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
Spesshot (talk | contribs)
18 edits
No edit summary
WQFDU (talk | contribs)
39 edits
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 729: Line 729:
I have included new citations and removed unverifiable material in answer to the review and wish to know whether my citations are now sufficient [[User:Spesshot|Spesshot]] ([[User talk:Spesshot|talk]]) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Spesshot
I have included new citations and removed unverifiable material in answer to the review and wish to know whether my citations are now sufficient [[User:Spesshot|Spesshot]] ([[User talk:Spesshot|talk]]) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Spesshot
[[User:Spesshot|Spesshot]] ([[User talk:Spesshot|talk]]) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
[[User:Spesshot|Spesshot]] ([[User talk:Spesshot|talk]]) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

== 06:18:43, 9 January 2022 review of submission by WQFDU ==
{{Lafc|username=WQFDU|ts=06:18:43, 9 January 2022|page=
Draft: Global Justice Index

I have been modified the draft for several time and really need your help! Could you provide more details about how to revise the article to make it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Thank you so much!

}}

[[User:WQFDU|WQFDU]] ([[User talk:WQFDU|talk]]) 06:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:18, 9 January 2022

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


January 3

07:21:04, 3 January 2022 review of submission by MP180

Please man, its a 21st present for a mate and its an accurate and humourous depiction on his life up to this point MP180 (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MP180 Sorry, that's not what Wikipedia is for. There are other websites out there that are for such a purpose. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:35, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Bttdcbd


Bttdcbd (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bttdcbd, Wikipedia does not care what a subject has to say about themself. You must find and use independent secondary reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:49:31, 3 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Kojo Shaddy


I realized my draft article has been deleted and I want to ask if I can retrieve it since it is now ready for editing.

Kindly help me retrieve it.

Thank you.

Kojo Shaddy (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kojo Shaddy: please ask at WP:REFUND/G13 to have the draft restored. Courtesy ping Liz Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kojo Shaddy (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:34, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Hansiwelangoda1994

i Rakitha is well known musician in srilanka and i thought of creating a page for him.he was the most youngest musician who entralled lot of young hearts.so please i appeal this page to be reconstructed Hansiwelangoda1994 (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:24, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Hansiwelangoda1994

please help me i need to publish this


Hansiwelangoda1994 (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hansiwelangoda1994, that will not be happening without reliable sources. No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. Also, given your urgency, please see WP:COI and note that any relationship with subject of the article must be disclosed.Slywriter (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:33, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Ypoyq


I am confused why the article is being rejected Ypoyq (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ypoyq, The article will be deleted in the next few minutes as a cut and paste copyright violation. Please see WP:FIRSTARTICLE for tips, most importantly you must summarize the source in your own words.Slywriter (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:21:34, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Stefan Welebny


Hello,

my article about Bob Zabek has been rejected multiple times. I believe, there is something wrong with that. While I understand, that WikiPedia is a place for secondary, not primary research, I do not understand, why the other criteria regarding the quality of sources are applied so rigid.

I am a composer myself and - like crowds of other musicians - I acknowledge the musical quality and relevance of the guitarist Bob Zabek.

I hope somebody could review the article, who has a profound musical background, takes the time to study the references and links and does not stubborn stick to rules which lead to low quality decisions.

Kind regards

Stefan Welebny


Stefan Welebny (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Welebny Wikipedia has a strict policy about how living people are written about, see WP:BLP. Every statement about a living person must be sourced to an independent reliable source. Those sources must show that this composer meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable composer. Your draft was declined multiple times and then rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because the sources offered were not appropriate. If you would like to tell the world about this person, you may want to try social media or a website with less stringent requirements. That, or wait for independent sources to write about him. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:00, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Penninx


Penninx (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page (Draft:List of Roman villas in the Netherlands) without specific references. All other pages (about 7) in the same category (Lists of Roman villas in other countries) also have no specific references. Why do i need more references then the other pages in the same Category?

Please read other stuff exists. Other poor articles existing does not mean that additional poor articles are permitted. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:44:32, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Araz Ali7


Araz Ali7 (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

00:03:34, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Amysisson


This is in regards to a draft page for the Peggy Lane book series. (I tried to follow the instructions but the link is not showing. Here it is again:

Draft:Peggy_Lane_Theater_Stories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amysisson (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a quick review! I am puzzled as to why this draft was not approved -- only because I modeled this after this page:

Rick Brant

This is a boys' series by the same publisher. My reviewer suggested that the easiest way to show a series is notable is to find published reviews. However, I don't believe there are links to published reviews on the Rick Brant page.

A minor point (and I defer to your expertise on this!): the Grosset & Dunlap page lists the various series they published. I added Peggy Lane to that list just before beginning my draft article. It seems to me that it's notable to describe any of the series they published since they were a major publisher and their various series are extensively studied within popular culture academia.

More importantly, however, I'm concerned because girls/women are more overlooked in history, including popular culture history. I believe it's notable that this series existed for girls. I will be looking for reviews, but if I do not find any, one reason may be that girls' books were not reviewed as frequently as boys' books during the 1960s. I feel that to not note this series' existence, when the Rick Brant page does not seem to have much more in the way of reviews than this series does, may be perpetuating the imbalance.

