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
Line 438: Line 438:
I am not sure why this article was declined. Could you please advise the specific problems that I should make improvement?
I am not sure why this article was declined. Could you please advise the specific problems that I should make improvement?
[[User:Derekt0729|Derekt0729]] ([[User talk:Derekt0729|talk]]) 08:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Derekt0729|Derekt0729]] ([[User talk:Derekt0729|talk]]) 08:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
:You don't ask a question. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:34, 23 February 2021

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, 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


February 17

10:59:45, 17 February 2021 review of submission by Rajinder singh bali


Rajinder singh bali (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinder singh bali You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:03, 17 February 2021 review of submission by Zenameer


Hi Robert,

Thanks for pinpointing where I went wrong. I have removed the line that was promotional and also made edits to the remaining part of that section.

Should I continue building this page?

Zenameer (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeenameer No, since the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:32, 17 February 2021 review of submission by Hilltoppernhs

While I know my topic does not seem to have national significance, I think that it is important enough to garner a Wikipedia article solely to aid with the confusion that many townspeople of Needham (and surrounding towns) may feel. With the recent pandemic and rise of digital news, as well as the rise of alarming current events in the town, it has become increasingly important for the town to be aware of what is happening. And, more and more, the town is looking at the High School to see how they are managing the coronavirus, and what sorts of precautions they are taking; but also a symbol of hope for the return of normalcy as student's continue with classes and extracurriculars. However, Needham's students newspaper is affectionately dubbed "the Hilltopper", a name that leads to confusion among many of the older residents of Needham, especially when articles or editions are mentioned in Needham's facebook group. To this end, the creation of a wikipedia page elucidating what exactly "The Hilltopper" is should be helpful in ending their confusion, and allowing the town to be on the same page, and understand the information that is coming to them from and about their high school. Hilltoppernhs (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


16:47:27, 17 February 2021 review of draft by Kristina Van Prooyen


Hello. I am trying to resubmit an article but it seems to show as a duplicate. How do I move it so it is the resubmission of the original article rather than a duplicate? Thank you!

Kristina Van Prooyen (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Kristina Van Prooyen[reply]

Kristina Van Prooyen (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Van Prooyen Simply make the changes you made in your sandbox to the version of your draft that is in draft space(Draft:Jeff H. Greenwald), and submit that page. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:39, 17 February 2021 review of submission by KodiakBP


Hi! Thanks for reviewing my article.

I'd love to know what I can do to get the submission approved.

As far as I understand, one of the main reasons is because it's not notable?

What is considered notable since a lot of other articles mention Kodiak Building Partners?

Would love to hear some input.

KodiakBP (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User is blocked, draft deleted. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:23, 17 February 2021 review of draft by Ovaryian


I received some feedback about how to improved the entry for Shari Diamond. I didn't understand this comment "Several sections are outsourced. Source them or remove them." Can you give more clarification as to what "outsourced" means in this context? is it in reference to the quotations, which have citations? Should I remove those? Thank you for your help!

Ovaryian (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ovaryian. That's a typo for "unsourced". Sections "Teaching, Workshops & Lectures" and "Cooperative & Membership Galleries", possibly other sections, and certainly portions of sections, cite no sources. Everything must be verifiable in reliable, published sources. If you can't cite such a source for a statement, it shouldn't be included. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

00:59:21, 18 February 2021 review of submission by DeepestTurtle

The article was rejected because "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". But I have included 2 links to independent sources (from Stanford university and Oxford university) and they both have a good amount of information on the subject. The subject is somewhat new so there isn't a lot of discussion of it in the public sphere. It is still mostly in academia, but I believe it will become more well known in the future. I also intend to add more information to it over time as I myself discover more. But I wanted to get it out there in case others had things to contribute (which will be good for me also.)

DeepestTurtle (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeepestTurtle Most reviewers look for three or more independent reliable sources with significant coverage. The fact that you say that this subject is new, and you say it will be more well known in the future, likely means it is too soon for an article about it. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DeepestTurtle: I too have misgivings about the draft. However, in addition to the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer reviewed journal has published a dedicated issue on the topic of computer modeling in philosophy, which falls within the definition of computational philosophy. On the strength of those sources I've accepted the stub. If it doesn't survive in article space, you'll have to wait until the field has gained greater acceptance and people routinely use the term "computational philosophy" instead of long winded descriptions like "applications of logical and computational techniques to the development of synchronic and diachronic models of individual and collective cognition." --Worldbruce (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:27, 18 February 2021 review of draft by Catxx


I'm not sure what more I can get for the Wikipedia gods on this subject. I've pulled in 15 references for a relatively small article including national press. What is it you want?! They're a welfare raising charity that deserve the recognition. Unfortunately it looks like they'll end up being yet another "not good enough" charity for the Wikipedia gods.

