Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 737: Line 737:
::::Hi {{ping|Squeeps10}}, thanks for replying. I'm not sure what quirks are. Can you please explain or give an example? [[User:Nabila4535|Nabila4535]] ([[User talk:Nabila4535|talk]]) 21:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Hi {{ping|Squeeps10}}, thanks for replying. I'm not sure what quirks are. Can you please explain or give an example? [[User:Nabila4535|Nabila4535]] ([[User talk:Nabila4535|talk]]) 21:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Nabila4535}}, A "quirk" is a small, insignificant trait or feature. In this case, I'm using the word to mean minor issues with formatting, although after going back through the article, I was only able to find two small issues, both of which I fixed. You can probably go ahead and resubmit your article now. It may be some time before it's reviewed again, due to a large backlog at the moment, but we'll get to it eventually. '''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Nabila4535}}, A "quirk" is a small, insignificant trait or feature. In this case, I'm using the word to mean minor issues with formatting, although after going back through the article, I was only able to find two small issues, both of which I fixed. You can probably go ahead and resubmit your article now. It may be some time before it's reviewed again, due to a large backlog at the moment, but we'll get to it eventually. '''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|Squeeps10}} Great, I'll resubmit. Thank you so much![[User:Nabila4535|Nabila4535]] ([[User talk:Nabila4535|talk]]) 21:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|Squeeps10}}
::::::Great, I'll resubmit. Thank you so much![[User:Nabila4535|Nabila4535]] ([[User talk:Nabila4535|talk]]) 21:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::You're very welcome! If you have any other questions feel free to ask here or at [[User talk:Squeeps10|my talk page]]. Cheers! '''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


== 21:02:58, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Tejaskapoor22 ==
== 21:02:58, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Tejaskapoor22 ==

Revision as of 22:37, 12 May 2020

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


May 6

00:53:11, 6 May 2020 review of draft by Amielalcala


Reviewer said that, "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." Amielalcala (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Amielalcala (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:34:39, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Davidwomackpr

Davidwomackpr (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC) I am a notable figure. If not, What is considered "notable" news stations and Radio shows have mentioned my plans to change entertainment Davidwomackpr (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidwomackpr Are you yourself David Womack? (your name is "David Womack PR" as in public relations, suggesting you might not be David). Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. Once you meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, of what you have done, not what you will do, independent editors will take note of your career and write about you. A Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. If you just want to tell the world about yourself and how you will change entertainment, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do not allow people to commit PR in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:20:08, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Silvertopbeauty


Hello, I have supplied better sources that seem to show the notability of Rick Glassman. I'm open to any recommendations and advice to get this article published. Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,

Elliott

Silvertopbeauty (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silvertopbeauty, The reviewer has rejected your article which means they determined there's zero chance of demonstrating notability at this time. I would agree with this rejection, the subject currently fails WP:NACTOR Sulfurboy (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:29:40, 6 May 2020 review of submission by MrConnieGenius

It is true that a previous link to this book elsewhere on Wikipedia (as just cited in the rejection notice) was removed for being a personal promotional link and not being a bona-fide work of literature however, please know that those reviewers themselves, after actually taking the time to look at the bibliographic details, realized their mistake and reinstated the link. I believe they were so quick to judge primarily due to the "colorful" title of the work as well as the modernist cover photo, both of which defy expectations of what a novel from Iran should look like. It would be more "proper" if the cover had some religious fanatic women dressed in black robes with machine guns but this, whoa, a story about some badass blogger in Iran who talks just like you and me, how can it be?! In fact, this is the very reason I am "promoting" this non-commercial, non-mainstream, alternative work available as a FREE, PDF download. I am trying to overcome stereotypes. The author of the novel is up for the prestigious international Hans Christian Andersen Award (stalled due to Covid-9) yet the general public is unaware such a progressive writer exists precisely because his works are hard to access. Is not Wikipedia's raison d'être to include such works? I would not have been surprised if the article had been rejected due to technical faults (the big publishing houses have a whole staff of tech-savvy experts to promote their books on social media whereas I am just doing the best I can) but I was not expecting that previous rejection (since corrected and accepted) to come back and haunt me. MrConnieGenius (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrConnieGenius, It's weird that, in a message where you claim that your book article isn't promotional, you somehow figure out a way to further promote the book (FREE, PDF download). Unfortunately, your article has been rejected which mean it will not be considered further at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:03:44, 6 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 17u9e


I would like assistance to provide further information about the general topic about the Baron of Loughmoe/Loughmoe castle/Hugh Purcell of Loughmoe and so on. However, it is fairly obscure so when I create an article (except on one occasion) it is declined for "brief dicsussion and not an encyclopediac knowledge", but I have seen stubs on Wikipedia so I was wondering how they are accepted for Articles for creation and the ones I make not.

17u9e (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17u9e, Your article is not only non-notable, but is very poorly soured. I would look at WP:RS for a reference in the future about a reilable sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:10:45, 6 May 2020 review of submission by 27.54.149.1


27.54.149.1 (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:22:54, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Princepratap1234

I don't understand ,how can this article fail notability as she has appeared in many television shows and many music videos.

Prince 09:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Being on a reality show doesn't make you notable. Three editors concur that this subject has zero chance of demonstrating notability at this time. Please do not submit again.Sulfurboy (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:27:43, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Abigail Tetteh


Abigail Tetteh (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My page has been deleted and I cant't access my user sandbox anymore.Meanwhile,I want to create a new article.How do I go about this?

@Abigail Tetteh: Your sandbox should still be available to you. However, the preferred way to submit a draft article is to go via the article wizard or articles for creation and create a new submission in draftspace. Please remember, as previously notified to you, not to use content taken from elswhere. Thank you. Before beginning a new draft I would recommend that you review the guide to creating an article and links at your talk page. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:29, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Princepratap1234

Can't you see whole article or whole FILMOGRAPHY just focusing on reality show How this article is not notable ,he has done web series as lead actor and TV shows besides reality show and what about this article Divya Agarwal,Shehnaaz Kaur Gill , how can this article be notable then . Why different rules for different people.

Prince 14:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Agarwal was a redirect until a now-blocked sock restored the article content. I've reverted it back to a redirect for now as I don't see how they pass notability. Gill was kept at an AFD discussion in January, you can read the reasons there. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:03:16, 6 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Ronjohn


I would like to see a page created for Moomoo online trading platform by Moomoo Inc. www.moomoo.com Ron John (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronjohn, This isn't the place to make requests for new pages. Also, the subject doesn't look to be notable, so creating a new page for it would be futile. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:30:06, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Mushusasa


Please give me some instructions so that we can overcome the problem together. The identical page already exists in Serbian and Russian page Mushusasa (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, the business would need to pass the criteria at WP:NCORP to be acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:55, 6 May 2020 review of submission by KennyParis

Hello! I have made changes to the page i have created for the artists Picard Brothers like requested and I'd like to know if my sources are now OK please ? Many thanks for your help.