Thank you for your consideration! Amysisson (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amysisson The boys' series you mention has similar problems as to your draft, it is lacking in independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability, and has been marked as such. Please see other stuff exists; volunteers do their best to get around to the over six million articles we have to address any issues, but some inevitably get by us- this does not mean that more problematic content should be accepted, compounding the problem. It is possible that both the boys' series and the one you write about here would not merit standalone articles, but some sort of mention on the page of the publisher(I don't know, just speculating). For any draft to pass the AFC process, it must do a minimum of summarizing at least three independent reliable sources(which with books is usually independent/unsolicited reviews). 331dot (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

00:25:15, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Araz Ali7


Araz Ali7 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:14:16, 4 January 2022 review of draft by Frank6677


Frank6677 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wouldnt it be much much much better to offer to fix the article instead of immediately throwing all sorts of threats????? hours doing research on this article and you want to force us to do hours more work learning the article creation process ?????????????? good gawd

Frank6677 I take "we" to mean that you are associated with MetroFire Boston. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. Yes, if you are creating and submitting a draft, you need to do the work to get it to standards. The draft does not need to be a complete, finished article, but you must summarize what at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. I don't see where you have been threatened, but Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves. Your draft has a lot of technical information that I doubt was from an independent source.. Writing an article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and it is usually recommended to first gain experience by editing existing articles and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:30:51, 4 January 2022 review of submission by GbessayESMomoh


GbessayESMomoh (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC) I need short direction on how to enhance my Wikipedia account and submit article.[reply]

GbessayWSMomoh New users cannot directly create articles, but you may use Articles for creation to create and submit a draft for review. Writing an article is the hardest thing to attempt to do here, and it is highly recommended that you use the new user tutorial and spend much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:37, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Princesalvadordali


HI im disabled and im finding it hard to publish a page about my documentary ,why is it rejected ?

im not sure what im doing maybe a small mistake on my behalf, sorry , i am disabled and i am finding theis difficult.

i want to publish a wiki about my tv show; and create a biography on me Rhysasasurous Rex perhaps u could explain what i doing incorrectly pleased

Princesalvadordali (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi im disabled and id like to make a wiki page about my asperational disability show

could you please explain what i need to do to not be rejected?

Princesalvadordali (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princesalvadordali I wish you good luck with your show and overcoming disability, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your show and yourself. Wikipedia is interested in what published independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you and or your show, not what you want to say about it. This would be things like news reports. You may use social media to tell the world about yourself and your show. Writing about yourself on Wikipedia is not encouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:41, 4 January 2022 review of draft by Australianpeter


Hi, sorry for the possibly dumb questions below but this is my first attempt at adding an article.

I've made a bunch of updates to the citations within the article - I thought I'd limited myself to reputable sources (I didn't include references from things like our local newspapers or blogs but limited to sources like nationally-recognized news sources and magazines, press releases from sources where awards etc were bestowed and sources of truth for Australian music information (like APRA AMCOS and the Australian Music Centre). I had thought that being the recipient of an APRA Art Music award for composition would have been sufficient to indicate that Sally Greenaway was suitable for inclusion in the list of Australian women composers.

I hope this is more along the lines of what is expected, and if note please let me know what other information I can provide.

Australian female composers are pretty niche and not often covered in the press (and this is reflected in some of the other existing pages) but I hope there's enough information there now.

Please don't copy your draft contents here, instead, provide a link to the draft so other's can easely follow it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:45, 4 January 2022 review of draft by MichaelPWhite


Hi. We're seeking support to get the Hyliion page published please, which has been a working draft since October 2020. The latest feedback flagged a lack of reliable sources, which doesn't make sense since this is a listed company. Sources used in the article include independently published pieces across Bloomberg, Yahoo, Forbes, Business Wire, an academic source, a Gov source, and various respected trade outlets. Please can you help provide further direction to get this page live?

As we have a conflict of interest, we are keen to work with the Wikipedia community to get changes approved in a compliant way.

MichaelPWhite (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelPWhite As noted by the reviewer, the draft just lists and cites the routine business transactions of this company, like acquisitions and product related announcements. Wikipedia articles about companies must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The key here is "significant coverage"; the coverage must go beyond the mere reporting of the company's activities, such as describing the influence and history of the company(if others have written about it, not the company itself).
And who is "we"? From reading your user page I gather you may be a paid editor, but I'm not clear on if you represent this company. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thanks for your quick response. I am an official representative of Hyliion, although the first draft of the page was started organically by social media followers. So we've been keen to try and support getting the page live. We've taken your feedback onboard and will see what we can do. (MichaelPWhite (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

10:21:12, 4 January 2022 review of submission by 78.60.128.32

I think my Wikipedia page is good. It doesn’t contain anything offensive and it would be very nice to have a Wikipedia page. Thank you! 78.60.128.32 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, and is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about you, not what you say about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:57, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Anjumanea


This is first page created to publish anjuman e ashrafiya charitable trust details in public to help needy and poor. Anjumanea (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjumanea Wikipedia is not a place to tell about good causes. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own, and not based on any materials put out by the organization, to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:33, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Kelvin Gates


I would like to understand why this article does not meet the requirements, and added relevant information and reliable sources. I have followed the prescribed guidelines and made the article as detailed as possible. Please could you help me identify what else I need to add on this article to get it published. Thank you

Kelvin Gates (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Gates I'm afraid that like many people, you have some misunderstandings as to what Wikipedis is. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something; this is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own- and not based on any materials put out by the company or its associates- to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The "Company aims, value and culture" section is impossible to independently verify and should be removed. The rest of the draft is sourced to other Wikipedia articles(you cannot use Wikipedia articles to source other Wikipedia articles), profile type entries, brief mentions, or basic announcements, none of which establishes notability. Please read Your First Article.
From the writing and the fact that this is the only topic you have edited about, I gather that you have an association with this company. If so, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. To succeed, you need to set aside everything you know about the company and all materials put out by the company(including interviews) and only summarize what others say about the company in independent sources. Most people associated with a company find that very difficult. Even if you succeed in getting a draft accepted, you would not be able to directly edit it afterwards, and would be limited to indirect edit requests. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:09:10, 4 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Qail97


I have the world's highest IQ score (416 IQ), and my name is Kurt Lopez-davis. This is an extremely notable occurrence, but I have no one that is willing to record my name on any websites.

I have created this IQ test and recorded my best thoughts: https://pastebin.com/csMgaHJd https://pastebin.com/Y2vDggXq

  1. 16, #17, #9, and #37 are ground-breaking science/philosophy, and all worthy of a Nobel Prize despite the current lack of evidence.