Catxx (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catxx: Though I understand your frustration, what article creators need to demonstrate is (as indicated at the top of the draft) that the subject has received significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So which of those references are all three: reliable published sources, that speak about the Rabbit Welfare Association and Fund in deep detail, and that are independent of the subject. Looking at the first six references, I don't see anything that clearly meets these three criteria. I see their own website cited twice. I see a passing mention in the Guardian, I see a passing mention from the BBC, and I'm not sure the others would qualify as reliable. That's the threshold you need to be demonstrating is met. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well delete them then. There aren't going to be sources talking about them in particular, rather referring to their campaigns that they have started and they champion. Where you may see a "passing mention", I see a campaign that they have launched. That's the thing they want talking about. Not themselves. Such is the problem of representing charities on Wikipedia and why I've seen a few deleted now. --Catxx (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:16, 18 February 2021 review of draft by Medha tiwari


Medha tiwari (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Medha tiwari: नमस्कार मेधा तिवारी और अंग्रेजी भाषा विकिपीडिया पर आपका स्वागत है। यह अच्छा है कि आपने इसमें एक लेख जोड़ने का फैसला किया है। दुर्भाग्य से, मुझे आपको यह बताना होगा कि हम केवल अंग्रेजी में लेख स्वीकार कर सकते हैं। कृपया लेख को अंग्रेजी में अनुवाद करें या अपनी भाषा में Wikipedia का उपयोग करें। शुभकामनाएं, Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:05:54, 18 February 2021 review of draft by 96.255.132.79


This is a great personality however most details are in printed form do you internet challenges in Africa. 96.255.132.79 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your review. I’m currently located in the US but making serious effort to bring Africa to light. The biggest challenge is that there is little online information and that hinders a lot of African documentation. However we have to start somewhere. The details were from a hard copy book which I am willing to scan and send . Pls feel free to email me at isnsaka@gmail.com

You might ask for help of Project Members from the Wikiproject Arica Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:35, 18 February 2021 review of submission by 2A02:8084:20E2:AD80:957F:DF01:7A70:8A4B Draft:Samuray Cuba confirmation pending


To whom it may concern, could anyone support be either give me any sort of feedback regarding the following page: Draft:Samuray Cuba Thanks in advance for the help. Thanks a lot, Kind regards2A02:8084:20E2:AD80:957F:DF01:7A70:8A4B (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:29, 18 February 2021 review of draft by Drkarenkaiser


Drkarenkaiser (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drkarenkaiser, you might have please a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - that sums it up. hope that was of help. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My page was rejected and I don't understand why and what I need to change.

18:56:33, 18 February 2021 review of submission by ACSP01


ACSP01 (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ACSP01, what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:01:20, 18 February 2021 review of submission by Alex2830


I have a question. Why was my draft declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex2830 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex2830. Draft User:Alex2830/sandbox was declined because it is about a topic on which Wikipedia already has an article, desert. (Indeed, it's an unattributed 98.8% copy of the first four paragraphs of that article, and so a copyright violation, although a repairable one.) A second article on the same topic will not be published. You are welcome to edit desert and improve it, although it's already good. You might find it easier to improve a poorer article on a related topic, such as desertification, desert greening, or semi-arid climate. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:58:24, 18 February 2021 review of submission by AlikhanNalini


This Wiki page has been created, as fans of this artist were getting confused with another Greg Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Johnson_(white_nationalist)). This other Greg Johnson has a Wiki page, however, he is a self-confessed White Nationalist and therefore the total antithesis of the British Singer Songwriter, Greg Johnson. I have read the criteria and Greg Johnson (Musician), meets the following:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself: https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/9904046.bournemouth-schoolboy-wins-over-festivals-20000-crowd/ & https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10631354.bournemouth-teenager-takes-top-slot-in-talent-show/ & https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10427057.bournemouth-youngsters-set-to-shine-at-teenstar-regional-finals/ & https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10337037.talented-teens-reach-regional-finals-of-talent-contest/

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

Greg has been featured on BBC Radio 2 and Wave 105Fm, the South's biggest variety of hits. https://gregjmusic.wixsite.com/website/bio & https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=saved&v=10151561078806394