KennyParis (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:56, 6 May 2020 review of draft by 2601:240:CB00:70B0:75A9:CC5C:150E:BFF1


Hello, I am seeking advice on publishing a page. I have run into issues on my content being too promotional. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines and have included sources from third-parties. Can you please point to which specific items in my copy are too promotional? 2601:240:CB00:70B0:75A9:CC5C:150E:BFF1 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no substantive content; there is merely a rule-breaking list of expos they produced, and a similar rule-breaking list of obscure publications they put out, each one with a nice fat spammy URL. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:19:27, 6 May 2020 review of submission by NG AGM

Could you tell me why this article is published on Wikitia.com https://wikitia.com/wiki/Sanusi_Mohammed_Ohiare

Also what does this mean? Can I still publish on wikipedia, if i update the draft? NG AGM (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikitia is a tiny obscure wiki specializing in feel-good content and sourcing articles to videos as well as to text, so their standards are obviously quite different from those of Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let me re-clarify my question. How did the article get on Wikitia? I did not post it on there.

− NG AGM (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NG AGM: Every time you click "Publish changes" on Wikipedia you grant anyone and everyone the right to copy and modify what you've written. Many websites copy content from Wikipedia. Wikitia is evidently one. It is probably set up to copy all content automatically, but no one here knows or cares how or why Wikitia copied the page, because we have no connection to Wikitia. If you want more information about their operations, you should ask on their website. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

00:34:20, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Mr. Bikaneri


Mr. Bikaneri (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bikaneri, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:22:48, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Amazingth


Amazingth (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


She is an Actress of CH7HD Thailand and won Miss Southest Asia Tourism Ambassadress 2019 in Malaysia

Neither of those things demonstrate notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:16, 7 May 2020 review of draft by Adockraal


Hello , i keep on editing this article as draft but when i submit it get declined am looking for an assistant now , Thanks Adockraal (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adockraal, What do you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:13:43, 7 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Adockraal


Help me with my draft Articles Anele Mdoda


Adockraal (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adockraal, What did you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

Please remove the notice of speed deletion on Draft:Amit Bhadana (yutuber) made by me. this is not right. This is an Indian YouTuber article which is the most subscribed YouTuber in India. Do not look at this from the perspective of advertising. I am very sad. I gave the correct reference. There is no reason to delete an article that was previously deleted. Whoever has done this may be jealous of India. Only then does one delete that article repeatedly. I request you to keep that article on Wikipedia. Many Indian YouTuber articles are available on Wikipedia. While there are not many good references among them, they are still on Wikipedia. And I have seen many articles which are without reference.


Mary urges you to contribute that article - and keep it on Wikipedia. Because maybe I made a mistake. I request you. Please edit that article. And remove the notice of deletion on it.

Understand my feelings

Draft:Amit Bhadana (yutuber)

Mr. Bikaneri (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bikaneri, Accusing a reviewer of prejudice is probably not a good way to seek advice. You can contest the deletion on the talk page, which it looks like you've already done. This is not the venue for it. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:13:55, 7 May 2020 review of submission by 2402:3A80:1913:909F:6998:1191:CF9D:2B3A


2402:3A80:1913:909F:6998:1191:CF9D:2B3A (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:38:53, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Temi Akindele

Hi team, I am a Christian musician and I am a verified artist on Spotify and Apple music. I see that other Christian Artists have a wikipedia profile or artile about them whenever you search for them on Google. Some of my fans have asked why I do not have an article on wikipedia so they can know a bit more information about me and that is just what I am trying to do. Can you please advice on how I can go about this?

Regards, Temi Temi Akindele (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @HickoryOughtShirt?4: as the deleting admin but I suspect it was a blatant advertisement. @Temi Akindele: Pleas e note that a Wikipedia article about you is not always desireable. Further, please note that ther is not a single person or organisation out there that have an article about them on Wikipedia, it is Wikipedia that has an article about them (Yes, that's a difference). Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ya sorry Temi Akindele content like His first official single ‘Still God’ is currently making waves and having strong impact all over the world helping God’s children realize the true purpose of serving God. He is passionate about using his gift and talent to praise God in every way doesn't fly here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:44, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Luke Seeber


Luke Seeber (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke Seeber: I see a bunch of problems here:


Thanks. Will try to find some reliable and independent sources. Will take a look at the suggestions as I am not sure how to maintain a neutral point of view as it provides information directly linked to the company without any back-links. Not affiliated with the company, trying to contribute to various topics within my occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Seeber (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:05, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Pt8340

This is more than 50 years old company. It has more 2.5 million customers worldwide. There are lot of coverage about it in independent, credible and reputated newspapers. This article is written fully neutral point of view. If anybody feel any word or sentence in it is promotional or advertisement please tell me I will correct them. This is following every policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. This should be live on Wikipedia's.

Pt8340 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DGG: as the last reviewer, but I suspect it's WP:TOSOON. @Pt8340: Please list your best WP:THREE below. You might want to read the following pages: Wikipedia:Relieable sources WP:INDEPENDENT WP:NCORP and last but not least WP:42. You might also want to fix the broken templates in the draft. If you don't know how to do that, ask me and I might do it for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
since the firm is 50 years old, I doubt TOO SOON applies--the problem that all he references seem either mere notices or press releases--the best, and its very short, seems to be the one from Arabianbusiness.com. completed-to-create-the-uaes-biggest-remittance-house. It can be very difficult getting good sources for firms such as this , but it will never pass a community discussion in this state. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:54, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Chef Abhishek Kumar


Chef Abhishek Kumar (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chef Abhishek Kumar: Your submission currently has zero reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please read WP:42. If you are the subject of the article, please be advised that we strongely discourage autobiographys. Further, I have to tell you that a wikipedia article about oneselves might not be desireable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:21:49, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Themajidi

Hello! I recently submitted a draft article on Zayn Africa (Musical Artist) with citations which includes interviews from notable Newspapers sources which are independent & secondary in Nigeria, Africa. It got declined. I need your assistance, please check to confirm. Thank you.

Themajidi (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:17, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Jrthpt

This entry presents a theoretical/conceptual model that aids organizations in dealing with and managing complexity. It is a new conceptual model and has been supported in a various publications (refereed and non-refereed). There is no advertisement of any company or product in this entry. This entry is not commercial, especially when compared to a number of currently published wikipedia articles. I could list more that a dozen here as I did in my last entry. This is not a commercial article, it is an article introducing a new conceptual model that has been supported by both industry and academia.

Why not let the community decide? Isn't this what wikipedia is geared toward, letting the public edit and alter as they see fit? Also, if there is a way to edit the submitted article please provide details. I can edit but I have gotten nowhere being redirected to a list of indexes on questions as they have not provided any information related to the comments received in the rejection of the submitted article.

John Jrthpt (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jrthpt You say "why not let the community decide?" the community HAS decided, your draft has been rejected because the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It also reads as promotional essay see WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTESSAY for more details. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:43:24, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Jrthpt

Please respond one section above.