Qail97 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as a hoax. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:29, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Flyview


Dear editors at WP, I am signature Flyview, and just recently posted my first project/article called “Flywheel exercise”=”Flywheel training”, which is a form of “Resistance training”(see WP) using the inertia of flywheels instead of weights. Three editors have sent similar critical arguments, concerning copyright violation, and so far rejected my contribution to WP, and I therefore would like to learn more: Editors/signatures Greenman, Caleb Stanford and DGC wrote: Comment: apparentlycopiedfrom elswhere DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC); Comment: Although I cannot find the source, the text is clearly copied from somewhere. Greenman (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC); Comment: Hello, this article text reads like it was copied from somewhere. What was the source? Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I claim my text is original, and that no book, scientific article or other body holds the copyright to my text as written here. What is the specific view of these editors? Are they claiming plagiarism? This should be easy to check and resolve.

I used some 50 (out of 200 written on this specific subject), mainly scientific, published references to support the text that I shaped to be suitable and understood by both interested trainees and scientists, and trying to fit an encyclopedia. I have previously written 50 peer-reviewed papers on muscle physiology, biomechanics, elite sports, rehabilitation, orthopedic surgery and space medicine; which has been my hobby for most of my academic career (see PubMed; search: Berg HE). In order to get some acquaintance to WP editing (including the tedious text formatting) I helped editing the item “Strength training” (that is currently warned to lack scientific/medical referencing). This was a nice experience and I have added some cornerstone references to this wide field of physical exercise. I am more than willing to adapt to the rules and language of WP, which I think is a wonderful idea and website!

Best Regards/signature Flyview

Flyview (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FlyView, It is clearly a cut and paste copyright violation. The fact none of us can find the original source does not change the facts that the article has clear artifacts of being lifted from some place else, possibly multiple places. Without you admitting and correcting that issue, the article will remain rejected.Slywriter (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flyview- just another edit to ping.Slywriter (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:27:46, 4 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Babroseker


I'm unsure as to what else to add/edit to the submission for acceptance. I'm not looking to advertise anything, but rather factually state the existence and purpose of the organization as it is referenced on other Wikipedia pages. I've provided external links and references to information stated in the entry.

Help.

Regards, Bruce

Babroseker (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Babroseker "State the existence and purpose of the organization" is the definition of promotion. You don't have to be selling something or soliciting customers. Wikipedia articles are not for merely telling about the subject- and mere existence does not qualify a topic for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. An organization merits a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it(and not based on any materials put out by the organization, its staff, or associates), showing how the organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. An article needs to summarize those independent sources. Primary sources like government documents or anything from the organization do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. If no independent sources give this organization coverage, beyond the mere reporting of its activities, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time.
If you are associated with this organization, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures(any paid relationship with a topic must be disclosed, per the Terms of Use). You don't have to be paid in money to be a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:33:56, 4 January 2022 review of draft by DKingWorldwide


I need help in terms of this comment below for my wiki draft for artist Kim Donghyuk: Comment: evaluated activities since 2014 (which was when the article was cut to redirect), activities here are mainly within the band and/or with other band members. imo, does not satisfy individual musician bio yet. – robertsky (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

My question is: Although he does not have a solo yet, he has been a featured singer in a couple of songs, as follow: "Secret" (Bobby Feat. DK & Katie) 2017 Love and Fall “Ur SOUL Ur BodY” (Bobby feat. DK) 2021 Lucky Man

Aside from that, Kim Donghyuk has actually produced and written a song for the group as shown at this line below: On February 6, 2020, iKON released their third EP, iDecide, which included five tracks with Dive as the lead single.[15] Kim Dong-hyuk debuted as songwriter and record producer of “Flower” ((너란 바람 따라; neolan balam ttala; lit.

There are additional activities that he is now involved in: Starting Dec 2021, Kim Dong-hyuk is actively hosting 2 radio programs, iKON Day at Station Z 89.1 and iKON's Zero Zone Diary, with the latter, is focusing on educating and advancing sustainability.

We understand that this might not be considered as individual musician activities, however, maybe there are any categories that he can be included in? Please advise. Also is there anything that I should take off to fit the requirement? Please help. Thank you so much.

DKingWorldwide (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DKingWorldwide Who is "we"? This account should only be operated by a single person. If your username is that of a group, you will need to change it at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
If this musician has started a solo career, there needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources of his solo career, and he must meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician by himself(not as part of a group). If he is more notable for his non-music work(the radio program work), he might meet the broader definition of a notable person, but, again, there must be significant coverage in independent reliable sources of him with regards to his individual work. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:04, 4 January 2022 review of submission by ZX2006XZ


So, the new trailer came out today, a new poster.

https://youtube.com/0U0L4uT0btQ

Does this still mean that I have to wait till the movie comes out on January 28? ZX2006XZ (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave that up to an admin like @Robert McClenon:, but I assume his answer would be that yes, you should wait. Bkissin (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:42:39, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Mastetchi


"not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." is not a valid reason to keep article in draft space. Take it to WP:AfD for broader review and discussion. Mastetchi (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mastetchi (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mastetchi, when I see David founded Gokhshtein Media, a unique and revolutionary portal for all things cryptocurrency, I wonder why the draft hasn't been deleted as blatantly promotional. Incidentally, it's oddly chummy of the draft to refer to the man not as "Gokhshtein" but as "David". -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoary, I've taken out the promotional area and generally edited the article as per your observation. Kindly look through the draft again. Thanks

Mastetchi (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mastetchi, in the very first sentence, we read that he's a "personality" and a "guru". Citing not promotionalism but (lack of) demonstrated notability, Theroadislong rejected Draft:David Gokhshtein, with a big "STOP" sign; and QuantumRealm rejected Draft:David E Gokhshtein, again with a big "STOP" sign. I appreciate your politeness and eagerness to please, but please stop. -- Hoary (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary: Judging by the fact that he has been the subject of multiple draft articles, I wonder if there are any WP:PAID or WP:CANVASS concerns here. Bkissin (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:55:42, 4 January 2022 review of draft by Ilbibliothecario


I'm having trouble submitting this article as I'm not sure how to create footnotes. I have cited the source material but don't know how to properly format it as a citation. The entire bio can be referenced from the magazine articles attached to this entry.

Ilbibliothecario (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently accepted by Rusalkii. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

02:45:36, 5 January 2022 review of submission by Sunshinesunshine24


Hi there, I by mistake submit the Therapeutic Privilege draft for review by mistake. Is it possible to please cancel this request?

