notification template, as described at Help:Talk pages. The draft was rejected for being not notable. The number of streams is irrelevant to notability. If they've been written about in depth by multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, that could establish notability. But Google searches of web, news, and books for "Know Wonder" along with the name Taeleifi returns zero such sources, so there isn't much hope for the topic. If articles about other artists exist with such poor sourcing, they should be improved or deleted.
Go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, a list of sources Wikipedians have found useful in writing about albums and musicians. If you can show WP:THREE sources from that list, someone may be willing to reconsider the rejection. If not, try a different topic, we have over six million to choose from. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

January 24[edit]

02:47:10, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Rulercoaches[edit]

This draft was declined for person that I believe meets the requirements for Wikipedia. It was stated that it reads like an advertisement. He does not sell anything so I am not sure what it means. I removed a list of articles he has written as maybe that was the concern but there were no specific comments on what was needed. I also received a troubling message saying that I need to review PAID and COI. I read both and PAID definitely does not apply. For the COI link, that can be pretty subjective and likely determined that anyone can have a COI with creating a draft. The only connection I have is meeting him on a tour of the facility and taking a picture. Was impressed with his work so submitted an article on him. I am not sure if that amounts to the COI stated in the rules. Can you direct me to what is needed here? I need to know what else would be considered advertising and anything else needed for the draft.--Rulercoaches (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the main issue would be the potential conflict of interest which you partially addressed above. Topic does seem notable per WP:NACADEMIC due to the named chair. For WP:PAID, keep in mind that it can also qualify you even if you were not paid directly. If you are being paid by an institution and they are requiring you to do this as part of your job, that would still be considered paid. Also, if he asked you or someone else asked you to create the page that would qualify under WP:COI. Whatever the case may be, disclosure is required if it applies. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

05:50:56, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Mazharul101[edit]

I was a new user of wikipedia and i did not know how to write wikipedia article at first. But I took time, I leaned about Wikipedia, how it works and how to write good articles. Here I am with my first article about a very popular Internet company of Bangladesh.

I am sorry because I provided a few information about this company when I first wrote this article, but now I know much information about this company and I think many people will be helpful with this information. I learning how to be a good wikipedia article writer, I am trying to contribute many other article where I believe I have some expertise. Mazharul101 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there still are insufficient references to review the draft. Please review WP:REFB for help on finding and adding sources. Since this is a company, there is a high threshold of notability that must be demonstrated through WP:ORGCRIT. Please follow both links and provide references showing how the topic is notable. Once you are done you can resubmit or ask someone here to do it for you. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

14:12:33, 24 January 2020 review of draft by Radarman444[edit]

I was asked by a leading authority on Cranch to update the Wiki article on John Cranch, English Painter. As (according to him - I have no knowledge myself) the current article contains several errors, there are several guesses masquerading as facts and much of the article has simply been abstracted from the Net, continuing the errors from those original sources, he thought it impossible to merely correct the article but felt that it needed a complete rewrite.

I have received various comments, most of them extremely unhelpful, irrelevant or wrong e.g.

@Radarman444: Hello. Please read WP:AUTOPROB for advice on how to deal with inaccuracies in an article about oneself. Any content you add to the existing article should be traceable back to a published source. Information your friend has about their relative based only on their personal experiences isn't suitable for adding to a Wikipedia article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

<My reply>"I must admit to being a bit puzzled here; maybe because I'm a newbie. (a) How is "advice about inaccuracies in an article about oneself" relevant when the painter in question died 200 years ago. (b) The information about Cranch is not based only on personal experience as, again, Cranch died 200 years ago. My friend has written a learned book on Cranch and so can be seen as an authority on the man. Radarman444 (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)"

 The latest is from Theroadislong in response to my updating the original Cranch article -

"This content is not written in the formal tone that an encyclopedia article requires, it may contain original research and the sources are incorrectly formatted, it would be better if you made smaller incremental changes to the existing article rather than replacing it wholesale with inferior content."