AlikhanNalini (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

12:00:25, 19 February 2021 review of submission by Harsh Chadha


Harsh Chadha (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Chadha, what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:40, 19 February 2021 review of submission by VictoriaKira

Hello! I was really curious that my KiRA MAZUR article was rejected. Kira Mazur is a famous Ukrainian singer who already had an article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. She writes music all over the world, so many people would like to know more about her. I wrote an article in English to make it more accessible. I am the Head manager of Kira Mazur and I have all the rights to the content and photos. I would be very grateful if you can show my mistakes and point out how to make them perfect for Wikipedia. Thank you in advance! VictoriaKira (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VictoriaKira Please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you must make.
Your draft was blatant promotion and was deleted. Please read Your first article and the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:40, 19 February 2021 review of submission by TEAMTR33

Hey guys I've did some changes and fixed my mistakes and I want you guys to review it again.

I'll appreciate if you review it again.

Thanks... TEAMTR33 (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. The draft is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


February 20

00:36:42, 20 February 2021 review of submission by Atayibabs


Atayibabs (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atayibabs You don't ask a question, but your draft is a completely unsourced essay, not an encyclopedia article with citations to independent reliable sources. Please learn more about Wikipedia by using the new user tutorial and reading Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:53:59, 20 February 2021 review of draft by 45Boomer


I am trying to figure out what needs to be changed on my draft. It is not clear what the issue is I have the correct format with all the references. 45Boomer (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your references are bare URLs and should be formatted properly to display full bibliographic details. Please read WP:REFBEGIN. Most of your sources are primary sources or unreliable sources. Far better to have five solid references than dozens of poor quality references that are worthless for establishing notability. If you are claiming that this person is notable as an athlete, then you need to show that he meets the notability guideline that you can find at WP:NGRIDIRON. It does not appear that he does. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:22:56, 20 February 2021 review of draft by 174.1.62.129


I need help to edit my article THanks for your hep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bahram_Rad

174.1.62.129 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noone of the sources currently cited are reliable. The "Biography" and "Music Career" sections desperately need better sources, because Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:00:07, 20 February 2021 review of submission by Zacharyb366


Zacharyb366 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to figure out why my submission was declined. Thank you!

Draft:Zach Broom (Pastor)

Zacharyb366 The reason for the decline is given at the top of your draft, in short, you have not demonstrated that (I assume) you merit a Wikipedia article. None of the sources you offer are significant coverage of you in independent reliable sources, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Please also be advised of the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, autobiographies are highly discouraged, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. In order to succeed at an autobiography(which is rare, but technically possible), you in essence need to forget everything you know about yourself, and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about you. Most people have great difficulty doing that. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


12:48:40, 20 February 2021 review of draft by Deppman


The Draft Thermofractal we rejected because an older version is still active. I would like to delete the older version, but I don't know how to do it.

Deppman (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deppman, done. I removed the older copy. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:20, 20 February 2021 review of submission by Mathematicalinstitutes


Mathematicalinstitutes (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has zero reliable independent sources and Google searches are not sources.Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

00:58:54, 21 February 2021 review of submission by MirachBeta


Hello,

I'm a new editor who recently had the page Carl A. Rouse accepted. However, it seems as though it was originally rejected for not having sources from when the subject was living, among other issues. While I appreciate the fact my article was accepted, could someone clarify to me why it was accepted?

Best,

MirachBeta

MirachBeta (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MirachBeta Would you rather it not have been accepted? ;) You may wish to ask the reviewer directly. but reviewers accept drafts as long as it seems that the draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion. Usually that means there are adequate sources to establish notability and sustain the article's content(usually a minimum of three sources). 331dot (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Oh no, I'm glad it was accepted! Just wanted clarification for future reference. Thank you for your help!— Preceding unsigned comment added by MirachBeta (talk • contribs)

04:11:38, 21 February 2021 review of submission by 125.161.183.180


125.161.183.180 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only edit from this IP, could you please link to the draft? Also, it would be nice for the respondees here if you would specify what speficially is your question/problem, or what you need help with. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:14:09, 21 February 2021 review of submission by Akarniel

Hello,

I understand the reason for the decline of my Draft "Draft:Shlomo Laufer" - the existence of Hebrew in the text. I will translate the titles into the publication list. Also, I will add links to some of the texts that were already translated. I have two questions:

1. Is it ok to discuss a book that is being translated, but was not published yet?

2. When I add a reference to a Hebrew source (unfortunately most of my references, not all of them though), the text in the reference section is automatically adding Hebrew descriptions, which I can't change/translate. Is this approved? or should I remove all of the Hebrew sites references? I am afraid that without them the references will not be sufficient to allow you to verify it. Note that most of these references have been verified by the Wikipedia Hebrew team and are part of the Hebrew article about Shlomo Laufer.