Sunshinesunshine24 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:19:57, 5 January 2022 review of draft by 203.1.252.71


Thank you for reviewing the draft. We are working to add more detailed references to establish the standing of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society We're a little bit confused about the requirement for references, with respect to establishing ARPS is a notable society. We note that an equivalent professional association ACPSEM have a wiki page with only 3 references. [1] Like ARPS, ACPSEM is an important professional association in Australasia. ARPS is an Associate Society of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). The IRPA wiki page clearly lists ARPS as one of 50 associate societies. [2] IRPA have substantial rules to become an Associate Society. [3] IRPA have a detailed code of ethics that ARPS has to uphold <ref>https://irpa.net/docs/IRPA%20Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf<\ref> The detail behind the initial references provided is substantial. We're not really sure that being a member of IRPA is trivial. We understand that IRPA may not be widely known We recognise the need to expand on establishing the standing of ARPS and have added references to reflect the scope of the work we do.

203.1.252.71 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles(not pages) you have seen are also inappropriate and simply have not been addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us.
Your draft just tells about the organization and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization- and not based on any materials put out by the orgnanization like interviews, press releases, basic descrpitions, routine announcements of activities, etc.- showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. I might suggest that you review some other articles on organizations that may be classified as good articles to get an idea of what is being looked for. Please also read Your First Article.
You seem to have an association with this organization, please read about conflict of interest. If you are a paid representative of the organization, you must review the paid editing policy and make a formal declaration, which is a Terms of Use requirement. This is easier to do with an account, but it's not required that you have an account. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasian_College_of_Physical_Scientists_and_Engineers_in_Medicine
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Radiation_Protection_Association
  3. ^ https://irpa.net/members/54777/%7BC495AC33-3F0E-46A2-AFB6-3E1284FA82D7%7D/How%20to%20Become%20an%20Associate%20Society%20-%20Position%20Statement%20on%20Assistance%20to%20Associate%20Societies%20(April%202016).pdf

03:54:44, 6 January 2022 review of submission by Jaf324

I'm not making an argument to create this article based on "other stuff exists". There are numerous articles about associations that don't seem to meet what is being asked of this draft article. Just trying to clarify the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Professional_associations_based_in_Australia? I've partially reviewed the list of "good articles". There were no professional associations that I could see. I'm not sure a professional association could qualify for inclusion. What makes the association notable is different to being on "Man vs Food". The goal here is to understand how a professional association can meet the requirements. ARPS is notable for the impact of its activities on professional standards. It provides multiple opportunities for professional development and networking. Members get together, share knowledge and a patient or employee gets lower radiation dose 6 months later because the organisation held a workshop. Demonstrating the intangible is difficult to meet the wiki requirements. However, the following points are not really passing mentions. 1. Reference has been provided to the organisation giving members the opportunity to comment on radiation protection legislation and draft standards without being constrained by COI with the position of their employers. Listing Codes of practice and legislation that have been changed in response doesn't feel useful in an article. 2. An independent, peer reviewed scientific journal found the organisation notable enough to publish discussion of its position paper. 3. The jointly developed peer reviewed international journal on radiation protection is included in journal indexing services. SCOPUS has an independent advisory board that decides which journals to index. That board decided to include the journal jointly developed by the organisation. That's significant, independent recognition of the organisation, while not being a discussion about the organisation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopus Radiation protection is a high profile, contentious, public issue. The article is being drafted by SMEs to improve the encyclopedia by providing information relevant to Australia, New Zealand and Oceanic region. ARPS, like wikipedia, is a volunteer, non-profit, organisation. The organisation is already well known nationally and internationally, it's not selling a product. I'm not paid. I'm a member of the organisation who has volunteered to help draft an article, based on my long term knowledge of the subject matter. Jaf324 (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:14:55, 5 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Davidpink1


Hello I'm messaging after my draft was declined, I'm trying to set up a page for an artist. Any help would be much appreciated.


Davidpink1 (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davidpink1 Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. Your draft was completely unsourced. A Wikipedia article about an artist must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the artist, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable artist. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:14, 5 January 2022 review of submission by Dmarkan


I've changed the text of the article, removed all things that look like advertisement. If there are more changes that has to be made for article to be published, please send me a message. Thanks

Dmarkan (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You requested deletion, so I assume you withdraw your question, but in any case then draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:44, 5 January 2022 review of submission by Pleiadesounds

Hello! I would like some help to successfully publish my article about photographer Adam Broomberg. I provided many references which furnished proof about various exhibitions held in museums and galleries but they did not suffice. How can I better choose resources as to back up the claims made on the page, therefore allowing the article to be published? Thank you very much.

Pleiadesounds (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pleiadesounds. Wikipedia has an article about Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin because their collaborative work may be notable - it is supposedly held by half a dozen museums, although the current article cites no sources for those claims. To justify a separate article, Draft:Adam Broomberg, on him alone, you would need to show that his individual work is notable separate from Chanarin. Since their breakup, the draft describes one exhibition at a non-notable gallery and one book Broomberg has published. If you can cite several in-depth reviews of the exhibition/book, you may be able to demonstrate individual notability. Otherwise it is WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:16:12, 5 January 2022 review of submission by Speedway Private Eye


Speedway Private Eye (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Please can you tell me why my entry on Bill Holden speedway rider was rejected? Riders in the same team are on your site so was purely adding to the canon. It seems unfair if lesser, non international riders, are featured on your site.