Before making the edits to the article, I placed a rough preview of the article I wished to submit on the Talk page of the original article with a request for comments, objections etc as I realised that the original author might have had some concerns. Having had no feedback, I asked for guidance on what to do and, having no replies, I went ahead and published the article, properly formatted as far as I can tell. The rejection from Theroadislong seems to be referring to the rough draft rather than the final article. Either way, it contains no useful help that would enable me to correct our article if there are errors.

In my replies, I have admitted my newbie status, asked for helpful comments and tried to be polite. If I can't get any helpful comments, we will have to withdraw the new article and leave the original, erroneous, article in place. A great shame.

Radarman444 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Radarman444 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Radarman444: Editors are expected to edit on their own initiative, not at the behest of someone else. Editing for a friend creates a conflict of interest. It may not be as strong a conflict as if you were editing about yourself, your family, or your friend, but the same principles apply. Much has been written about how to edit Wikipedia, but there isn't a write-up about every possible situation. Busy volunteers will point you to canned responses and expect you to understand their deeper meaning and how they apply to you. If someone advised you to look both ways and hold your mother's hand when crossing the road, and you dismissed that in a huff as "extremely unhelpful, irrelevant or wrong" because you want to cross a railway line and you are an orphan, the person trying to help you might not be terribly upset if you got run over by a train.
You write that someone who is "a leading authority on" and "probably the closest living relative of John Cranch" asked you to update the article, but don't name them. Do you mean John W. Lamble, the author of John Cranch: Uncommon Genius : The Life and Achievements of a Self-taught Polymath, Artist and Wit from Devonshire (Wolborough Press, 2019)? If so, that raises other problems. As a relative of Cranch, he has a conflict of interest when writing a book about him. There's a third conflict of interest when he cites his own book (or pulls your puppet strings to have you do so). Lamble may be a leading authority on Cranch, and may have "written a learned book" about him, but there are reasons to be cautious. Lamble's credentials are unclear. He hasn't written anything else in the field. His book is the first one published by the publisher. Neither of them have a proven track record and reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The book is held by only two WorldCat libraries. That can indicate that librarians don't regard it as a scholarly work. And the book hasn't received any reviews in academic journals or in the popular press, which raises another red flag.
All that being said, Wikipedia values accuracy. If John Cranch (English painter) contains false statements and "guesses masquerading as facts", then Wikipedia is interested those errors being fixed and those opinions being attributed. This page, however, is for questions about creating articles on new topics, the Articles for creation process. It is not the right forum in which to discuss updating an existing article. That discussion should take place on Talk:John Cranch (English painter). As Theroadislong commented there, dumping your preferred text there is not a productive way to create consensus for the changes you want made. You would be better off requesting incremental changes one point at a time. The {{request edit}} template, if used correctly, is highly effective. For example, you could copy and paste the following text to the talk page:

==Proposed change to museum holdings==
{{request edit}}
*Change: <nowiki>There is a picture by him in the [[South Kensington Museum]].</nowiki>
*To: <nowiki>There is a picture by him in the [[Victoria and Albert Museum]].<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=Playing with Baby |website=Victoria and Albert Museum |access-date=27 January 2020}}</ref></nowiki>
*Explanation of issue: The original source, Stephen (1888), is outdated. The name of the museum changed in 1899.

If you are unable to identify the errors and guesses, and cite specific pages in specific sources for the new text you want, then you may not be the right person to spearhead the updating of the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

14:54:55, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Rebeccamchung[edit]

I need point by point guidance on which use of sources create the impression that this artist lacks notability. She is a founding member of a significant artist's movement (Cass Corridor artists). She is cofounder of most of the most signficant literary small presses of the twentieth century. She is one of be best-known regional artists in Michigan. She collected by significant institutions and her entire archive has been purchased by a world-ranked university (University of Michigan Ann-Arbor). Most recently, her work was gifted to Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who has hung the piece on her wall.

I'm happy to rewrite to make these points more directly. I have sources. I need point by point guidance, please, on the areas of this submission that have caused concerns.