Awaiting your response, Best regards, Amihai Karniel.


Akarniel (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:43:59, 21 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Mondayudowong


My draft was declined by a reviewer and the reason left by the author was, "Undefined". They was no reason for the decline. They believe I created a new account in order to recreate articles which were once deleted in the past. This is not true. Can someone please look into this? Before submitting my draft, I reviewed other similar topics and I made sure mine followed the same pattern. Thanks in advance.

Mondayudowong (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "undefined" simply means that the reviewer did not input the reason into the template. Pinging the reviewer, Celestina007. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot:, the issue seem to be far more grave, looks like the reviewer is suspecting a Sockpuppet, have a look over here [1]. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, thanks for pinging me, I probably should have left a reason for the decline so as to avoid scenario's such as this. Celestina007 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Celestina007. My account is not a Sock Puppet account. Is there a way I can prove this in order to get my draft approved?

Mondayudowong (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:57, 21 February 2021 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:5A9C:3F01:8184:CA53:61E1:2C38


Paper.io doesn't have that much notability. That explains why there isn't a lot of references. However it is relatively popular. Note I play this game so these are in my words. This reads like an advertisement, though I wanted to seperate everything so it would be easy to understand more.

2A00:23C7:5A9C:3F01:8184:CA53:61E1:2C38 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:53:14, 21 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Fahdaltaf


Hi, i want to add Al Haaj Bundoo Khan Restaurant in wikipedia, because its very old and famous Restaurant in pakistan. Al Haaj bundoo khan started his journey from a cart in 1948 and now its the Pakistan best BBQ Restaurant. Al Haaj Bundoo Khan is the one who inteoduce the dish Chicken Tikka and now famous in Al our the world, also he introduced the concept of roll paratha in terms of his famous kabab partha (behari kabab and paratha). I have no clear idea how to present the information which is according to wiki guideline, if some one helps me to publish this article i will be thankful. Secondly i tried ro add the external links of blogger reviews, local news blogs which are famous in local countries pakistan and united arab emirates. And i also added the Gulf News article about Al Haaj bundoo khan. National geographic Abu dhabi also cover Alhaaj bundoo khan in one of his documentry but i didn't find the video link, i have one image from that documentary.


If some one is setup all these things in proper manner so the article will approved on wiki pedia i will be very thankfull to him. Whatever helping material is required i will provide him

Fahdaltaf (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article supported with reliable references including zaman newspaper and many others

21:52:02, 21 February 2021 review of submission by Ameermarkolmaza


Ameermarkolmaza (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ameermarkolmaza, what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:57, 21 February 2021 review of submission by Daunicornengineer

As a part of a project with the African American History Museum, we are working to ensure that notable African Americans in STEM are included in Wikipedia. Numerous sources have been provided in order for this article to be a verifiable source. Daunicornengineer (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daunicornengineer The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


February 22

Request on 00:12:12, 22 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 38.132.215.49


The film Operation Odessa is currently playing on Netflix. I tried to look it up and got redirected to some Manga site - not cool.

I made a start on fixing it. Wouldn't take much more to get a basic page up. Maybe someone could fix it? I've done my bit to try and set it right and am done.

38.132.215.49 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it is always possible, I doubt any other editor will pick your draft up. It's a positive start but requires referencing. If you wish to go back to it please ask for the help you need Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:44:15, 22 February 2021 review of submission by Lkcitycliff


Lkcitycliff (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create an article from wikipedia editors? I will give the title of the business and want to create a page. I need the help of editors to complete the article. Please write an article for me.