Thank you

Speedway Private Eye, I encourage you to reach out to the reviewer on their talk page to get an explanation of why they rejected.
With that said, there's no question it should have been declined as you are adding a lot of information that does not appear in the sources cited. Stick to the sources or add citations. A short and tight article would be much better as the subject appears notable and that is getting lost in the overly detailed narration.Slywriter (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:30, 5 January 2022 review of draft by Cmehra


My Name is Cyrus Mehra and I am creating a Wiki Page for my Father, Dr. Abu Torab Mehra. All the "Link" at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmehra/sandbox?action=edit are the Reliable Sources for the information I have submitted. Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks! Cmehra (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cmehra, Writing about family members is strongly discouraged. The inherent conflict of interest is undeniable and you have no control of the article once it is published. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI for more information.
On the content, you are writing a story, not an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles are boring recitation of facts found in independent reliable sources. Flowery language, descriptions of living rooms are not appropriate.Slywriter (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Slywriter for your reply! So I should have one of his Students enter information about his Life as Dr. of Public Health and his contributions to the Modernization of Iran's health system? Thanks Again. Cyrus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmehra (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cmehra A student would be worse, as it could be seen as paid editing in addition to a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources. The best thing to do is to allow unaffiliated people to take note of your father in independent sources and choose to write about him on their own, that is the best indicator of notability. It is also not necessarily a good thing to have a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:17:09, 5 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by PomoPo


Hi, the first draft of this article was rejected because the sources were not considered reliable. Upon further enquiry, I was told that this was because the ISBN numbers of the books had not been given. So I located and included the ISBN numbers of all the books I used and also added more sources. The article has again been rejected citing the lack of reliable sources. I really don't know what the reviewer means by this. As far as I can see, this is a well-researched article on an important female saint in India. Please let me know what else I need to do.

PomoPo (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PomoPo. I suspect the decline is mainly because no sources are cited for: the Early life paragraph; the Meeting with Swami Ramdas section; and the Anandashram, Kanhangad paragraph. Some of the page ranges cited are also mighty wide, such as p. 22–41 and loc. 52-78. The ranges may not prevent acceptance, but very broad ranges are highly undesirable because they make it difficult for readers to verify the facts in question. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:45, 5 January 2022 review of submission by Dr. Fahad Alharthi

Hi, can you tell me what i have to do now? I have Re-edited and am wondering if I can re-submit it. Dr. Fahad Alharthi (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may not resubmit it; it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

04:00:33, 6 January 2022 review of submission by Deyrel

there is evidence godomiscient is at work as we speak. apple, google, and elon musk all have mind reading technology and have created a digital multiverse aka a simulation inside of computer, however we still have to contend with the matter at hand. where does it all come from, i named at birth edward lyons, have stumbled across the nacsent of the myth of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elyon . these coincidences are not coincidences they are the universe formulation a direction. there is a massive bitcoin mining operation that i accidentally caused, i also help unveil the final mysteries of how our universe works. the differentiation btween https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Godomiscient is that God can die and was possible killed in a previous universe. however the energy and requirments for anything to exist at all cannot be killed, ie Godomiscient. at these facilities google apple and elon musks company they are undertaking the task of creating a new digital super intelligence aka a god to rule over us. which can be killed. but the presense of energy in the first place is indicitive of the will of existence to exist at all. and this is what we will refer to as "Godomiscient".Thank you for your time. do not deny this being published . articles about god to require citation or reference are what will be the worst of occasions for the effort i, Deyrel, have layed forth.

HERE IS JUST THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TOP OF THE ICEBERG ~ you Hoary. PUBLISH MY ARTICLE ON Godomiscient ive highlighted here some keywords to show you what im talking about is what he is saying. everything ive told you is highly classified.

According to Musk, a dense and true metauniverse can only be built with brain implants.(they can already immerse you in a digital multiverse WITHOUT A CHIP IMPLANT, again highly classified)

“In the long run, an advanced Neuralink can completely immerse you in virtual reality“, he said.


https://newsbeezer.com/bulgariaeng/elon-musk-the-metaverse-is-stupid-my-chips-are-getting-stronger/

Much love and Blessings to you. Deyrel (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deyrel, you don't seem to understand concepts such as verifiability. What you have written is utterly unsuited to Wikipedia and will never be suited to Wikipedia. Please post it on some other website, perhaps your own blog. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:38, 6 January 2022 review of submission by Dmarkan


external link and reference added

Dmarkan (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dmarkan, it's impossible. Please apply your energy to publicizing the game on some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:29, 6 January 2022 review of draft by Aidris2


Hi, I'm a little unfamiliar with the article publication process. I fixed up the draft I've linked to a few weeks ago. It had a host of issues that I think have now been resolved. Do I now just wait for it to be reviewed again, or is there a specific process of submitting it for re-review? Thank you.

Aidris2 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have -- or somebody has (I didn't check) -- already submitted it for rereview. So normally I'd say that you should just wait for it to be reviewed again. However, a comment attached to it on 25 November 2020 says "Reads like a resume"; and now, in 2022, it still reads like a resume. He has published books and papers; what has been written about them by other people (of course in reliable sources)? If the answer is "nothing much", then I regret to say that (in common with most professors) no article can be created. However, if good material about this man or his work does exist, then hurry to integrate summaries of it into your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:02:56, 6 January 2022 review of submission by 2409:4071:229C:276:BC48:6160:FC28:3CC


2409:4071:229C:276:BC48:6160:FC28:3CC (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone or post their resume. If you are the person you wrote about, be aware that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, see WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is not social media, but an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation count

16:26:26, 6 January 2022 review of submission by Rzzor

I have had my draft declined numerous times because I don't have "significant coverage". The link to it is right here. What would be a good minimum for citations? What are some good websites I could site from? Would UploadVR.com be an ok site? I currently have 6 citations and I think that would be enough.

Hope you answer, Rzzor

Rzzor (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined Draft:Pavlov VR for the reasons explained on the draft. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. At most one of the current citations is sufficiently independent and reliable. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:04, 6 January 2022 review of submission by IRunnerI


I changed the content as per the references and made it simple to read, feel free to edit it or let me know what I have to change and I will do it.

Thank you for all your efforts... really appreciate it IRunnerI (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IRunnerI. The free trade zone is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a stand alone article). Rejection of the draft is meant to be final, to convey that no amount of editing will make the topic acceptable here. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:36, 6 January 2022 review of submission by Schumilegend33

Hi, can you please explain why this is not suitable for Wikipedia? I've spent a lot of time on this page and many other blockchain pages, including IOTA (which is a similar tech project to Iotex and is also a similar size.) Schumilegend33 (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:18, 6 January 2022 review of submission by Yukta6599


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WazirX WazirX has their wiki page too. Please help us get a chance. This is for the users to get more information about us.