Many thanks,

Rebecca Rebeccamchung (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rebeccamchung, Howdy hello! So I took a look, and I have some notes. In terms of sourcing, you are actually good I would say. However, some other issues remain. The style and tone is not very encyclopedic, and it borders on promotional. Some suggestions:
  • The name dropping, such as at the end of the alt press section, is totally unnecessary.
  • Order: our articles are in chronological order, thus early life should go first, then alt press, then at the end you can discuss her style
  • The lead is far too dense. It should summarize the article, and be easy and pleasant to read. The list of exhibitions is not suited for a lead, and will just be glossed over. Perhaps note three or so of the most prominent, but no more.
  • Make sure there are no external links in the body. They can exist in an "External links" section at the end if you desire
  • Ensure, generally, that the article is neutral in tone, and reads like a formal encyclopedia article, not an essay or other form of casual prose
  • The list of exhibitions, collections, etc, is too long, and ought get cut down
  • The further reading should use the Template:cite book (or other appropriate citation template)
  • I don't see any mention of her death in the body? Do you have any obituaries, or sources that discuss her death date?
The subject is almost certainly notable, the article just needs some cleaning up. If you have questions or concerns, please ask on my talk page, as I will not see your reply here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

16:16:59, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Edugossip[edit]

There is no possible copyright violation as I hold the copyright. I am grateful for your review and hope the article will be placed into the knowledge-base. Thank you.

Edugossip (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Edugossip: Wikipedia articles are different to academic essay writing. Such content usually needs to be rewritten almost completely to comply with our standards. The most important policies are no original research and no synthesis of sources. In short, you cannot draw conclusions or combine sources. For example, "Every human on the planet ought to care about providing [..]" is original research. Or "Taken together, these examples point to [..]" is synthesis. These are two things that are not only present, but encouraged in academic works, but which Wikipedia cannot accept. When citing a source, you have to include content only directly present. You also have to include all major viewpoints, which means you cannot only include sources to support a given narrative. Finally, the article has to be about a specific topic supported by multiple independent reliable in-depth sources and I am fairly certain that "Theory of self-transcendence and social change" is a title you came up with yourself. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

19:47:06, 24 January 2020 review of draft by Sarvmangal[edit]

I want to add source |translated from Rag parichay,|part 1,|page no.62,|written by Harishchander Shrivastva,|publisher sangeet sadan|Prayagraj Sarvmangal (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you find more sources besides one that is offline? Are there some books, newspapers or magazines that explain the term? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

21:44:36, 24 January 2020 review of submission by John Johnson Gallery[edit]

Please assist me make this article publishable. Is an emergent artist and I think the he deserves an article on the Wikipedia.

John Johnson Gallery (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please assist me to publish this page.

thank you

John Johnson Gallery (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

how can improve please
I m new
I do not understand everything
is so hard to assist me ?

BG J. Johnson (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

He would need to pass WP:NARTIST which of these criteria fits do you think.
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • 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.

I'm not sure that he passes any of them? Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@BG J. Johnson: (edit conflict) It has been two days and there are thousands of draft, please be patient as we are all volunteers. Don't create multiple help requests. Do not remove the red banner at the top of the draft, this only hinders future reviews. It also looks like you created a second account, which is not really allowed; you must normally use one account.
As for the draft, Wikipedia requires multiple independent reliable in-depth sources for an article to be accepted. The Roman newspaper is good, although the 2 article wouldn't really count as separate sources. The TV section is good, but very brief. It's not clear who the author of ICAC review is and it looks like self-publised source. Express Cultural is very brief and I am unsure about who exactly contributes to it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

January 25[edit]

00:09:07, 25 January 2020 review of draft by Sociable Song[edit]