@Lkcitycliff: Hello Lkcitycliff, I think you are looking for WP:Requested articles. It has a large backlog Though... If this refers to a specific draft, please provide a link. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:35, 22 February 2021 review of submission by Finna fly

because this is for a friend and im ready for review Finna fly (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finna fly, first, please do not write articles "for a friend". Please see WP:COI. Second, this draft has been rejected and thus will not be considered further Fiddle Faddle 16:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:59:42, 22 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 76.240.112.154


I added footnotes and don't understand why this is being declined. All proper footnotes were added

76.240.112.154 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined I have conducted a further review and left what I hope are helpful comments on your draft Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:21:14, 22 February 2021 review of draft by Bbarmadillo


Please give your opinion on the page. It is a properly stated WP:COI contribution, that I fully reworked after the initial decline. Do you see any issues with the page that need to be fixed? Is the existing redirect a problem? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbarmadillo, Thank you for submitting it for review. It will now take its place in the pool of drafts for review. A redirect will not present a problem Fiddle Faddle 16:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While awaiting review do, please, continue to enhance the draft. Submission does not freeze the draft Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:06:36, 22 February 2021 review of draft by Engblu


Hi, firstly excuse my lack of experience in the procedure for asking for help. I am trying to edit a page that has been reviewed. It states in the review that the "Comment: There are a lot of unsourced statements". I have used links from mainly two sites having seen many other pages on persons who are Music producers or have similar roles. I am confused as to why these link sources are not applicable or not valid. The information the sites has been indeed verified by the sites and cross checked with the releases mentioned. This may seem obvious to editors but to myself if i could ask for an explanation and some help then on securing exactly what is required. Not everyone is mentioned in published books as to me that seems to be what is required. If a much simpler page / entry would be acceptable then please let me know. Also I do not know where a replay to this inquiry might "appear" ? maybe on my "talk" page ? Many thanks Engblu.

Engblu (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Engblu, The answer appears here. Are you associated professionally or personally with Mr Lyon? if so you must declare it. Please see WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. Even if closely associated with, or even being Mr Lyon you are entitled to create and edit the draft on the gentleman.
To understand more about references you may find that reading WP:42 and WP:THREE help.
Your objective is to assert and verify that the gentleman is notable in a Wikipedia sense.
This means that he must not just be a decent chap doing his job well, but that there must be an almost indefinable extra element to him.
There's a lot to read here, so please ask again after you've read and digested the advice and started to put it into practice Fiddle Faddle 22:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:22, 22 February 2021 review of submission by Monir1975

 Fixed Monir1975 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC) == 18:28:22, 22 February 2021 review of draft by Monir1975 ==}}[reply]

18:30:49, 22 February 2021 review of submission by Monir1975

 Fixed Hi, This article was declined due to not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have added further references, are those enough to resubmit for futther review?

Monir1975, it was not only declined, it was also rejected and thus will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monir1975 (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC) == 18:30:49, 22 February 2021 review of draft by Monir1975 ==}}[reply]

18:34:26, 22 February 2021 review of submission by Sohil Mandal


Sohil Mandal (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sohil Mandal, what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:34:15, 22 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Nynewsguy


I'm requesting assistance with understanding the citations I have which were deemed "unreliable." I've cited CBS News, IMDB and AdWeek among others.

I've now noticed that the page in question - Len Tepper - has now been scraped and copied to wikitia too, presumably "verified" by their "editors."

I'm happy to revise as needed. But I need more to go on as to why these sources - that exist as citations on countless other wikipedia pages - are not considered reliable now.

Thank you for any help you can provide. Thom Craver

Nynewsguy (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not considered a reliable source because it is user-editable. The "NBC News" section needs a few sources, compare WP:BLP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:38:42, 22 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Antiquatuss


Dear Wikipeadia Master Minds, please have a look at the "Fiber Patch Placement" draft and corresponding discussions. I understood, regulatories differ, but i tried my best to redesign the article as I understood your rules and I perfectly cannot understand, why this is completely ignored. I really believe, a new additive manufacturing technology should be mentioned. Thank you in advance for your help! Antiquatuss (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquatuss (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:39:00, 22 February 2021 review of submission by AshleyDBuck


Removed marketing jargon Removed KGP Films Provided additional adequate resources And note there is no financial or connection with the subject. A big fan of her work and Narcoleap.

AshleyDBuck (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


23:46:29, 22 February 2021 review of submission by AshleyDBuck


Revised the page by removing marketing jargon and a second subject. Please note there is no financial or other connection with the author and subject. Fan of subjects work.

AshleyDBuck (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AshleyDBuck, I have tidied up the article a little bit and accepted the submission, though further work is required and a search for sources has been made difficult by the more famous British shadow cabinet minister with the same name. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

08:24:34, 23 February 2021 review of submission by Derekt0729


I am not sure why this article was declined. Could you please advise the specific problems that I should make improvement? Derekt0729 (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1008437292"