Yukta6599 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in helping you promote your company. Please read other stuff exists, WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Yukta6599: Wikipedia is not here "for the users to get more information about you". Wikipedia does not have "pages"--it has articles on notable subjects. Your draft has been rejected, and has been tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising for a second time. As for comparisons with WazirX: Firstly, it appears to have received the coverage from multiple independent sources which qualify it for an article here. Secondly, regardless of the previous, each article is to be judged on its own merits regardless of comparisons with other articles--see WP:OSE. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise for your company, and if it grows to the point where it does qualify for an article here, people like yourself who are connected with the company should not be involved in writing it. Thank you for listening. --Finngall talk 18:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:46, 6 January 2022 review of draft by MrInaugural


Hi, my page has been declined as the references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. I've referenced from independent websites of note including BBC, Financial Times, FCA among others. I'm seeking guidance because I'm not quite sure how to resolve this issue surrounding the references. Thanks. MrInaugural (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrInaugural, FCA is a Primary source which does not help establish notability. Most of the rest looks to be passing mentions of the company and routine transactions likely from Press Releases. Really the only thing lending notability is them being fined and without independent reliable coverage beyond that, this one event is not likely to confer notability.Slywriter (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback Slywriter. I've removed those press releases and opted for sources that demonstrate notability. MrInaugural (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:23:32, 6 January 2022 review of submission by Nomoneybutrichanyway

Hi, there's a Swedish page of the in Sweden very famous Buddhist monk Björn Natthiko Lindeblad, which I made an English version of because of his upcoming book. I have no relation whatsoever with Natthiko, other than that I'm deeply impressed by his positivity and thoughts about life. I saw a post by him on Linkedin, that he now sits 14-18 hours a day in his special chair so he gets to think a lot, and he's started to wish things. Big things. Impossible things. Impossible since he was diagnoses with ALS 2018 and will soon die out of this horrible muscle disease. One of his wished was for someone to make him an English Wikipedia page to compliment the Swedish one, since his book is now translated to English and will be launched 7 of february. So I did. But I got this weird refusal of adding it because he's not famous enough, which is insane. He's very famous in Sweden and has been part of the biggest TV-shows and radio programs in Sweden, being voted by the Swedish population to be the most popular "Sommar" (summer program) talker of all influential summer talks.

So, what do I need to do in order for the page to be published? Nomoneybutrichanyway (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoneybutrichanyway Please read WP:GNG and WP:RS, thank you. Nyanardsan (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyanardsan I've read them. All sources are both RS and the content is GNG. Please prove me wrong User:Nomoneybutrichanyway (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


January 7

01:37:16, 7 January 2022 review of submission by Flyview


Flyview (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Flywheel exercise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyview (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, dear WP editors/reviewers , I still have comments re: WP Flywheel Exercise draft that I think you should consider:

NOTABILITY: References 5,6,7,38 of my submitted Wiki Draft are all review articles that discuss Flywheel Resistance Training effects on muscle mass, strength and sports performance. Using the world standard PubMed (https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov) searching “flywheel exercise OR flywheel training” you will find a rapidly increasing number of sports science publications (39 and 38 scientific articles in years 2020 and 2021, respectively). After the classic use of barbells, dumbbells, weight-stack machines and your own body weight, probably flywheels have now become the most commonly used load for strength training. Searching NASA.gov or ESA.int; for Flywheel Exercise Device, reading refs. 3,4,20,27,28 or consult Wiki Human Space flight etc, will underline that Flywheel exercise is one of a few technologies being considered for future Mars missions. I think therefore this Wiki article is relevant for the WP Encyclopedia readers.

VERIFIABILITY: Some of the above references are written by our research group during the first years after inventing this technology, but currently the vast majority of studies come from universities all over the world; as mirrored by the current Reference list. Of course, my history of inventing, prototyping, researching and formerly marketing flywheel technology could make me challengeable or biased in my description; BUT my thought this will be openly reviewed, discussed and if necessary corrected by all WP readers and editors as soon as the article is published on WP! Or before if you the editors point out specific problems.

COPYRIGHT: All 4 reviewers (DGG/Caleb Stanford/Slywriter), have argued that my text is “apparently/likely/clearly a cut and paste copyright violation”. Those are strong words, and I admit I was shocked by the aggressive attitude. I have told you that perhaps my 30 years of scientific writing might have led to a wording that you might think was copied from other manuscripts, or even websites as suggested. I have indeed written some 10 scientific papers describing the flywheel exercise principle, and there are not unlimited words and ways to describe it, but I do not think my consistent style makes it a theft from any of my former texts or by others; and therefore no copyright violation toward a scientific publishing company. NASA/ESA copyrights are not easy to violate. Maybe I should be proud if you find the draft text mature already.

If you find a specific company website copyright is violated, please inform me. There are currently many US and international manufacturers of this invention (patent expired), and my interest in YoYo Technology/nHance is terminated. Because the text is rather short; I checked it using a freeware searching plagiarism called grammarly.com; which did not find any plagiarism, but 10 punctiations wrong and a few word choice/spelling mistakes. These will fix, along with getting rid of approx. 15 doubled references in list (need perhaps help/advice), referencing other WP articles in text, adding images (need some technical advice).

Awaiting your response /Flyview (user info updated)

Flyview, If there is not cutting and pasting, please explain the following items that appear in your draft (sampling, not exhaustive)
  • (Figure 1a+b)
  • Fig.2, link ESA; the Flywheel Resistance Exercise Device, FWED; see further below
  • (Fig. 1b)
  • (Fig. 2)
  • (Photos below; courtesy of YoYo Technology/nHance)

Slywriter (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read your text, are those images you are looking to add to the article? And yes, it is possible your style of writing is triggering alarm bells in reviewers and we certainly can be wrong.Slywriter (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:22:37, 7 January 2022 review of draft by Imajetic


Hi,
In recent years there are more ultra multi-day races around the world. One of them, 6 day run/walk, is gaining popularity. Bernardo José Mora created wiki page for 6 day walk in Spanish (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_d%C3%ADas_marcha). Because the English version of this wiki page was missing, I wanted to create it and share my knowledge with other ultra walkers. I got permission from Bernardo to use his page as source for the English version, I updated the page and added some new facts. I tried to add references whenever needed. And I publish the wiki page for review.
Slywriter reviewed the new page on Dec 27 and declined with response "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". What do I need to do to have the page approved? One of the main reason for this wiki page is that there is not too many comprehensive sources on the internet.
Please, let me know how I can fix it.