Looking for advice on how to edit the submitted article for approval? Jrthpt (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Please don't open multiple threads. You can use "edit section" next to the section headings to edit a particular section. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:10, 7 May 2020 review of submission by MediaInputOman


unsure of what the problem is - all facts and correct MediaInputOman (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaInputOman (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaInputOman Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume. Please see Your first article for more information. If you work for or represent the subject, you must review and comply with the paid editing policy and the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:19, 7 May 2020 review of submission by DD Business



DD Business (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DD Business, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:27:55, 7 May 2020 review of submission by DD Business

Hey I am Yung 48’s manager. We wanted to make a Wikipedia page for his fans so they can read about him. We wounder why you declined our page. We are the only one who know Yung 48 and we are the one who can write things about him. He is a very popular artist and we thought it would be good if he had a wiki page. DD Business (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DD Business, The article has been rejected which means that a fellow reviewer judged the subject as having no shot of demonstrating notability. I would second this conclusion. Also, as his manager you need to properly disclose as a paid editor. I've posted the applicable information to your talk page. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:30:38, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Queenofboston

I scrupulously followed all editorial advice and provided numerous sources, including secondary independent sources. I see that another post with very few references that does not respect the advise I have been given as reason for rejecting my post has been approved within days of its creation. The post approved is The Europeans (podcast). The subject has less coverage and subsequently less external links and sources. Half of the references are to their own content, at odds with Wikipedia's policy that I have been communicated. I have been asked to review my posts for motives and requirements that were clearly not applied in the case of this new post for The Europeans (podcast). This was a lot of hard work and I take the Wikipedia policy seriously therefore I am very disenchanted to see double standards applied. Queenofboston (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queenofboston, Please see WP:INN. Your article has been rejected which means a fellow reviewer has deemed that there is no shot at demonstrating notability. As such, it will not be considered further. I would recommend in the future not creating articles that you have an apparent WP:COI with Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, I fully disclosed the WP:COI and followed the pathway for approval. The article I referred to did not disclose a conflict of interest although it is apparent from timing that it was made in consultation with the subject of the article, if not at the request of the subject of the article. Additionally, I have added more references to evidence WP:INN as requested and beyond what has been provided in approved articles I have used as reference. Please do not punish my content because of my full disclosure and honesty.

17:45:00, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Nebojsa.durmanovic


What exactly was the reason the page wasn't allowed to enter Wikipedia? I thought it had as much as relevant info as the P.S: Fashion page. There aren't enough references online for FUSH d.o.o. as it is. The company is an important company in the scope of Serbian companies and it deserves a Wikipedia page.

Nebojsa.durmanovic (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nebojsa.durmanovic, Per the decline message: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). 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. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:38:31, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Ronaldo1948


When my article on Matthews Southern Comfort was accepted yesterday, it was published as needing two citations in the introductory section. The first I have fixed by rephrasing the wording, the second by providing a reference to the album releases from Discogs. Having done that I am totally unsure of how to delete the Citation Needed maintenance flag. Rather than do something totally erroneous, could I ask an experienced editor who fully understands these things to please do it for me, as I don't really suffiiciently understand this aspect of Wikipedia. Thanks.

Ronaldo1948 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldo1948, It still looks like there are entire sections of text without inline cites, so the tag is appropriate. Also, discogs is not considered a reliable source. Please see WP:RS Sulfurboy (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:42, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Didgeri

As suggested, I have improved the references basis Wikipedia guidelines. Consider the request to kindly re-review the same and help in publishing the article. Didgeri (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didgeri, The article is still primarily sourced by press releases, blackhat seo sources, or are primary interviews. What's left is routine or doesn't show significant coverage. Further, the article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sulfurboy, This is absolutely vague. Could you please highlight which references look like press releases or blackhat SEO sources to you. Moreover please convey which references don't show significant coverage about the subject.

19:04:05, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Manwithcups

I'm wondering what further media sources I should include. I've references full articles about the subject webpage from The Austin Chronicle, BBC Trending and Daily Dot as well as various other articles that mention it in reference to the trend it started. What am I missing? Manwithcups (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manwithcups, Upon second review, I've decided to accept this. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:51:14, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Eternalstar007


Software companies have been able to list their apps with minimal citations in Wikipedia so users can view their history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PDF_software This is not a comprehensive list of all available applications, and articles on the listed software seem to provide minimal information and do not explain the history of the apps. Yet, my article was considered a press release? Should the article be stripped of its citations to press releases, citing version history? Otherwise, there appears to be some favoritism here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABBYY_FineReader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF_Studio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF_Expert_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF_Signer

Perhaps the article be revised to match FineReader, PDF Studio or PDF Experts?

Eternalstar007 (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternalstar007, Please see WP:INN. If you have issues with other pages, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion or tag them appropriately. Your article was overly promotional and rejected. As such, it will not be considered further at this time. Please in the future do not use Wikipedia for promotion. There are much better outlets for it. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


May 8

00:21:43, 8 May 2020 review of draft by 69.112.27.127

I don't understand why the article for Artist, Brian Testa is denied? This is the first of many articles AA2020 is publishing, what can we correct for future article publications?

69.112.27.127 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is AA2020? Are you a PR company? Who is the we in that sentence? You need to properly disclose your connection to the subject. Also, the subject fully fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. You have shown zero WP:SIGCOV of the subject and the group exhibitions they have been a part of are non-notable and not compelling. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:58:42, 8 May 2020 review of submission by Escritorcito333

I deleted the article. Escritorcito333 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:41:26, 8 May 2020 review of submission by Charles Oliver Burns


Charles Oliver Burns (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:53:23, 8 May 2020 review of submission by Alibeeeeeee

I've updated the submission with reputable citations from The West Australian newspaper, Channel 9 News, WA Today, and other additional independent articles but have still had a rejection. Could you please give some examples of how this could be improved?

Alibeeeeeee (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:51, 8 May 2020 review of submission by Akshatvg


This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it just gives a brief overview about a person. Right now the article Akshat Gupta redirects to a TV show which is not really what a user wants. You can check out by Google Searching "Akshat Gupta" and the link https://www.akshatvg.com comes up on the first page. This Wikipedia page was supposed to give details about the same person. If there are any specific changes or additions or deletions you would like me to do, please let me know.

Akshatvg (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akshatvg "Giving a brief overview about a person" is considered promotional on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should not just tell about a person, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a person, if they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Please help me to complete Draft:Amit Bhadana (yutuber) on Wikipedia. If you all support then this work will become easy. I need your help Please help me Mr. Bikaneri (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bikaneri "YouTubers" rarely meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person and also do not usually have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:12, 8 May 2020 review of submission by Ugla'a

Hello, I have totally reworked the article. I only used reliable sources, and ensured that the article was written in a neutral point of view. Ugla'a (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this one !

Request on 08:52:08, 8 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by J.mins


I tried to write in English as it is in the Korean version of Wikipedia and register with the English version of Wikipedia, but I was rejected. The reason for the rejection is that they copied the content on the homepage. However, actually I am the homepage manager, the purpose is to register the contents of the homepage on Wikipedia so that many people can see it. The Korean version is registered, so please let me know why it is rejected to write it in English and register it on the English version of Wikipedia.