The article I'm attempting to create already exists in many languages on Wikipedia. A similar English article can be created by splitting from the more general article Pipeline transport. But the edit activity on that article is quite low, even for a topic of that importance. Thus I have been waiting on the talk page for many months. I think my splitting is following the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and topic separation. In fact, that's why there are already articles for "Oil pipelines" in other languages. (Also I have no idea what this code is doing and what I'm supposed to copy-paste in the question/request help desk. Sorry.) Sociable Song (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sociable Song (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Splitting oil pipeline from the general pipeline transport article requires a discussion on the pipeline transport talk page. If there is consensus to split, then the article can be boldly created and not require a draft. However, if there is no consensus to split then it should remain a redirect to its current section in that article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sociable Song: I've weighed in at Talk:Pipeline transport#Giving the oil and gas pipeline their own articles. If you're interested in improving the article, there are many more useful things to do than split it:
  • A natural question is, "What is the most common type of pipeline?" My guess is hydrocarbons pipelines, but our article is silent on the matter. See if you can find an estimate of the number of kilometres of pipeline by type, or maybe the volume transported by type.
  • The lede concludes with the sentence "Pipelines are one of the safest way of transporting materials as compared to road or rail and hence in war, pipelines are often the target of military attacks." That's ridiculous. They may be one of the safest ways of transporting materials, and in war time they may often be targeted, but they aren't targeted because they're safest. Sure enough, that isn't a summary of anything in the body. Instead, the body says "In war, pipelines are often the target of military attacks, as destruction of pipelines can seriously disrupt enemy logistics." That's more plausible, but it cites no source.
  • The "as targets" section reads, "Pipelines can be the target of vandalism, sabotage, or even [why even?] terrorist attacks. For example, ... In 2019, a fuel pipeline north of Mexico City exploded after fuel thieves tapped into the line. At least sixty-six people were reported to have been killed." The reader expects Mexico City to be a second example of "vandalism, sabotage, or terrorist attacks", but it's a fourth type, targeting by thieves. And why use that example? It isn't the first time it has happened in Mexico, and it happens with some regularity elsewhere in the world, such as in Nigeria and India. Rather than using a news source for a recent event, it would be better to cite a scholarly source about the risks of pipelines being targeted.
  • A Forbes blog is cited several times, but according to WP:RS/PS, such contributor blogs by non-experts are not reliable for facts.
--Worldbruce (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

14:57:23, 25 January 2020 review of submission by ClocksRule[edit]

ClocksRule (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

ClocksRule, This person does not seem to be notable. We only cover folks who have multiple reliable and independent sources that give them significant coverage, which this individual seems to lack. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

20:15:24, 25 January 2020 review of draft by Grimefan1998[edit]


I have created this draft:

The first version was declined due to "Submission is improperly sourced"

I have attempted to improve the quality/reliability of the sources in further edits since that review.

However, is there any steer on what is needed to get the sources up to scratch? It says it might take 3 months for the next review. I feel I am flying blind a little right now and don't want to see 3 months pass only for another article rejection for similar reasons.


Grimefan1998 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grimefan1998. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is a list of sources Wikipedians have found useful for writing about albums and musicians. If your sources are from the reliable section of that list, that's a good start. Then concentrate on how independent they are. Are the sources based on journalism or press releases, or are they primary source interviews where the musician talks about themself without critical analysis by the interviewer? Finally, consider whether they contain significant coverage of the musician, at least several paragraphs instead of brief mentions.
I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that may make you feel less at sea. While you wait for the next review of the draft, edit existing articles. You'll learn more and more quickly that way than through reviews of the draft. If you aren't sure where to start, seek out a WikiProject in your area of interest, or see Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

22:22:15, 25 January 2020 review of draft by TK421bsod[edit]

I found a draft article about a pseudonym that a person used. The person that used the pseudonym doesn't have an article. How would I say that the article might need to be moved? TK421bsod (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi TK421bsod. If you wish to communicate with the author(s) and/or potential future reviewers, use the draft's talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

January 26[edit]

06:50:03, 26 January 2020 review of submission by Md. Zahirul Islam 1987[edit]

Md. Zahirul Islam 1987 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Md. Zahirul Islam 1987, The draft has been deleted so we cannot help you. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

08:13:26, 26 January 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:141F:5155:C0FB:E435:882F:2F8E[edit]

just added in more text Ill edit it after 2605:E000:141F:5155:C0FB:E435:882F:2F8E (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't recommend you edit further. It does not seem to be notable. We do not write about everything on Wikipedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 11:38:19, 26 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by RomanceLove88[edit]

I noticed about the series I watched the Tooniverse channel Please you need to Learn Korean Language. And can you help me please. The Series is awesome for children!