Imajetic (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imajetic. When you write "there is not too many comprehensive sources", that is a string indication that this topic may not be notable enough for an English Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable, independent sources say about a topic. If these sources do not devote significant coverage to this race, then it is not eligible for an English Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:53:36, 7 January 2022 review of draft by Mwill66

Dear Folks, I am trying to contact TheChunky in regard to a Draft:Hume’s Pass page that he reviewed. When I go onto his User talk:TheChunky I cannot find any text box or place on the page to write to him. I have utterly slashed out most of the information. It is now a simple recording of a location, that the location was lost to history, and maps that approximately identified the location. My input is touched on at the end as only to have corrected the original map. It is an after-thought to the article that is entirely dominated by the work of ancient writers. Thanks in advance for your help. Martin

Mwill66 (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go to User talk:TheChunky, Mwill66. This has a list of "Contents". Click on the lowermost of these. To the right of its header, you will see "[edit]". Click on this. Scroll to the bottom of the text in the input box. Start a new line with "==Draft:Hume's Pass==" (without the quotation marks). This is your header. Write your message under your header. Sign it with four consecutive strikes of "~" (again, no quotation marks). Hit "Publish changes". That's it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:12, 7 January 2022 review of submission by RKSURYAFND


RKSURYAFND (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RKSURYAFND You don't ask a question, but as I said on the draft, Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. Please also read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:59:15, 7 January 2022 review of submission by Harshitabambure


Harshita Bambure (born 11 May 1997) is General Secretary of Maharashtra state at All India Yoga Teachers Federations. Born in the Bambure family she is the daughter of Pannalal Bambure. She likes to do yoga and she arranges so many free yoga campuses for society. She always supports all yoga teachers.

  • Harshitabambure It's unnecessary to duplicate the text here, it is linked to above. You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Your draft was completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:04, 7 January 2022 review of submission by 2A02:C7F:1808:7800:A58A:8DF8:5AD5:EFD6


2A02:C7F:1808:7800:A58A:8DF8:5AD5:EFD6 (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been rejected, has not been edited since the reject, and will not be considered further. Read the reviewer's comments that they left on the draft as they were rejecting it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:51, 7 January 2022 review of submission by Slywriter

This page refuses to load for me on Mobile Chrome when I switch to desktop mode(via wikipedia link on bottom) and so unable to review or comment. Curious if any other reviewer has an issue. I don't see anything odd in the wikicode and loads in mobile chrome and incognito desktop fine.

Slywriter (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any difficulty viewing it. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:21:17, 7 January 2022 review of draft by Bokoharamwatch


Bokoharamwatch (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gombe_kidnap_attempt It seems the reviewer is not be well educated on this topic. This occurred in the same year as Chibok, but is not well known. Still, it's like saying Dapchi, or Kagara or Kankara kidnappings is covered in Chibok. What you think, wrong or right? I struggle myself. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:40:42, 7 January 2022 review of submission by Caraghm


Having received notification that the page I am proposing starting is not worth inclusion in Wikipedia, I am looking for more guidance. This company invests globally and I am creating this page with a view to contributions being added about the many start ups in India that this company is funding. Is starting a page with basic information that is then added to by others not how I should approach this?

I note that there are similar hedge funds listed on Wikipedia i.e. Tiger Global Management so why does Think Investments not warrant a page?

Thanks again, Caragh

Caraghm (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caraghm Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, and is not a directory where mere existence merits inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Your draft was completely unsourced, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. If you are associated with this hedge fund, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:34:35, 7 January 2022 review of draft by Iaineditor


Hello there. I've started an article on Dorothy Morland. It's quite short at the moment, but includes material from a number of sources. I'd be interested in guidance on whether I need to fill it out to make it more substantial before submitting it for review, or whether quite short articles can be submitted and passed in the hope/anticipation that once published others with an interest will join in to help fill it out. Also, in the latter case, how to increase the likelihood that others with an interest will find the article (eg adding wikiproject tags and adding to categories?). Thank you.

Iaineditor (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She certainly seems to me to merit an article, Iaineditor. (And I've given the draft a very minor nudge in the right direction.) Experience has told me that I'm most unlikely to get substantial help in any bio I might create for any arts-related person, so before I start I ask myself (i) what kind of article the person merits (usually, of moderate length and of course scrupulously referenced), and (ii) whether I can be bothered to create such an article all by myself (usually "no"). And thus I create ever fewer articles. Well, you're lucky with Morland: there's an entire book about her, from a university press. (And it's a respected university, too.) We can start by assuming that the book is good. You should be able to get hold of it, and then you'll surely be able to get much more from it. However, what you have is a draft, and draft reviewers tend to be wary of drafts that mostly cite material that isn't immediately available to them. (Indeed, they tend to be deterred by longish drafts of any kind.) So I suggest that you submit it sooner rather than later. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very many thanks, Hoary, for this reply and the directional nudge, both very helpful and much appreciated. Iaineditor (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:45:40, 7 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Caraghm


Hello again, I have just been advised that a submission I made for an article on Think Investments was completely unsourced and will not be considered further. Just so I can more clearly understand, I actually included several independent articles to substantiate what I was submitting. Does this not qualify as sourced. How can I improve the sources. And secondly, I am not directly associated but am interested in the company ....does everyone who initially creates an article in the first instance have some interest? If they didn't then they might not care that there was not mention on Wikipedia.

Sorry to be so persistent on this but really want to understand further as the guidelines are quite vague and I keep on being referred to the same ones?