J.mins (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J.mins: The reason for rejection was not "that they copied the content on the homepage" (at least not on enwiki, and I'm unable to speak korean). The reason for rejection was that the current draft has zero reliable sources and as such doesn't demonstrate Notability of the subject. The bigger issiue sems to be that the draft was indeed copy & pasted from the homepage. Since I'm not quite sure if this would be a straightforward CSD nomination I only have tagged it with a box. Since you claim to be the homepage manager, you might have a look at donating copyrighted material to Wikipedia, howewer, because of the Notability issiue, this step will probbably be pointless. Further, you want to have a look at WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the required disclosures. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration I have decided to make a CSD nomination. If you are reading this and CSD got declined, consider sending it to MfD. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:48:43, 8 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by PaulanerPassau



PaulanerPassau (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:51, 8 May 2020 review of draft by 184.57.172.89


Trying to determine why this keeps being declined when they are many Gaelic Football club pages that have also been published without issue. For example; Chicago Patriots Gaelic Football Club - Wikipedia. How do we ensure that there is equity in terms of how pages are reviewed?

184.57.172.89 (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, a subject must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article. Other similar subjects meriting articles is irrelevant, see other stuff exists. This is volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:31:58, 8 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by SCopeland97


My draft article was rejected because the reviewer said it was "entirely an advertisement" but the article follows the same format as articles about similar companies that have been published so I do not understand why it was rejected. I was not given any actionable feedback.SCopeland97 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SCopeland97 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of advertising include "More than 60% of banks world-wide have deployed Amulet Hotkey solutions" and "These partners are leading manufacturers". Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong How do I resubmit the draft after fixing those lines? Or do I have to just create a new one? SCopeland97 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SCopeland97 They were just examples of advertising there is far more, it requires an entire re-write in neutral tone another example = "Over the years, Amulet Hotkey has created partnerships with a variety of technology companies to ensure the successful utilization of its products and solutions.' which is just blatant advertising and totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:49:00, 8 May 2020 review of submission by TalkativeIndividual130

I request help because I want to publish the Sídlisko II article and I don't know what to do. It seems like people don't "wanna see me winning" or something, because there is literally so many articles that are "worse" or just less unsourced than Sídlisko II and they're still up on Wikipedia. Please help. TalkativeIndividual130 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TalkativeIndividual130, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. We are in the process of finding those and fixing them. Just because another article is bad does not mean yours can be bad. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
The reason your article was rejected and then decline was that it was lacking reliable sources to verify its notability. Of the four sources, one is a dictionary definition of concrete, and another is a list of street names. Those are not sources that establish the notability of the subject. If you could provide three quality sources that discussed this housing development, we might be able to write about it. But otherwise, it is not notable nor suitable for inclusion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah alright. And what's gonna happened with the draft after time? Is it gonna stay a draft forever or will it get deleted? TalkativeIndividual130 (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TalkativeIndividual130: Drafts that haven't been edited for six months are routinely deleted. As the sole author, you can speed the process along by requesting speedy deletion. To do so, add {{db-self}} to the top of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

00:40:08, 9 May 2020 review of draft by Emilyeeelie117


I am wondering how I should cite a website that I have already cited in my article. For example, the first time I cited it the label was [1], but the second time I cited it, instead of it being labeled [1] again, it was labeled [3]. Emilyeeelie117 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilyeeelie117 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilyeeelie117, I believe you can just type <ref name="auto1">. Replace the 1 with the already numbered footnote. If that doesn't work, duplication is fine, it'll be fixed when someone runs reflinks (which fixes that issue). Also, for technical help with stuff like this the WP:TEAHOUSE is probably the best place to go. There you will find some incredibly helpful people who have a lot of experience in helping new users. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:49:39, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Lamacha9617

Hi, big wikipedia fan here. I decided to take a foray into article writing, but my first article was denied. User:Sulfurboy cited that it didn't meet the guidelines for N:PROF -- but I'm confused, because I believe the subject explicitly meets multiple criteria.

N:PROF states that either of the following constitute sufficient notability:

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

The subject of this article both (1) has been named a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - which I believe satisfies N:PROF criterion 3, and (2) has received a medal from NASA sufficiently prestigious as to be authorized as military decoration, which I believe satisfies N:PROF criterion 2.

Am I missing something? Thank you! Lamacha9617 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamacha9617 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamacha9617, Being awarded a medal from the subject's own employer wouldn't be considered particularly prestigious or notable. It's even less notable when you consider it's not even the highest honor NASA can bestow on one of their employees. For fellow status to be considered under prong 3 it needs to be highly selective. In 2015, the year the subject got fellowship, they awarded 346 other people fellowships that year. A society that awards hundreds of fellowships a year wouldn't be considered particularly selective. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, Hmm we're clearly running up against highly subjective definitions of prestige and selectivity here. I understand the issue about an award coming from your own employer, thank you for clarifying. But to bring some numbers to the table, the society that is specifically mentioned in the N:PROF example for prong 3, IEEE, states that up to 0.1% of its members can be named "fellow" in one year. With over 420,000 members, that would mean up to 420 fellows per year - fewer than AAAS named in 2015. Indeed, in 2019 the IEEE elevated 282 members to the level of fellow. So I would argue that your reasoning about hundreds of fellowships precluding selectivity does not hold up, given that the N:PROF example for "highly selective" fellowships itself names hundreds of fellows annually. Lamacha9617 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lamacha9617, Okay, your persistence has paid off. I did some digging and found an old deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Baldi which found being a fellow AAAS as being enough to establish notability. As such, I will be approving the article. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:10:05, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Vathsalak

Hello, I created a page for Faizal Kottikollon a couple of weeks ago. I was provided feedback that the language used wasn't in line with Wiki language. I have made substantial changes to it and was wondering if this is more in line with the wiki standards? Could you please take a look and advise me please? Thank you!

Vathsalak (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vathsalak, That page is just a full on advert for the subject. It is nothing like the dispassionate, formal and neutral tone required for an article. Nearly every paragraph has some form of puffery or promotional tone. It very well could be your conflict of interest in being a paid editor is making the WP:NPOV issues hard to see. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, I can assure you that there is no payment that is being made for the edit. If it were, I would have definitely disclosed it. The issue is that this is the first time I am making a submission. I will revisit the draft and try to make changes. If there is anything that you could point out in the direction of how I could make this better, it would be extremely helpful. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vathsalak (talk • contribs) 09:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:26, 9 May 2020 review of draft by Adwerald


Thank you for reviewing my submission. I do not understand the advertising style you are referring and I do not understand as this article is the complement to DAST technic and use the same plan without any reference to commercial or open-source tools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Static_application_security_testing There is no COI to disclose as there is not any.

Adwerald (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:54, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Arbabi4


Hi there, I published a page that thoroughly, and as I stated in my comments that there are some references that could not be obtained due to the country's lack of online coverage.

Arbabi4 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbabi4 Are you writing about yourself? This is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. Sources do not need to be online, they only need to be publicly available. A book or magazine is fine; see WP:CITE for information on citing non-online sources. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:28, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Rightventracleleft


I'm a bit confused as to why the article was rejected. When submitted, it said it would take months for it to be reviewed. Since it's a Superfund site, there are literally several million government records. In this case, there are also news articles, documentaries, much more than pretty much every Superfund site in the country. Since I thought I had months, I only added a few sources.