The user korean created the page for the characters and the series. you guys need to create the page korean please click here to read korean and then create the page.

Main Article신비아파트

was created in 2014 the pilot name The Haunted House Number 444 click here.신비아파트_444호

Series:신비아파트:_고스트_볼의_비밀 Season 1 Episode 1-24신비아파트:_고스트볼_X의_탄생 The Season 2 name is The Birth of The Ghost Ball X Part 1 Episode 1-13 Part 2 1-10신비아파트_시즌_3 Season 3 2020

Movies:신비아파트:_금빛_도깨비와_비밀의_동굴 The Haunted House: The Secret of the Cave Movie 1극장판_신비아파트:_하늘도깨비_대_요르문간드 Movie 2

Drama:신비아파트_외전:_기억,_하리 Season 1신비아파트_외전:_기억,_하리_2 Season 2신비아파트_외전:_연애공식_구하리&action=edit&redlink=1 Season 3

Games:신비아파트_고스트헌터 Getcha Ghost신비아파트_고스트_시그널&action=edit&redlink=1 Ghost Signal

Channels: Official Channel Tooniverse Channel

See also:

RomanceLove88 (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

RomanceLove88, Howdy hello! We're not just going to learn Korean. This is the English Wikipedia. If you do not feel proficient contributing in English, you would be more than welcome to help out at the Korean Wikipedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
RomanceLove88 A few points. Yes, there are several articles about the series on the Korean Language Wikipedia. And there a place to request that articles in other languages be translated into english (Wikipedia:Translation). *But*. the Korean language articles have *zero* citations. Each Wikipedia has different rules and simply copying the information on the Korean Language Wikipedia would not create articles that would meet the standards of the English Language Wikipedia. References do not have to be in English, but they still need to meet the standards. (See WP:CITE). If cited correctly, notability is probably not a problem.Naraht (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

11:44:13, 26 January 2020 review of submission by John.sewaa[edit]

John.sewaa (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

John.sewaa, I'm afraid the subject is not sufficiently notable. Not everyone can be written about on WIkipedia, only those who have recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, and this person seems to fail that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

23:42:15, 26 January 2020 review of draft by Brenchristo[edit]

Brenchristo (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Brenchristo, The main issue here: is the subject notable? How do they meet some part of the author notability guidelines? If you can tell me how they meet some part of that guideline, I can then help you improve the article so that it can be published. But if she is not notable, then I'm afraid I can't be of assistance, as we only write about notable subjects. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I need help to edit my draft submission My Draft - BRENDA MOHAMMED was declined on 21st December by Muriel Mary. This is what she said: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I have since edited the draft and added additional references and removed those that are not suitable.

Please advise what else I need to do.

January 27[edit]

01:35:06, 27 January 2020 review of draft by Kulotchii[edit]

Hi, I am seeing other articles that reference social media posts such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. My subject is a vlogger which is why most of his updates are in social media. Up to what extent can social media media references be used?

Kulotchii (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kulotchii: Social media is a primary source and it can be used only for basic uncontroversial facts. Furthermore, biographies must not rely on primary sources at all. Occasionally, we quote what someone said, but it should be avoided. A single external link to their social profile is acceptable if it is used in the capacity of their official website/online pretense. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are not well-written and break these rules and should eventually be fixed, so you shouldn't use them for comparison. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

08:05:11, 27 January 2020 review of submission by Dhisodhulkaaga[edit]

Hello David the reason I'm submitting this article is that Suubbis is a famous and popular company in Somalia and they wanted to get noted in Wikipedia as one of the companies in Somalia that are recentely famous. so I need from you to help me to get this article in Wikipedia Thank you. Dhisodhulkaaga (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dhisodhulkaaga: Wikipedia does not publish articles unless they have multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. This means publications like newspapers, books, etc. Most companies are not notable. Wikipedia doesn't use measures like "famous" or "popular", only reliable independent sourcing. Unless you have such sources, there's nothing we can do to get it published. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

help me to correct it[edit]

10:33:09, 27 January 2020 review of submission by Hello2India[edit]

 10:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}}

 10:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello2India (talkcontribs)  

12:12:07, 27 January 2020 review of submission by Shadowsapotheosis[edit]

I am requesting a re-review because the subject was not "notable enough", I have added more sources where they have covered the subject. If you need me to add even more, I can. I just need to visit one of the libraries in my area.