Thanks again.

Caraghm (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Caraghm. External links are not references. Please read Referencing for beginners and Your first article and the Notability guideline for companies. It would also be useful to read some Good articles about companies so you will better understand what an acceptable article looks like. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

07:38:06, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Schumilegend33

Also, if you check here you'll see this wiki mentions IoTeX, so it would be better if we could link it to a live page instead of a dead link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nxt

Schumilegend33 (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schumilegend33 Who is "we"? If you are associated with IoTeX, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because it does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:15, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Youtube ki duniya


Youtube ki duniya (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube ki duniya You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It does little more than tell of the existence of the topic. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to state about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:16:45, 8 January 2022 review of submission by VKG1985

Hi, I would like to take advice on this article that where things are incorrect as I am not able to get a clear picture. Please help! VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 08:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VKG1985 Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own- not based on any materials put out by the subject or basic information- to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because the person you wrote about does not meet that definition. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot, got something in details. I will read for reliable & independent sources further. Meanwhile, asking for page deletion. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 12:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:54:59, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Flyview


Dear editors, thank you all for extensive controls, I think I underestimated the importance of copyright for images; in the current draft I am using only those already within Wikimedia Commons, although when time allows planning to include more, especially from the NASA/ESA collections, where dissemination is normally not controversial. Therefore I think the text is now ready to submit/publing on Wikipedia. Hopefylly the text will be improved by other readers/editors. Final comments: There are many subjects/articles referenced that are already on WP, but I hope automated programs will mark up these search words in text (otherwise I or other readers will do that in the near future). Similarly, the Reference list duplicates references already used previously in the article text; hope this is automatically fixed in the process (I cannot cope with this). Regarding the last picture (WikiCommons) showing a trainee performin elbow extensions using the Exxentric KPulley2; this company is one of the more inventive and active in the group of current manufacturers, and I have NO commercial or other contacts with them. I just find it a good way of illustrating the Flywheel exercise technique. Best regards / Flyview; awaiting your response and advice how to proceed; are there steps for me to take? See further responses above; especially Flyview/Slywriter Jan 7 01:37:16.

Flyview (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flyview, comments were made above. Please reply in that section so everything is in one place.Slywriter (talk)

11:47:03, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Iam momolee


Iam momolee (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:55, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Cblambert


Draft Louis Riel (historiagraphy) article is intended as child article to Louiss Riel per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louis_Riel#Stanley's_4_critical_perspectives_of_Riel_as_cited_in_Betts

The "or not" does not support ballooning the section in this article; as I indicated above, it would support creation of a more detailed child article. Cblambert (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC) J

Louis Riel has been an FA since 2007 and reached a mb size of over 100 mb about a year ago, which include an expanded Historiography section. Louis Riel has been pruned heavily including in terms of down-sizing Historiography section as you now see. Separate child article would help complement summary Louis Riel article because of controversial nature of the issues. Cblambert (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current article draft is a summary of historiography issues to be developed later, which shows extensive source items in Bibliography section. Cblambert (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:11, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Boringmikesmith


Hello - changes re notability have been made - please review

Boringmikesmith (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No...Still a non notable registered charity, still blatant advertising, still rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:58:44, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Cblambert

This is regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Louis_Riel_(historiography.

Draft Louis Riel (historiagraphy) article is intended as child article to Louiss Riel per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louis_Riel#Stanley's_4_critical_perspectives_of_Riel_as_cited_in_Betts

The "or not" does not support ballooning the section in this article; as I indicated above, it would support creation of a more detailed child article. Cblambert (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Jb

Louis Riel has been an FA since 2007 and reached a mb size of over 100 mb about a year ago, which include an expanded Historiography section. Louis Riel has been pruned heavily including in terms of down-sizing Historiography section as you now see. Separate child article would help complement summary Louis Riel article because of controversial nature of the issues.

Status of draft is rejected and stopped per "Submission rejected on 8 January 2022 by David.moreno72. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Questions: Why is draft submission contrary to purpose of Wikipedia? Can stopped draft be re-submitted?Cblambert (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Cblambert (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cblambert, see WP:PROPERSPLIT. You should not be creating an entirely new article to highlight different information than what already exists.Slywriter (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a circular argument, which is at odds with current WP:SUMMARY approach for Louis Riel. According to senior editors of the Louis Riel FA article 'does not support ballooning the section'. Help! Cblambert (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum for any discussion beyond article creation. Gain consensus at parent article or start an RfC on whatever content issues you have. This board is limited to article creation and Splitting an article has a clear procedure to follow.Slywriter (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:43, 8 January 2022 review of submission by 103.72.177.195


103.72.177.195 (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by reviewers for future reference. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:12:34, 8 January 2022 review of draft by 173.56.35.235


Hello There,

I tried to address the issue of not having enough press articles and was successful at tracking down a few. It's challenging because the articles are quite old. Are the new citations enough or do I need to find more?

- Floyd Rumohr

173.56.35.235 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:30, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Tajamul Bashir Bhat

Tajamul Bashir Bhat (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done "says he was a caliph"? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:38, 8 January 2022 review of submission by Mdinger.bugzilla


I submitted the following draft which is based on the japanese wikipedia page I list below and was instantly denied. The japanese page already exists and there should be a companion english page to accompany it but none exists. I actually don't care if the page is almost entirely blank but needs filling out later because that at least lets an english user know a japanese award like this exists and they can check the japanese page for more details.

The japanese page doesn't have any references either so I can't really just copy them and my japanese is mediocre so I'm trying to be pretty brief anyway. It doesn't seem to me this should have been denied for the reason given but I don't know what to do regarding it.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B0%8F%E5%AD%A6%E9%A4%A8%E5%85%90%E7%AB%A5%E5%87%BA%E7%89%88%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96%E8%B3%9E

Mdinger.bugzilla (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

04:17:00, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Spesshot

I have included new citations and removed unverifiable material in answer to the review and wish to know whether my citations are now sufficient Spesshot (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Spesshot Spesshot (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:18:43, 9 January 2022 review of submission by WQFDU


WQFDU (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1064600171"