@Rightventracleleft: Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by revierwers in their (sometimes rare) free time. As such, reviews can indeed take a few months. Howewer, if you are lucky, the Draft may get reviewed on the same day as it was submitted! Therefore, please make sure that your Draft is, apart from minor issiues, ready for mainspace when you submit it. Secondly, your submission was delined, not rejected. Declined means that there is hope that the draft could be ready for mainspace after improvement, while rejection means there is no hope of that. Please add more sources, primarely such that are relieable in Wikipedia sence and independent of the subject. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one source listed was one million pages of scientific records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:17, 9 May 2020 review of draft by MichaelHolemans


Hello there, So my article has been declined for not being in a neutral tone, lack of citations, some information was out of the scope of the article, etc... I attempted to fix all these issues and wondered if someone could check and see if it's correct, before I submit it again. Thanks in advance, Michael MichaelHolemans (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:19, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Pardashunas


Pardashunas (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC) I didn't understand. This article is not created by me. Someone created this blog and I see some false information. I opened wiki account and I have edited it. You Can check all sources. It was not a promotional article. I am a journalist.[reply]

Pardashunas It is not a blog, it is a draft of an encyclopedia article. The draft just tells what you have done- Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable journalist. Please also review the autobiography policy as to why writing about yourself is not advisable. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:35, 9 May 2020 review of draft by Michaeljk2191


Hello,

I do not understand how my sources are not enough for the article on CIMLS to be published. I believe people didn't look at my sources before making this decision. Some of them are only mentioning the topic in passing, but others are full secondary sources about the topic. In particular the legal issues source is entirely about CIMLS. My first source used is also a business profile page, not just a source mentioning it in passing.

Also, there are many similar companies that I modelled this page after who use similar sources to the ones I did, and all of them were approved. Some of their sources are even very outdated or non-existent anymore. Please help me understand.

Here are the example articles I modelled after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoopNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComFree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99Acres.com

Michaeljk2191 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other poor quality articles exist, is not a good argument for adding another. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I did point out that there are poor quality articles that have been published, my argument is not that mine is poor quality but that my sources are at a higher degree of validity than similar articles that have been published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljk2191 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

00:54:51, 10 May 2020 review of draft by GenreandPoliticsComplutence


GenreandPoliticsComplutence (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me with the reviwing of the content and references placement in order to publish the article. Also i would have need some help with image for infobox template. Thank you.

09:37:57, 10 May 2020 review of draft by SahanaPrasad


SahanaPrasad (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I am still unsure about the feedback given. What other changes do I need to do[reply]

12:54:44, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Pappukhan2312


Pappu Khan 12:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pappukhan2312: Wikipedia is not a social media network like Facebook etc. If your only goal here was to create an article about yourself , then I'm afraif that this is the end of the story. You might want to consider alternative outlets. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:19, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Georgeko


Dear Wikipedia,

The reasons given for rejection are extremely broad. In order to consider an appeal or a rewrite, it would be helpful to understand what specific criteria the reviewer relied on to conclude that the article must be rejected.

Thank you.


Georgeko (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Georgeko. To know what was in the reviewer's mind, you really would need to ask the reviewer directly, but I'll try to explain what may have factored into their decision.
Websites under sites.google.com are self-published, without editorial oversight. It is not clear who the author of the cited one is, what their credentials are, or whether they have any reputation for accuracy and fact checking. So it is not a reliable source and should not be cited by the draft. That leaves two sources: a page from a book, and a primary source research article in a journal. The general notability guideline advises that, "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." The reviewer indicated that the topic is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand alone encyclopedia article. They may have reached that conclusion because the draft cites a single secondary source of unclear depth.
Being unsuitable for a stand alone article doesn't mean the topic can't be covered within an article on a broader topic. It might be suitable, for example, to say something about the variety in Penny (Australian coin). How much emphasis to give it there would best be discussed on that article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics.
Rejection is meant to be final, to indicate that reviewers do not intend to review the draft again, no matter how much you revise it. There isn't really an appeal mechanism, because Articles for Creation is an optional process. You are asking for the advice of experienced Wikipedians. If you don't trust that advice, then as long as you don't have a conflict of interest, you're free to create the article directly in mainspace. Of course if the reviewer was correct, it will more likely than not be deleted, but that's the risk you run. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:11, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Deepaksingh21


Deepaksingh21 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepaksingh21: Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself. Further, according to the block logs, this page was a self written vanity page. Please note that Wikipedia is not for advertising or "spread the word" about anything. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:03, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Shenayahewagama


Android Wedakarayo is a top-level Tech media in Sri Lanka similar to TechRadar, TechCrunch. Therefore I thought it is very useful to publish a Wikipedia article that will be very useful to people who will search about them. if you search them on google as Android Wedakarayo, Android wadakarayo, androidwedakarayo, androidwadakarayo the results will be on the top. Shenayahewagama (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa, Whois, blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YourTube are not reliable sources, you removed my comment from your draft, you asked for advice didn't you?. Theroadislong (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


if the sources are not reliable, then why TechRadar got the approval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechRadar

Shenayahewagama (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StoryJumper draft rejected May 10 2020

Why was it declined? 111.88.15.184 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:44:15, 10 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Helen Puffer Thwait


Hello, I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, and have only completed one full article. I recently submitted a new article for review, and received a message indicating that another article with the same title (created by a different user) is waiting for review. That article was submitted about two months ago and rejected. (Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dewey_Johnson_(musician).) Given that the existing article has not been revised or resubmitted since being rejected, and since the article I am proposing contains the information in the existing article (plus a great deal more), what can I do to move things forward? If the person who created the existing article does not revise and resubmit it, does my article remain in limbo indefinitely? (Here is the link to my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Helen_Puffer_Thwait/Dewey_Johnson_(musician)) Is there any way to communicate with the creator of the existing article in order to ask if they plan to revise it? Many thanks in advance for your help. I apologize for the "newbie" questions! Regards, Helen Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should re-submit the draft, your version is far better sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:16:31, 10 May 2020 review of draft by AlbastruMaria



So my article was first declined because it didn't contain enough citations, now it's declined because you can't use social media as reference even though that is where I got most of my information. Guess I'll just use the interviews, because what other people say about the band is better info than what the official band biography on their website says, but I guess yea, not my rules, this will have to do now. Am I wrong for thinking this doesn't make any sense?

I can give you a list of similar pages to the one I want to create that literally have 3 references, of the same kind as mine. I feel like my article is just dismissed because the reviewer is too lazy to actually read and inspect my changes. I would not be so insistent with this if I didn't put so much work in it. I just want to create good content and I feel like I am not taken seriously.

Thank you!