Shadowsapotheosis (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This topic is still not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

16:45:16, 27 January 2020 review of submission by Tapon Mahamud Jony[edit]

Engjony 16:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Hello. I have submitted the draft of article for review. The reviewers have explained reasons for its denial too. I have given an explanation to them and also made changes to the previous draft. Is it still denied or submitted for review again? Please guide me to publish my article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony (talkcontribs) 16:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tapon Mahamud Jony: If you are writing about yourself, don't. It is very hard, and unlikely, to get your own Wikipedia page. If you were actually notable, someone else would have written an article about you. Not having a Wikipedia article isn't a bad thing, I don't have one, and neither do most of the 8 billion living people. I have rejected your draft as not notable, and suggest you do not resubmit. It was not greatly improved since the last submission, and much work would needed to have been done. But no amount of work can overcome a lack of notability. We don't write about everyone on Wikipedia I'm afraid. I suggest you find something else to edit. If you would like some suggestions on other places or things to edit, leave a note on my talk page and I can try to help you out. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

18:57:51, 27 January 2020 review of draft by Lauriebreath[edit]

I found two spelling errors ("Monatgue" instead of "Montague" in the article I submitted, which has progressed from the Sandbox to "Draft". How do I correct these? Sorry, I'm sure this is probably easy but I can't figure it out.

Lauriebreath (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Lauriebreath, You may simply press the edit button atop the page (see Help:Editing for a complete guide). I also note that in order to get your draft published, you'll need to make more and significant edits to show that the subject is notable. Please ask here if you are confused about that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

January 28[edit]

06:31:43, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Pjanderson47[edit]

The subject of the page that I write, Joshua C. Dixon, appears newsworthy in that: 1) the subject (at eight years old) was attacked and brutally mauled by dogs 2) semi-recovery took ten years, yet doctors are unable to recover his loss of sight in one eye 3) the subject of the article suffered ridicule/loss of self-esteem/depression and continues a healing process through art therapy 4) the Chicago Tribune newspaper of 8/25/2017 experienced the highest readership of that year 5) Dixon continues on a path of healing through art while pursuing Bachelor's of Fine Arts at School of Art Institute of Chicago My original article was deleted due to ambiguous and promotional information. Consequently, I turned to the sandbox to rewrite in a more definitive manner. Yet, because my writing is based on referenced articles, it seemed fitting to utilize quotes in order to lessen ambiguity. Regarding promotional intent, the subject's artwork has earned legitimate honor. Finally, today's entry (in my sandbox) points to the subject, Dixon, as being "NOT SUFFICIENTLY NOTABLE" for inclusion. I understand this likely translates to notability limited over a short period of time. I appreciate your feedback; I continue to learn the site's guidelines, and I appreciate any assistance you might offer. Respectfully Pjanderson47 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Pamela Anderson Pjanderson47Pjanderson47 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

How to declare COI?[edit]

07:16:49, 28 January 2020 review of draft by Sharmila Basnet[edit]

I have no any conflict of interest on creating an article on Lyricist Ramesh Dahal. I personally do not know but known a lot about him from his musical work. I created this article only to bring such a popular lyricist out to the world. I am stocked to solve the issue of COI, although I do not have any. This is why kindly please help me to get rid of this problem. Thanks Sharmila Basnet 07:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

07:21:07, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Sharmila Basnet[edit]

{{Lafc|username=Sharmila Basnet|ts=07:21:07, 28 January 2020|page= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmila Basnet (talkcontribs)