AlbastruMaria (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that yours can exist too. See other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. It seems that this band does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable band. If it does, you need to demonstrate that by providing independent reliable sources to show it, and the article should only summarize what those sources say. Social media and interviews with the band are primary sources and not acceptable for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:34, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Moonraccoon


This article was rejected for not meeting WP:NACADEMIC criteria; however, Dr. Roberts meets #1 by creating the field of commercial content moderation (she is cited on Moderation_system), #2 by winning an EFF Barlow Pioneer Award[1], #3 as a Carnegie Fellow[2], and #7 for her work on commercial content moderation [3] (I have provided additional citations in support of #7 on the article draft). Thanks! Moonraccoon (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraccoon (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Pioneer Awards 2018".
  2. ^ "Carnegie Corporation of New York Names 31 Winners of Andrew Carnegie Fellowships".
  3. ^ Chotiner, Isaac. "The Underworld of Online Content Moderation". The New Yorker.

May 11

01:44:49, 11 May 2020 review of submission by RaisingAHand


Can you give recommendations on a Book's wiki page? I think it's normal to have a page talk about a book, why it's written, and who wrote it. Especially in a case where the book is raising money to help fight a children's disease, I think the more awareness there is the better.

RaisingAHand (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest to find out why this article is a bad fit for wikipedia. You should wait for someone else to naturally document your book/cause. If you hire or direct someone else to create this page, they will need to disclose it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#howtodisclose and of course include other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research#Forms_of_researchsecondary sources to avoid a summary of primary sources constituting original research. --TZubiri (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:30:42, 11 May 2020 review of submission by 2400:1A00:BB10:7ECC:8C9C:A47B:F0F0:A463


2400:1A00:BB10:7ECC:8C9C:A47B:F0F0:A463 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:57:24, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Molee4real

Hello, can I know why my article was rejected? because the reason is the information is not notable, while it is, I have provided even ref and I removed ref that are not needed as you asked, okay. so can you help what am supposed to do. Molee4real (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:38:38, 11 May 2020 review of submission by TZubiri


TZubiri (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TZubiri, What do you mean you'll be publishing it soon? If you mean you're going to move it out of draftspace, I must caution that the article is likely to be deleted or returned to draft. If you mean you're going to submit it back to the AfC process, it will probably get declined. The issue is that the subject does not appear to be notable, i.e. he's just an average dude, and thus we have no special reason to write about him. Also, the sourcing is insufficient. His own blog/website should not be used as a source, as it is not independent of the subject. Unless you can find multiple reliable and independent sources that discuss him in more than just passing mention, we cannot write about him. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm going to be publishing this article soon. If someone has specific criticisim, please let me know.

07:12:50, 11 May 2020 review of submission by 223.176.67.2

Eumat114 please help me so that my article can be approved . 223.176.67.2 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:24:34, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Romario mohanty

Please help me so that my article can be approved Romario mohanty (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romario mohanty I think you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where articles about people must summarize what independent reliable sources like the news say with significant coverage say about people shown to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. It appears that you do not meet that definition, and no amount of editing can confer notability on you. It depends on the sources. In addition, please review the autobiography policy as to why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged here. A Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable as well. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:16, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Ankit Krs Pandey

Ankit Kumar Pandey is a inspiration for other player and a great personality through there biography i want to show the world to get inspired by his dedication. If there is any problem and error do let me know because i don't want delete this article and i can correct the error that are found by youAnkit Krs Pandey (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of your 18 sources are reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ankit Krs Pandey Are you related to this person? If so, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Pandey does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, as the sources you provided are not independent reliable sources. If so, no amount of editing can change that. If you just want to tell the world about him and his good work, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in this biography i had done something wrong like sources, codes or else please help meAnkit Krs Pandey (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Krs Pandey We can't help you provide sources that don't exist. Please review my comment above. If you have further comment, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sir, i have try so many time but then after giving my full potential and i am unable to submit it properly evrey time, i recorrect and checked the error but it doesn't seems working and declined again and again by wikipedia could you please suggest measures for these after opening tutorials i am unable to understand the matter within it so please help me out humble requestAnkit Krs Pandey (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Krs Pandey, Your article had no proper references or inline citations. It also was informal and had [[WP:NPOV[[. The article has been rejected, which means that a fellow editor felt there is no chance that notability can be established. I would second this opinion. As such, your article will not be considered further.

08:42:58, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Missinfinite19

I would like a re-review as I have improved my article and added multiple sources to my work Missinfinite19 (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no improvement, there are still zero reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:12:07, 11 May 2020 review of draft by SylviaatRSG


I wonder if you would kindly look at the article for creation submission I wrote a few weeks ago. I have tried twice communicating with the editor that rejected the submission, and have gotten no response.

I believe a careful look at these three sources will demonstrate the notability of the subject:

https://www.michigandaily.com/section/soccer/michigan-alum-mission-popularize-soccer-states

https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2018/10/01/daniel-sillman-relevents-29-year-old-ceo-has-bold.html

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/en/Journal/Issues/2019/03/25/Forty%20Under%2040/Sillman.aspx

The Michigan Daily source is exclusively about Sillman. Yes, it has some quotes from him, but those quotes do not make up the majority of the source. The Bizjournals source is also entirely about Sillman, with just a small number of quotes from him, especially compared to the length of the entire source. The source also contains quotes from other people that know Sillman, but not that many directly from him. The Sports Business Daily is a reliable source. Although it is short, it is entirely about Sillman, and only quotes him at the end with two short statements.

When these three sources are taken together, I believe there is a good case to be made that they constitute significant coverage from reliable sources. Please take another look. I hope you will agree with me that Daniel Sillman should have an article on Wikipedia. SylviaatRSG (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SylviaatRSG, None of those sources are compelling. The first source is a student newspaper of a school that the subject is an alumni of. The second is bizjournals which has questionable reliability as many of their stories are sourced from press releases and in all likelihood it's paid for coverage. The third source I'm not familiar with, but a sports business publication has a very narrowly tailored audience and wouldn't do much in the way of demonstrating notability on a wider level. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:43:59, 11 May 2020 review of draft by Matejmitev13


Hello,

I want to publish my first article and I have already made (what I think) is a good draft. The article is about Flavia Weedn, a famous US artist, illustrator, and poet. I am new to Wikipedia and many things are quite confusing for me in regard to the complicated processes.

I am writing here to ask for help on how I can improve my draft article? I would like some advice from experienced editors, I appreciate it!

Thank you. Matejmitev13 (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:07, 11 May 2020 review of draft by Bouhlechat


Bouhlechat (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouhlechat: You can resubmit drafts by clicking on the big blue button labeled submit. I see that you made substantial additions to the Draft.. I'm going to ping @Robert McClenon: as the last reviewer if he has something I missed, but from what I see now it looks acceptable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bouhlechat, User:Victor Schmidt - I have not reviewed the draft in detail, but I see that it has numerous footnotes and that the external links have been dealt with properly, which were two of the issues that I identified, so that seems to be all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:49, 11 May 2020 review of submission by 93.42.65.231

Burningwave Core
RepositoryBurningwave Core
Written inJava
TypeFramework for building frameworks
LicenseMIT License
Websitewww.burningwave.org

Burningwave Core is a fully indipendent, free and open source Java framework for building frameworks with functionality of:

  • criteria based classes search
  • scanning file system
  • generating classes during runtime
  • executing stringified code
  • facilitating the use of reflection

References

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

References

  1. ^ Burningwave Core official source releases
  2. ^ Burningwave Core official binary releases
  3. ^ Burningwave official forum
  4. ^ Stoffer Khan: Generating "Classes at Runtime and Invoking Their Methods With and Without the Use of Reflection"
  5. ^ Pink Academy: "Java Masters Generate their Classes at Runtime"
  6. ^ Edvard Orsalian: "Burningwave Core: a Java frameworks building library with an original classpath scan engine"

93.42.65.231 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not explain notability. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joaquim Guttierrez: Websites dzone.com, medium.com, and quora.com contain user-generated content, so they are not reliable sources. The remaining three sources are not independent of Burningwave Core. There are no independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the topic, so it is not notable, and Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:07, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Hope samantha

Added additional recent source from Fitch Ratings in the history section. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/insurance/fitch-affirms-cno-financial-group-ratings-outlook-stable-on-coronavirus-review-21-04-2020

Hope samantha (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope samantha Your draft has been rejected after several declines, meaning that there is little to no chance it can be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. Please see the comments left by reviewers on the draft. Adding a Fitch Rating is not the significant coverage in reliable sources needed. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:39:17, 11 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Akaawase Teryima


I need guidance on content creation on Wikipedia.

Bernard Akaawase (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernard Akaawase: That draft was deleted as is was untouched for six months. the "Draft"-Namespace is not for the infinite hosting of material found unsiutable for the encyclopedia. I are no administrator and can't see what was in there, aparently you didn't submit it for review. You can submit draft's for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to it while they are still existing. The good news I have for you that pages that are deleted from the Wiki are not technically deleted from the harddrive of the Servers Wiikipedia is running on, they are only marked as deleted in the underlying datebase, and as such, can be undeleted. If you want to have this draft undeleted, go to WP:REFUND/G13 or simply ask here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:50, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Aayushmamu04


Aayushmamu04 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:12:00, 11 May 2020 review of draft by Nabila4535


The article I submitted was declined. But I think the subject is notable and qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I went through the notability criteria and I would like to highlight that Alexey meets both the basic and additional criteria: Basic criteria: Alexey has been covered in the following secondary sources: Printed and online press (In Arabic): https://www.sana.sy/?p=806199 https://www.arabstoday.net/498/013347-أليكسي-أول-سوري-يحصل-على-منحة-رودز-للدراسة-في-أوكسفورد http://pen-sy.com/?p=25053 http://esyria.sy/sites/code/index.php?site=latakia&p=stories&category=ideas&filename=201810151235121&fbclid=IwAR0puBfwc-WQVeTG2wOCHJVW3-ajjPlg_VkEwmfJvmqBvMLT3sunRqRQGAk http://www.alwehdaonline.sy/index.php/since/19308-2017-11-26-16-23-51 http://www.alwehdaonline.sy/index.php/news-2/17449-2017-04-05-10-40-16

Primary sources TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DZ0XpQNW-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATxh6xGe4ac&feature=youtu.be

Articles, weblinks: https://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/scholars/rhodes-scholars-class-of-2018/alexey-youssef/ https://rhodesincubator.com/blog/2020/3/2/rhodes-incubator-entrepreneur-highlight-alexey-youssef-founder-of-keea-inc https://europeansting.com/tag/alexey-youssef/ https://international.weill.cornell.edu/alexey-youssef https://www.imtj.com/articles/lessons-front-line/


Additional criteria Alexey fulfills the first criteria in the additional criteria list: ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.") 1. He is the first Syrian to be awarded the Rhodes Scholarship, which is considered the most prestigious scholarship globally with previous scholars like President Bill Clinton and secretary Condoleezza Rice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Scholarship) 2. He has been granted an Exceptional Talent in Digital Technolgy visa from the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points-based_immigration_system_(United_Kingdom)#Tier_1_(Exceptional_Talent))

I have added more references and made some edits before asking this question I have also checked other Wikipedia articles about biographies of living people. This article for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivarasa_Rasiah doesn't have references for every single statement

Can you please tell me what other things I can do to get the article published?

Nabila4535 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Nabila4535:, it looks like your submission was declined for two reasons, the fact that it reads like an advertisement and a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In addition, the article's formatting does not quite meet Wikipedia standards. (I've gone ahead and fixed that part for you though.) Phrases like "Youssef was genuinely interested in building the capacity of the healthcare and medical education systems" and "Youssef has always been driven by innovations." make the article sound like an advertisement, or like you're trying to promote the article's subject instead of stating facts about them. I personally don't see a huge problem with the sources, although external links are not sources. You should find a way to integrate facts from those pages into your article and then use those pages as sources just like you did for the others. @Lapablo: is a much more experienced AfC reviewer than I, however, so there may be a problem I'm just not seeing. Hope this helps. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 20:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Squeeps10:, thanks for the valuable feedback and for fixing the formatting. I made the edits you suggested, so I hope the article is ready for re submission now? Nabila4535 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it's mostly ready for publishing. There are a few small things that still need to be fixed, like formatting quirks, but go ahead and resubmit it. I'm going to refrain from reviewing it, and I can't guarantee whichever of my colleagues reviews it will accept it, but I think it has a good chance of being accepted. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Squeeps10:, thanks for replying. I'm not sure what quirks are. Can you please explain or give an example? Nabila4535 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nabila4535:, A "quirk" is a small, insignificant trait or feature. In this case, I'm using the word to mean minor issues with formatting, although after going back through the article, I was only able to find two small issues, both of which I fixed. You can probably go ahead and resubmit your article now. It may be some time before it's reviewed again, due to a large backlog at the moment, but we'll get to it eventually. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeeps10:

Great, I'll resubmit. Thank you so much!Nabila4535 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome! If you have any other questions feel free to ask here or at my talk page. Cheers! Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:58, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Tejaskapoor22


Tejaskapoor22 (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

help me

Hey @Tejaskapoor22:, what would you like help with? Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:15:38, 11 May 2020 review of draft by Evolarjun


Hi, I'm trying to revise and revive the AMRFinderPlus page. Editor Sam-2727 marked it for deletion some time ago. One of the criticisms was a lack of notability, and since it is (in my opinion) more widely used than several of the database pages I'm trying to figure out what kinds of citations to indicate notability. Sam-2727 indicated that the excessive use of the word "Curated" reads like a sales pitch, but to my reading it is a verb indicating who manages the data in the database. I changed one instance of the verb "curated" with "was created by and is maintained by", but it seems a bit awkward.

I'm also struggling to improve readability to a non-technical audience. I linked to wikipedia articles about a bunch of the topics. Suggestions would be appreciated.

I'm a newbie at this, so apologies for what are likely dumb questions, but for scientific databases I'm not sure how to improve the article to make it approvable.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Evolarjun (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Evolarjun:, your sources don't seem too bad, though I'm far from an expert in microbiology. My primary issue with the page is the excessive amount of "technobabble", we don't need to know every little thing the database does/can do. But keep in mind that I can only understand roughly half the article, and the rest in incomprehensible to me. I'd suggest reading WP:RF. Hope this helps. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 21:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Evolarjun: issues such as this can often be resolved by asking for help from a relevant WikiProject, in this case WP:WikiProject Genetics or WP:WikiProject Medicine might be able to assist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help @Squeeps10: and @Dodger67: I'll try a more dramatic rewrite and remove some of the more technical detail.
You're very welcome. Feel free to inquire here or at my talk page if you have any more questions. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 18:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:46:34, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Smokethatskinwagon


Smokethatskinwagon (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I feel the moderator Surfboy, is being overwhelmingly difficult, rude, short and not seriously considering the articles real story. A ACM or CMA nomination of any kind is hard to achieve, let alone win. This is part of country music and country radio history, and is deserving of a Wikipedia article, highlighting a notable person. This individual has verified accounts on Facebook, Twitter, google and tiktok as well, which shows he is of high public visibility and notability.

Smokethatskinwagon (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokethatskinwagon. The four major Academy of Country Music Awards: Entertainer of the Year, Male Vocalist of the Year, Female Vocalist of the Year, and Song of the Year, are significant enough music awards that winning one is a good indication that the winner may be notable. People who win them invariably have been the subject of multiple, independent, in depth, reliable, secondary sources.
You overestimate the significance, however, of the Academy of Country Music Radio Awards. Even winning "On-Air Personality of the Year - National" would be unlikely, alone, to convincingly demonstrate notability. Being nominated for "On-Air Personality of the Year - Small" (i.e. not in the top 100 markets) doesn't come close to making the nominee notable. And having verified social media accounts has nothing whatsoever to do with notability.
Sulfurboy is correct (as are the four previous reviewers) that your topic is not suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article. You way wish to consider alternative outlets for your writing, ones that have different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

Request on 06:39:19, 12 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by BelleRetouch


So, If I don't have any external articles written about my business I am not notable? I'm a sole proprietor. I work solo since 2006 with my business. Not sure what else I can do to fix this.

BelleRetouch (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BelleRetouch, I'm afraid that is how it works. We only write about subjects that have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Generally, that means at least 3 newspapers or similar sources have written an article about said business. Wikipedia is not for promotion or advertising. If you'd like that, you should get in touch with an ad agency. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:34, 12 May 2020 review of draft by Alanisantamarina


Helo Admin, Greetings!

I am creating a web page named by Alani Santamarina which was declined by your review editors. So i need help to become live this page. Please send me further instruction.

Alanisantamarina (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user was assisted on the live help IRC channel. The user was requested to change their username as they are not Alani Santamarina and also advised on WP:N, WP:BLPRS and WP:PSCOI - - RichT|C|E-Mail 09:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:45:49, 12 May 2020 review of submission by Vinod ingle


Vinod ingle (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinod ingle: Assuming this is about User:Vinod ingle/Sandbox, please don't write an article about yourself. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a social media site like Facebook etc. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:25:07, 12 May 2020 review of submission by Premkumar7092


Premkumar7092 (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:31:06, 12 May 2020 review of submission by Rashidhosseini3


Rashidhosseini3 (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:34:03, 12 May 2020 review of submission by Rashidhosseini3


Rashidhosseini3 (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rashidhosseini3: Please see Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:47:42, 12 May 2020 review of draft by 지금행복한가영


I'm trying to add some discography information for Draft:Hello Ga-Young#Soundtrack_appearances. One of her song "For to be strangers" changed its name to "Estranged" when it was included into her first studio album. However, the only source that is still accessible is an album description on Spotify. Will that website be a good reference in this case? Thank you for reading the question. :) Sorry, I've just noticed that I misplaced questions. Now I know I should go teahouse. Thanks a lot. 지금행복한가영 (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:14:11, 12 May 2020 review of submission by Pt8340

This is 54 year old company. It has more than 2.5 million customers in all over world. It has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. I have taken all the information from independent, reliable and credible sources like Khaleej Times, Gulf News, Al Bawaba, Arabian Business, Emirates 24/7. All the words and sentences are written neutral point of view. This is following every policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. This should be live on Wikipedia

Pt8340 (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pt8340: what changed since the last time you asked here 5 days ago? Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:10, 12 May 2020 review of submission by Arumugam pk

I'm requesting an re review because unwanted external link has been removed and better proof citation is added

Arumugam pk (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, Facebook and YouTube are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:37, 12 May 2020 review of submission by Djkrav

I am working on dj remix. And people do not know much about my work and I want people to know more about my work, so I am trying for a review. Djkrav (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djkrav: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. You may also want to read about Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:45:43, 12 May 2020 review of submission by Farzam.iman


Farzam.iman (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC) hi dears if you could please help us to create our wikipedia page, we are company holding on turkey named ECOHOS[reply]

Okay, I see a bunch of problems here

14:03:26, 12 May 2020 review of submission by Nerdbird89


Hello! The draft in question keeps getting denied for sounding too promotional, so I wanted to ask your advice on what parts sound promotional and what I can do to fix it. I drafted the page because I'm interested in Russian tech developments, and sourced my info from media reports and publicly available info. I also included criticisms of the company and allegations that it may be collecting user data, and am happy to expand on the topic.

Thanks in advance for your help! Nerdbird89 (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to copy the submission here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Siva Kumar.S
Background information
BornChennai
India
OccupationChief Audio Engineer
Years active2006–present

S. Siva Kumar (Siva Kumar/Siva) is a sound engineer from India and known for his work with the Indian Musician A R Rahman, Harris Jayaraj, Anirudh Ravichander and other composers of south India.

Siva Kumar is the Chief Audio Engineer at Panchathan Record Inn and AM Studios Chennai.


REFERENCE: 1:[1] 2:[2] 3:[3] 4:[4]


This page was created by huge fan of him. Vinoth Kumar Murthy (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:14, 12 May 2020 review of submission by Qtd1103


Hello, I would really appreciate if you could help me point out what I need to work on this draft to make it better.

Thank you,


Qtd1103 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:31:02, 12 May 2020 review of draft by Ekkie101

I would like this article to be accepted so I am trying to improve this article. The reviewer said I need to cite sources for the article. I need help with citations. I don't know how to attach a citation to a name or subject mentioned in the article.

Ekkie101 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:07, 12 May 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:1529:8653:C849:BEF4:9480:552F

Please reconsider. The stated reason is at best capricious, especially considering he is cross-referenced in other entries. 2605:E000:1529:8653:C849:BEF4:9480:552F (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:35:16, 12 May 2020 review of draft by Chrisc5234


Chrisc5234 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have several sources describing coverage of the organization in question, one a long read from the independent, a long established newspaper from the UK, a Huffington Post article, along with others. Not sure why this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.

  1. ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1134350/
  2. ^ https://www.facebook.com/786amstudios/photos/audiographer-sivakumars-and-sound-designer-vijay-rathinam-with-director-balaji-k/524596790965398/
  3. ^ https://www.flickr.com/photos/arrahmanfans/464011301
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchathan_Record_Inn_and_AM_Studios
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=956357848"